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 |
[/CODE]

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?

hmm very interesting. Unless it is a fake positive.

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.

Wow!!

Is this something to get excited about, then??

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

[QUOTE=Brian-E;378478]Wow!!

Is this something to get excited about, then??[/QUOTE]
Not just yet. There have been false positives in the past, and having it reported by anonymous doesn't make me more hopeful.

[QUOTE=firejuggler;378481]Exclude verified result, then put the minimum as the highest DC know prime, set max at 100 M... that should reduce the output.[/QUOTE]IIRC, the server hides positive results until manually investigated.

[QUOTE=firejuggler;378481]Exclude verified result, then put the minimum as the highest DC know prime, set max at 100 M... that should reduce the output.[/QUOTE]

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 [I]anything[/I] 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.

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.

_______
[SIZE="1"]* or sentimental, as the case may be, - for those who lived through those egg-hunts[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=kladner;378486]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 [I]anything[/I] 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.[/QUOTE]
Potencial primes are never shown, I believe they are just marked as assigned.

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

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.