[QUOTE=axn;515246]
Most likely these are being run using GMP-ECM.[/QUOTE]

That sounds (very) reasonable. It does not explain why he is not getting any credit, even for the factors found, though.

[QUOTE=lycorn;515439]It does not explain why he is not getting any credit, even for the factors found, though.[/QUOTE]Maybe he doesn't care about credit on mersenne.org. I think the factors say enough.

P-1 found a factor in stage #1, B1=695000.
UID: Jwb52z/Clay, M91311949 has a factor: 1679230184991897832914127 (P-1, B1=695000)

80.474 bits

[QUOTE=Thecmaster;514227]90901697 F-PM1 2019-04-20 17:20 0.0 Factor: 462195198223850274269081 / (P-1, B1=695000)

Where and how can you check bitlevel on a factor?[/QUOTE]

I don't have the link at this second, but if you google "GIMPS Factor Bit Depth Calculator" there's a page that comes up where you click to activvate a right hand menu through 3 dark black lines at the top right of the screen and you past the factor into that bottom space and click off of it, but don't make the box go away and it will show you the bit number.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;515462]I don't have the link at this second, but if you google "GIMPS Factor Bit Depth Calculator" there's a page that comes up where you click to activvate a right hand menu through 3 dark black lines at the top right of the screen and you past the factor into that bottom space and click off of it, but don't make the box go away and it will show you the bit number.[/QUOTE]That's literally any page on [url]www.mersenne.ca[/url], the bitsize calculator is at the bottom of the hamburger menu ≡.

[QUOTE=retina;515452]Maybe he doesn't care about credit on mersenne.org. I think the factors say enough.[/QUOTE]

It is perfectly possible, yes. But I would imagine that, independently of the user willingness for credit, the server would compute and display the corresponding amount whenever a completed work unit is received. This situation seems to indicate that, at least, the work done is not being submitted to the server in the same manner most users submit it.
And it is indeed a shame that the NF-ECM work (i.e. number of curves, if any) is not being recorded, for future reference.

[QUOTE=lycorn;515439]That sounds (very) reasonable. It does not explain why he is not getting any credit, even for the factors found, though.[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing this is because the factors are so large that they cause an overflow when the server tries to calculate how much credit to give. However, this wouldn't explain why there is a small amount of credit as opposed to no credit at all.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;515462]I don't have the link at this second, but if you google "GIMPS Factor Bit Depth Calculator" there's a page that comes up where you click to activvate a right hand menu through 3 dark black lines at the top right of the screen and you past the factor into that bottom space and click off of it, but don't make the box go away and it will show you the bit number.[/QUOTE]Python can also be coaxed to do this for you locally without needing an Internet connection or a browser.[code]python -c "x= 10819968927585403636958816179849566933560096066787125831 ;import math;print(math.log(x,2))"[/code]Output:[code]182.819741575[/code]

[QUOTE=retina;515614]Python can also be coaxed to do this for you locally without needing an Internet connection or a browser.[code]python -c "x= 10819968927585403636958816179849566933560096066787125831 ;import math;print(math.log(x,2))"[/code]Output:[code]182.819741575[/code][/QUOTE]

or more puristic with bc (scale is for the number of decimal digits after the decimal point)

[code]
$ x=10819968927585403636958816179849566933560096066787125831; echo "scale=4; l($x)/l(2)" | bc -l
182.8320
[/code]

[QUOTE=vebis;515615]or more puristic with bc (scale is for the number of decimal digits after the decimal point)

[code]
$ x=10819968927585403636958816179849566933560096066787125831; echo "scale=4; l($x)/l(2)" | bc -l
182.8320
[/code][/QUOTE]That is less accurate.[code]x=6129982163463555433433388108601236734474956488734408704; echo "scale=4; l($x)/l(2)" | bc -l

182.0122[/code]The answer should be exactly 182.0000

[QUOTE=retina;515616]That is less accurate.[code]x=6129982163463555433433388108601236734474956488734408704; echo "scale=4; l($x)/l(2)" | bc -l

182.0122[/code]The answer should be exactly 182.0000[/QUOTE]

That's true, should have mentioned the scale is not only applied to the result.