[QUOTE=Madpoo;407694]
Right now, each and every LL test can have one of five different states:
unverified
verified
bad
suspect
factored

Splitting that "factored" into subsets showing the *actual* status of the residue itself would just mean adding a couple additional things.

The trickier parts are updating the code that assigns status to work when a factor for already tested exponents comes in... in general these will almost always be one of two things:
1) factor found for an already verified set of tests ... all verified/bad results would retain that status and just add the "factored" part
2) factor found for unverified results ... it would say something like "factored (unverified)" or "factor (suspect)" if the original test was in fact suspect.[/QUOTE]

Easier would be to create a SQL view that splits the factored state into factored/verified and factored/unverified by doing a subquery looking for a matching residue. Yes, it is slower. But, you are only going to use this view in your bad machine SQL queries and two you don't have to find all the PHP code that looks at the state or maintains the state.

[QUOTE=Prime95;407705]Easier would be to create a SQL view that splits the factored state into factored/verified and factored/unverified by doing a subquery looking for a matching residue. Yes, it is slower. But, you are only going to use this view in your bad machine SQL queries and two you don't have to find all the PHP code that looks at the state or maintains the state.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, my current query to do that is slow (but then I'm doing it for the entire set of "result state=factored" in one swell foop)

I thought it might be of some general purpose use for the public, to know if a result was good/bad/unknown even though the # was factored. Eyeballing the details for each exponent would let someone do the same thing, so I guess it's more about programmatic uses...

It's interesting that the vast majority of cases where LL tests exist but it was factored involve actual verified (by double check) residues (as a total of the exponents).

What that really breaks down to is that 37K exponents times at least 2 test / exponent will give us ~75K new "good" result counts, and leave just 17K or so unknowns, plus a smattering of some ~ 4K bad.

Having the known bad ones actually marked as bad is a help... it did actually snag a few extra computers into my net, resulting in some additional exponents < 58M we could DC early. If I'm able to count the good ones as "good" in terms of pushing forward a potential winner in cases where mismatches already occur, it could expose a few more to light.

For now I'll take your advice and do a query of the "good" computers and adjust the "good" counts + 1 when they're part of a matching factored exponent. Whether it makes sense to have that kind of visibility on the site itself, I can only guess that some folks might find it useful? :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;407709]Yeah, my current query to do that is slow (but then I'm doing it for the entire set of "result state=factored" in one swell foop)[/QUOTE]

So. We have a solution space.

Easy pickings...
 

If anyone is looking for what I consider to be low exponent "first time" assignments, I hand selected a few that I'm almost sure were done wrong the first time:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus worktodo
41174801 22 0 8 8 DoubleCheck=41174801,72,1
46583549 4 0 1 5 DoubleCheck=46583549,72,1
44259209 4 0 3 1 DoubleCheck=44259209,72,1
47525339 4 0 3 1 DoubleCheck=47525339,72,1
48014221 3 0 1 3 DoubleCheck=48014221,72,1
51521941 3 0 5 2 DoubleCheck=51521941,73,1[/CODE]

That many bad, zero good, and only a few unknowns (plus some suspect results to boot) tells me that none of those were done right the first time. :smile:

Besides the ones above (which had 3+ bad, zero good, and only single digit uknowns) there's quite a few others I've been looking at. Things like "2 bad, zero good, 1 unknown and varying amounts of suspect results", but I'm less certain about those...

For myself, I'm doing a little fishing expedition... I picked about 5 machines that had 1 bad, zero good, and a LOT of uknowns (20+). I'm wondering what the odds are that their one and only double-checked result so far happened to be bad and the rest are fine... probably not that great.

So I'm running an extra check of one of their other results just to see if I can spot any trends... I may find a honey hole (or two) of some machine that spat out bad results and we just haven't discovered it yet.

Meanwhile, I'll generate another list of "strategic double checks" in a bit... maybe 5 more hours once my fishing expedition gets some results back.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;407741]If anyone is looking for what I consider to be low exponent "first time" assignments,[/QUOTE]

I took the first 4.

Here's another that I'm almost certain was wrong the first time (it had one bad already and another one just came up *probably* bad... this is the only one left from this particular cpu):
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M35008399"]M35008399[/URL]
DoubleCheck=35008399,71,1

[QUOTE=Madpoo;407777]Here's another that I'm almost certain was wrong the first time (it had one bad already and another one just came up *probably* bad... this is the only one left from this particular cpu)...[/QUOTE]

And a few more that are probably bad based on some new results I just found:
DoubleCheck=36357427,71,1
DoubleCheck=41397511,71,1
DoubleCheck=43072709,71,1

[QUOTE=Madpoo;407778]And a few more that are probably bad based on some new results I just found:
DoubleCheck=41397511,71,1
DoubleCheck=43072709,71,1[/QUOTE]

I'll TF these immediately.

Edit: done. No factors found. New worktodo lines:

DoubleCheck=41397511,72,1
DoubleCheck=43072709,72,1

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;407781]I'll TF these immediately.

Edit: done. No factors found. New worktodo lines:

DoubleCheck=41397511,72,1
DoubleCheck=43072709,72,1[/QUOTE]

Thanks...

It occurred to me, what if someone tests one of these and finds a hidden prime? Should I get a co-discoverer credit along with GIMPS? LOL

I'm kidding, but it would still be fun if we found something this way. I still think it's highly possible that there's a hidden prime lurking in there, waiting for a double check.

