[QUOTE=Uncwilly;176462]Wd1 is the code for the current version (25.9) of the program, IIRC.[/QUOTE]

That makes sense.
I seem to recall there is a Wd1 for TF, PM-1, ECM, ... results.

Or could it be a derivative of the p?

Lycorn, you remembered correctly:

[QUOTE=Prime95;175987] During our abbreviated beta test of v5, Scott and I didn't get a chance to discuss hiding the exponent from the many server reports.[/QUOTE]

[quote=mdettweiler;176676]
As I said before, though, don't quote me on this. I could be completely wrong, in which case anyone more knowledgeable about this stuff can feel free to correct me. :smile:[/quote]
I hesitate to correct you, but I think both first time and doublecheck
LL tests have a random shift (sh) between 0 and exponent -1 applied.
This results in the interim "residue" (is that really the correct term for it?)
after n iterations being rotated by sh*n mod exponent.

The "4" you mentioned is S(0) (or S(2) see Ernst's post) in the sequence
S(n+1) = S(n)^2 - 2.
Apparently there are lots of possible values you can use for S(0)
(the next one being 10) but everyone is using 4.

David

How is S(0) = 4 chosen and which is 4 chosen over 10 (as you mentioned)?

[quote=Primeinator;176693]

Wow, is there a reason it always matches the exponent for number of bits?

[/quote]

Yes. It is always taken modulo 2^exponent - 1

[QUOTE]Yes. It is always taken modulo 2^exponent - 1 [/QUOTE]

Oh, wow. I was not thinking. That should have been obvious to me from the very definition of the LL test.

[quote=Mini-Geek;176660]
I bet Tony didn't realize he'd be telling so much by posting the % complete and iteration number at once[/quote]

I bet he did.

[quote=joblack;176663]Tony (whoever that is)[/quote]

Tony Reix (aka T.Rex)
You could try reading this:
[URL]http://mersenne.org/[/URL]

[quote=ewmayer;176595]Yes, but not around *here* - I posted my "latest update" (reporting that rerun of the last few K iterations from the user's last savefile indicates primality) over the weekend to the [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=176581#post176581"]Holy St. Lucas! thread[/URL] in the Lounge, completely missed that this thread even existed.

[/quote]

The reason the thread is "here" and inconpicuously entitled "Success?"
becomes clear when you read Lycorn's OP, and George's red-faced
response before he (inevitably) went on vacation.
Anyway, glad you've found it and are making up for lost time.
Don't know if you clicked on Kevin(?)'s You Tube link to
"Big Iron" by Marty Robbins:
I thought I had a monopoly on posting such things, which I
am trying to curb:smile:

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;176714]The reason the thread is "here" and inconpicuously entitled "Success?"
becomes clear when you read Lycorn's OP, and George's red-faced
response before he (inevitably) went on vacation.
Anyway, glad you've found it and are making up for lost time.
Don't know if you clicked on Kevin(?)'s You Tube link to
"Big Iron" by Marty Robbins:
I thought I had a monopoly on posting such things, which I
am trying to curb:smile:

David[/QUOTE]

He even capitalized "Big Iron", how could I pass up the chance?

[QUOTE=philmoore;176689]

Lycorn, you wrote that George said in this thread that no mechanism to disguise the exponent in the server reports had been implemented. I didn't see that, I only saw that he said that the server did not send out the expected emails. [/QUOTE]

On post #33 of this thread, GW wrote:

[I]"During our abbreviated beta test of v5, Scott and I didn't get a chance to discuss hiding the exponent from the many server reports."[/I] I assume this means that no hiding mechanism has been put in place (it may have been added later).
P.S.: I have just read your post (#244). My answer is therefore pointless, discard it!!