[QUOTE=apsen;273045]Well, they didn't. This is what I have submitted via manual submission:

[CODE]
M57841799 has a factor: 2692557022299923757047
found 1 factor(s) for M57841799 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.17-Win apsen barrett79_mul32]
[/CODE]
[/QUOTE]

Where are the "no factor to" lines?

[QUOTE=Prime95;273057]Where are the "no factor to" lines?[/QUOTE]

I have reported them separately before reporting this bitlevel. Then requested this bitlevel via prime95 and once primenet has assigned an id to it reported the level with factors.

[QUOTE=apsen;273072]I have reported them separately before reporting this bitlevel.[/QUOTE]

That is precisely why you're having trouble. If you submit the "no factor" and "has a factor" together you shouldn't have a problem

[QUOTE=Prime95;273074]That is precisely why you're having trouble. If you submit the "no factor" and "has a factor" together you shouldn't have a problem[/QUOTE]

Does that statement refer only to results reported via mfaktc? Whenever
I report factoring results in the 4M range, found factors always get
credited as F-ECM. A recent example is included below:

[QUOTE]Manual testing 4866401 F-ECM 2011-09-28 19:26 25.7 5425377273887660009 0.2093
Manual testing 4861057 F-ECM 2011-09-28 19:26 25.7 4888029476860013833 0.2093
Manual testing 4858079 F-ECM 2011-09-28 19:26 25.7 7431465676047557503 0.2092
Manual testing 4857739 F-ECM 2011-09-28 19:26 25.7 4637942603388354863 0.2092
Manual testing 4867433 NF 2011-09-28 19:26 25.7 no factor from 2^1 to 2^63 0.3278
Manual testing 4867337 NF 2011-09-28 19:26 25.7 no factor from 2^1 to 2^63 0.3278
Manual testing 4867307 NF 2011-09-28 19:26 25.7 no factor from 2^1 to 2^63 0.3278
Manual testing 4867301 NF 2011-09-28 19:26 25.7 no factor from 2^1 to 2^63 0.3278
Manual testing 4867297 NF 2011-09-28 19:26 25.7 no factor from 2^1 to 2^63 0.3278[/QUOTE]

And the factors and the upper bounds are reported in the same upload.

Gareth

[QUOTE=Prime95;273074]That is precisely why you're having trouble. If you submit the "no factor" and "has a factor" together you shouldn't have a problem[/QUOTE]George: would you mind weighing in with your opinion on the various proposals to rewrite the "has a factor" lines to include additional info (such as my "[TF;69;70*;versionstring]" proposal above). It's not so important to be included in Prime95 itself (although it would be wonderful for consistency), but it's the manual results form that needs to be modified to recognize and use the additional info. The authors of mfaktc et al seem amenable to the idea, we just need your approval of a standard format, which would eliminate any ambiguity surrounding the source of the factor.

[QUOTE=Graff;273077]Does that statement refer only to results reported via mfaktc? [/QUOTE]

Yes, and mfakto too.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;273083]George: would you mind weighing in with your opinion on the various proposals to rewrite the "has a factor" lines to include additional info (such as my "[TF;69;70*;versionstring]" proposal above).[/QUOTE]

I'm likely to ignore anything other than mfaktc and mfakto in the additional info. Parsing complicated strings in PHP isn't much fun and development time is lacking.

When you find a factor you get CPU credit from the last "no factor to" bit level up to the found factor.

[QUOTE=Prime95;273085]I'm likely to ignore anything other than mfaktc and mfakto in the additional info. Parsing complicated strings in PHP isn't much fun and development time is lacking.[/QUOTE]I happily volunteer my time and PHP expertise to the effort. My own site already parses any and all data from results.txt, so I'm quite familiar with the issues involved.

Incidentally, I also volunteer my services to help [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=16088]rework the reports[/url].

Please let me know what I can do to help in any way; PHP programming is what I've been doing for the last 11 years. :smile:

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;273098]I happily volunteer my time and PHP expertise to the effort. My own site already parses any and all data from results.txt, so I'm quite familiar with the issues involved.[/QUOTE]
Just as an aside, the calculations in your worktodo balancer for seem off. See attached:

James Heinrich, Oliver, All:
When i was looking at this, I liked the idea of having mfkatc simply report precisely, thus:
M42717929 has at least one factor from 2^72 to 2^73
or
M42717929 has exactly one factor from 2^72 to 2^73
depending on whether the bit level was completed or not.
(note: these numbers are made up...If they are true, then lightning has struck and M48 was found last week, too!)

Actually, log2(factor)~=73.23 . Lightning struck the tree standing next to you, which was thankfully taller than you. (But we still haven't found M48.)

[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=42717929[/url]
[url]http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=log%20base%202%20of%2011046426157305102669263&t=crmtb01[/url]

(Based on bit length and factors of q-1, I'd say it was found in P-1 stage 2.)