Here's another batch... some have been listed before, I think? And just nobody started an LL test on it or whatever.

Basic set of 3X as many bad as good, or zero good and 3+ bad.

The twist with this list is that it's only including work from cpu's with <= 5 unknowns, so in my mind that says there's a better chance these would be bad too... not a big pool of possibly good out there. :smile:

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus worktodo
36249911 3 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=36249911,71,1
36495967 3 1 1 0 DoubleCheck=36495967,71,1
36532159 3 1 3 0 DoubleCheck=36532159,71,1
36615611 3 1 2 0 DoubleCheck=36615611,71,1
36893677 3 1 1 0 DoubleCheck=36893677,71,1
37018711 3 1 2 0 DoubleCheck=37018711,71,1
37369373 11 3 5 9 DoubleCheck=37369373,71,1
37596089 3 1 3 0 DoubleCheck=37596089,71,1
41319587 3 1 2 0 DoubleCheck=41319587,72,1
41772461 3 1 1 0 DoubleCheck=41772461,72,1
42211633 3 1 3 6 DoubleCheck=42211633,72,1
43696487 9 2 1 10 DoubleCheck=43696487,72,1
45040949 3 1 4 3 DoubleCheck=45040949,72,1
45285043 6 1 5 3 DoubleCheck=45285043,72,1
45923573 6 1 5 3 DoubleCheck=45923573,72,1
45940067 5 1 4 0 DoubleCheck=45940067,72,1
46086427 6 1 5 3 DoubleCheck=46086427,72,1
46144303 3 1 4 3 DoubleCheck=46144303,72,1
46561309 4 1 3 0 DoubleCheck=46561309,72,1
48014221 3 0 1 3 DoubleCheck=48014221,72,1
48050389 4 1 3 0 DoubleCheck=48050389,72,1
49280723 3 1 4 3 DoubleCheck=49280723,72,1
49385489 4 1 3 0 DoubleCheck=49385489,72,1
51521941 3 0 5 2 DoubleCheck=51521941,73,1[/CODE]

And here's a second list... like the one just before, but from cpu's that had between 6 and 20 unknowns.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus worktodo
35821501 3 1 13 3 DoubleCheck=35821501,71,1
36378401 3 1 13 3 DoubleCheck=36378401,71,1
36591349 3 1 9 0 DoubleCheck=36591349,71,1
36635279 3 1 13 3 DoubleCheck=36635279,71,1
41436847 3 1 6 2 DoubleCheck=41436847,72,1
41482157 3 1 6 2 DoubleCheck=41482157,72,1
42316259 6 2 12 3 DoubleCheck=42316259,72,1
42333931 3 1 7 2 DoubleCheck=42333931,72,1
42832513 6 2 12 3 DoubleCheck=42832513,72,1
42838273 3 1 9 0 DoubleCheck=42838273,72,1
43445537 3 1 6 2 DoubleCheck=43445537,72,1
43695037 3 1 10 9 DoubleCheck=43695037,72,1
43935919 6 2 12 3 DoubleCheck=43935919,72,1
45139733 6 2 12 3 DoubleCheck=45139733,72,1
45676573 3 1 7 2 DoubleCheck=45676573,72,1
46709101 6 2 12 3 DoubleCheck=46709101,72,1
46954631 6 2 12 3 DoubleCheck=46954631,72,1
47106793 43 9 13 17 DoubleCheck=47106793,72,1
47713291 43 9 13 17 DoubleCheck=47713291,72,1
47743589 3 1 10 9 DoubleCheck=47743589,72,1
47780699 3 1 10 9 DoubleCheck=47780699,72,1
47786399 3 1 10 9 DoubleCheck=47786399,72,1
47787829 3 1 10 9 DoubleCheck=47787829,72,1
47843339 6 2 12 3 DoubleCheck=47843339,72,1
48659239 6 2 12 3 DoubleCheck=48659239,72,1
49235143 3 1 7 2 DoubleCheck=49235143,72,1
49342991 43 9 13 17 DoubleCheck=49342991,72,1
49360579 43 9 13 17 DoubleCheck=49360579,72,1
49501717 6 2 12 3 DoubleCheck=49501717,72,1
50060831 43 9 13 17 DoubleCheck=50060831,73,1
50364731 3 1 10 9 DoubleCheck=50364731,73,1
50364827 3 1 10 9 DoubleCheck=50364827,73,1
50364943 3 1 10 9 DoubleCheck=50364943,71,1
50368427 6 2 12 3 DoubleCheck=50368427,73,1
50532067 6 2 12 3 DoubleCheck=50532067,73,1
50725429 3 1 8 0 DoubleCheck=50725429,73,1
50818837 43 9 13 17 DoubleCheck=50818837,73,1
51006671 3 1 7 2 DoubleCheck=51006671,73,1
53740301 3 1 8 0 DoubleCheck=53740301,73,1
54068747 3 1 8 0 DoubleCheck=54068747,73,1
54072163 3 1 8 0 DoubleCheck=54072163,73,1
54072253 3 1 8 0 DoubleCheck=54072253,73,1
54072643 3 1 8 0 DoubleCheck=54072643,73,1
55257889 3 1 12 4 DoubleCheck=55257889,73,1
57414373 3 1 12 4 DoubleCheck=57414373,73,1
57584141 3 1 12 4 DoubleCheck=57584141,73,1[/CODE]