[QUOTE]Or is that just what they want you to think? [/QUOTE]

Good question. I suppose time will tell...that is, unless someone wants to confess before that :smile:

[QUOTE=philmoore;176618]I think that these Prime95/mprime interim residues are not the same as the residues returned by both Glucas and Mlucas. Either that, or both Kevin and ATH are having hardware problems. It would be interesting to compare their residues.[/QUOTE]

AFAIK Prime95 starts its iteration counter at 2 and goes to p, instead of the more-usual 0 to p-2 used by the other codes. That's why George added the mode seen above where it emits Res64 values for iterations X, X+1, and X+2 ... it's the iteration-(X+2) residue which should be compared the iteration-X residue put out by Glucas and Mlucas. But of course we can't tell you what those interims are, because that would indirectly confirm or deny the exponent and would thus be divulging state secrets, or something. ;)

[quote=Kevin;176625]What I think is interesting is that ATH's residues were Wd2, mine were Wd8, and when I enable the option on my laptop it says Wd1. I couldn't find any documentation on what that's supposed to mean.[/quote]
That just specifies the client version used to produce the respective results. Nonetheless, they all use the same general algorithm for calculating the answer. Thus, the residuals between (say) Wd2 and Wd8 should be compatible.

Note that if you use Doublecheck= in your worktodo.txt file instead of Test=, it will run the test with a different shift value so that it follows a different path of calculation, but comes up with the same final result. I'm not sure exactly how the whole shift value thing works, but from what I gather the value is chosen arbitrarily at the beginning of the test. AFAIR the one used for Test= tests is 4, and for Doublecheck= it's chosen randomly.

So essentially all residues, whether Wd1, Wd2, Wd4, Wd8, Res64 etc, from all different programs like Prime85 or mGlucas should have the same interim residues at any given iteration?

[quote=Primeinator;176631]So essentially all residues, whether Wd1, Wd2, Wd4, Wd8, Res64 etc, from all different programs like Prime85 or mGlucas should have the same interim residues at any given iteration?[/quote]
Yes. (Except with the caveat that Ernst mentioned above about the iteration counts differing by 2 in Prime95 vs. other programs, though they're still essentially compatible.)

Thank you. Such a succinct, beautiful answer. Too bad not all questions can be answered so easily.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;176616]Or perhaps the above is what we want you to think that we want you to think. :recurse:[/QUOTE]

Damn word problems :mad:.

[quote=Primeinator;176626]Good question. I suppose time will tell...that is, unless someone wants to confess before that :smile:[/quote]

If the number is fake it is a good one ;).

[QUOTE=Primeinator;176608]I think they said earlier that 42643801 was not the exponent but was put there later to trick everyone else that had not gotten the original one...[/QUOTE]

Yes, later, but how later?
Kevin saw my original post less than one hour after it was posted, and he identified the exponent by that time. So I assume that either the "wrong" exponent had been sitting on the database since the discovery (due to some server mechanism put in place to hide its identity) or someone changed it during the one hour interval between my post and Kevin´s. That´s possible, of course, but it seems rather fast. So I would say that Kevin got the right exponent, unless the server changed it immediately after the discovery. But George wrote in this thread that no mechanism to "disguise" the exponent in the server reports had been implemented. Hence, the logical conclusion should be that Kevin has a high chance of having got the right exponent. Now this residue mismatch is shaking this theory...
There is another point to note: ckdo emailed the exponent to T.Rex so he could test it. I assume T.Rex has the right exponent, so ckdo may enlighten us about where and when he got it. Unless... ckdo got the wrong exponent, sent it to T.Rex believing it was the right one, but then T.Rex received the right one from the Almighty (GW, probably), and started testing it leaving us in the belief that he was testing the one received from ckdo.
Several possibilities, indeed. My guess is that, regardless of what GW wrote, the server, upon receiving the zero residue, stored a fake number in the database. Then it went unnoticed for nearly two months. Why the emails weren´t sent to the usual recipients, I don´t know. Giltrap, T.Rex, and Ernst received the right exponent from GW to run the verifications
In a few days we will know, but it´s funny to make some conjectures while waiting.
And now it´s time to go to bed...:yawn:... good night everybody!:sleep:

[QUOTE=Primeinator;176608]I think they said earlier that 42643801 was not the exponent but was put there later to trick everyone else that had not gotten the original one...[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kevin;176610]Or is that just what they [I]want[/I] you to think?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;176616]Or perhaps the above is what we want you to think that we want you to think. :recurse:[/QUOTE]

If it's not really 42643801, it's very close, or Tony has changed the % completed on us to trick us and keep up the illusion! He said that at iteration 16240000 he was 38.08% complete, so:
[code]16240000/.3808=42647058.82352941176470588235
16240000/.3809=42635862.43108427408768705697[/code]So (assuming the figures given were correct) p must be between 42635862 and 42647058. That's a range of 11196. [url=http://primes.utm.edu/nthprime/]There are[/url] only 636 primes/candidates in that range. [url=http://v5www.mersenne.org/report_factors/?exp_lo=42635862&exp_hi=42647058&exp_date=&fac_len=&txt=1&dispdate=1&B1=Get+Factors]There are 478 factors in that range.[/url] [url=http://v5www.mersenne.org/report_LL/?exp_lo=42635862&exp_hi=42647058&exp_date=&user_only=0&user_id=&txt=1&dispdate=1&B1=Get+LL+data]6 LLs are already verified[/url], and 146 are unverified. Among those is 42643801. Assuming only that "M47" is among these 146, 42643801 has a 1 in 146 chance of being the prime.

I bet Tony didn't realize he'd be telling so much by posting the % complete and iteration number at once, huh! (or maybe he did and this is all part of their evil conspiracy! :alien: :ernst: )

By the way, I found 42643801 through PrimeNet v5 after reading this thread but before George posted in it acknowledging this (potential) prime, so it seems likely to me that he didn't have a chance to change it before I (along with many others...) found it.

[quote=Mini-Geek;176660]
By the way, I found 42643801 through PrimeNet v5 after reading this thread but before George posted in it acknowledging this (potential) prime, so it seems likely to me that he didn't have a chance to change it before I (along with many others...) found it.[/quote]

This was the number I was reading on the server an hour later of the discovery. Why should Tony (whoever that is) change or give wrong exponents and willingly let people throw away processor time for a bad hunt?