positive LL test?

sixblueboxes · 2014-07-18, 15:30

Looking at the top three LL testers:

Code:

                                  Total                     |      Rank Change
 Rank  Member Name              GHz-Days Attempts Successes |90day 30day 7 day 1 day
------ -------------------- ------------ -------- --------- |----- ----- ----- -----
     1 curtisc               3372603.127    24250         0 |                        
     2 Amazon EC2            1733672.868    12236         0 |                        
     3 ANONYMOUS              852786.700     5929         1 |

it would appear that someone has had a successful LL test recently. I just noticed it, but I'm not sure when it happened. Can we assume it is in double checking now?

firejuggler · 2014-07-18, 15:44

hmm very interesting. Unless it is a fake positive.

kladner · 2014-07-18, 15:53

Someone with more knowledge and skill than I, (a very low bar!) with the database will have to dig into this. I attempted various approaches to query, but get nothing. I am very interested in how an informed person will check this report of success.

Brian-E · 2014-07-18, 16:08

Wow!!

Is this something to get excited about, then??

firejuggler · 2014-07-18, 16:12

Exclude verified result, then put the minimum as the highest DC know prime, set max at 100 M... that should reduce the output.

sdbardwick · 2014-07-18, 16:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Wow!!

Is this something to get excited about, then??

Not just yet. There have been false positives in the past, and having it reported by anonymous doesn't make me more hopeful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by firejuggler

Exclude verified result, then put the minimum as the highest DC know prime, set max at 100 M... that should reduce the output.

IIRC, the server hides positive results until manually investigated.

kladner · 2014-07-18, 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by firejuggler

Exclude verified result, then put the minimum as the highest DC know prime, set max at 100 M... that should reduce the output.

The screen shot I posted was just the last iteration of my efforts. I started with much narrower constraints and found nothing. The extreme range, and lack of exclusions was an attempt to make anything show up in the results.

Again, I profess massive ignorance, so I may well be entirely wrong. This was just my feeble attempt to get the supposed test result to appear.

Batalov · 2014-07-18, 17:49

Don't worry. These searches are not supposed to return the new prime, by design. It is easy (and educational, and to a certain degree exciting*) to find and re-read the few previous egg-hunting threads.

_______
* or sentimental, as the case may be, - for those who lived through those egg-hunts

kracker · 2014-07-18, 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

The screen shot I posted was just the last iteration of my efforts. I started with much narrower constraints and found nothing. The extreme range, and lack of exclusions was an attempt to make anything show up in the results.

Again, I profess massive ignorance, so I may well be entirely wrong. This was just my feeble attempt to get the supposed test result to appear.

Potencial primes are never shown, I believe they are just marked as assigned.

kladner · 2014-07-18, 20:08

Thanks, Serge and kracker. I had forgotten that + results were shielded from public view.

Prime95 · 2014-07-18, 21:14

Result is from a 2.67 GHz core i7 computer. This is the first result from this computer. The computer did spend 5 months on the assignment. No errors reported during the run.

Obviously, I cannot request a save file or other info from an anonymous user. I can't even hazard a guess on how likely this result will hold up.

I have a Haswell and GTX 570 doing a double-check. Well know more early next week.

2014-07-18, 15:30	#1
sixblueboxes Feb 2013 Charlotte, North Carolina 31 Posts	positive LL test? Looking at the top three LL testers: Code: Total \| Rank Change Rank Member Name GHz-Days Attempts Successes \|90day 30day 7 day 1 day ------ -------------------- ------------ -------- --------- \|----- ----- ----- ----- 1 curtisc 3372603.127 24250 0 \| 2 Amazon EC2 1733672.868 12236 0 \| 3 ANONYMOUS 852786.700 5929 1 \| it would appear that someone has had a successful LL test recently. I just noticed it, but I'm not sure when it happened. Can we assume it is in double checking now?

2014-07-18, 15:53	#3
kladner "Kieren" Jul 2011 In My Own Galaxy! 2×3×1,693 Posts	Someone with more knowledge and skill than I, (a very low bar!) with the database will have to dig into this. I attempted various approaches to query, but get nothing. I am very interested in how an informed person will check this report of success. Attached Thumbnails

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Modifying the Lucas Lehmer Primality Test into a fast test of nothing	Trilo	Miscellaneous Math	25	2018-03-11 23:20
Fun with a false positive	Madpoo	Data	12	2016-06-29 19:00
another false positive?	ixfd64	Data	3	2016-03-14 22:11
Question about false positive process	Madpoo	Data	3	2014-11-07 23:19
False positive?	Pi Rho	Lounge	4	2003-04-23 14:11

2014-07-18, 15:44	#2
firejuggler "Vincent" Apr 2010 Over the rainbow 2²×7×103 Posts	hmm very interesting. Unless it is a fake positive.

2014-07-18, 16:08	#4
Brian-E "Brian" Jul 2007 The Netherlands 3278₁₀ Posts	Wow!! Is this something to get excited about, then??

2014-07-18, 16:12	#5
firejuggler "Vincent" Apr 2010 Over the rainbow 2²·7·103 Posts	Exclude verified result, then put the minimum as the highest DC know prime, set max at 100 M... that should reduce the output.

2014-07-18, 17:49	#8
Batalov "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 2741₁₆ Posts	Don't worry. These searches are not supposed to return the new prime, by design. It is easy (and educational, and to a certain degree exciting) to find and re-read the few previous egg-hunting threads. _______ or sentimental, as the case may be, - for those who lived through those egg-hunts

2014-07-18, 20:08	#10
kladner "Kieren" Jul 2011 In My Own Galaxy! 23656₈ Posts	Thanks, Serge and kracker. I had forgotten that + results were shielded from public view.

2014-07-18, 21:14	#11
Prime95 P90 years forever! Aug 2002 Yeehaw, FL 3·11·13·19 Posts	Result is from a 2.67 GHz core i7 computer. This is the first result from this computer. The computer did spend 5 months on the assignment. No errors reported during the run. Obviously, I cannot request a save file or other info from an anonymous user. I can't even hazard a guess on how likely this result will hold up. I have a Haswell and GTX 570 doing a double-check. Well know more early next week.