[QUOTE=Mark Rose;485605]I know George was able to figure out which CPUs did previously poor TF, and we both redid the TF work from those CPUs and DC'ed work from those CPUs. As far as I know, the CPU that reported work isn't available through the XML, so it has to be [U]someone on the inside[/U] who figures out what work should be redone.[/QUOTE]

Everyone here seems to write only about CPU's. What about GPU's? Is their software so non-trustworthy that no one uses it?

[QUOTE=storm5510;485630]Everyone here seems to write only about CPU's. What about GPU's? Is their software so non-trustworthy that no one uses it?[/QUOTE]

It's more a case that all GPU work gets lumped into "manual assignments" making it not possible to differentiate a user's individual GPUs.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;485631]It's more a case that all GPU work gets lumped into "manual assignments" making it not possible to differentiate a user's individual GPUs.[/QUOTE]

About a minute after sending my last, I realized that CPU is a relative term applying to a complete system. Therefore, CPU and GPU would essentially be the same. Correct?

[QUOTE=storm5510;485638]About a minute after sending my last, I realized that CPU is a relative term applying to a complete system. Therefore, CPU and GPU would essentially be the same. Correct?[/QUOTE]

No. When using Prime95/mprime, the system recognizes individual instances of Prime95/mprime. All other work is lumped together under "manual".

[M]M81857519[/M] and [M]M81857537[/M] should be marked suspect, or whatever the procedure was with those bogus Xolotl results. Shift counts are zero, I wonder what produced those bogus FFFFFFFF800000 residues.

Other results by this user/computer show normal-looking residues (for instance [M]M80331397[/M]), but all are unverified.

I just found another factor missed by a previous P-1 run: [url]https://mersenne.org/m47626037[/url]

[QUOTE=ixfd64;485915]I just found another factor missed by a previous P-1 run: [url]https://mersenne.org/m47626037[/url][/QUOTE]

Back in 2009 maybe Stage2 was not run at all or only with low B2 like 10*B1 or 20*B1 instead of 100*B1. This factor would need B2>=48M.

[QUOTE=ixfd64;485915]I just found another factor missed by a previous P-1 run: [url]https://mersenne.org/m47626037[/url][/QUOTE][QUOTE=ATH;485922]Back in 2009 maybe Stage2 was not run at all or only with low B2 like 10*B1 or 20*B1 instead of 100*B1. This factor would need B2>=48M.[/QUOTE]537933081092334292774343680 = 2^10 * 5 * 17 * 29 * 157 * 167 * 1181 * 144511 * 47626037 so B1 at 145000 would have been enough.
In 2009 P-1 was done with B1=745000 and found nothing : definitely a wrong result.

Jacob

[QUOTE=S485122;485927]537933081092334292774343680 = 2^10 * 5 * 17 * 29 * 157 * 167 * 1181 * 144511 * [B]47626037[/B] so B1 at 145000 would have been enough.[/QUOTE]
So it needs ~ B1=145 000 and B2=48 000 000

[QUOTE=S485122;485927]537933081092334292774343680 = 2^10 * 5 * 17 * 29 * 157 * 167 * 1181 * 144511 * 47626037 so B1 at 145000 would have been enough.
In 2009 P-1 was done with B1=745000 and found nothing : definitely a wrong result.
Jacob[/QUOTE]

We do not know that since we cannot see the B2 value. If B2 was the standard 100*B1 (B2=74.5M) then yes it missed the factor, but perhaps due to low memory assigned to Prime95/mprime B2 was lower than that.

[QUOTE=VictordeHolland;485930]So it needs ~ B1=145 000 and B2=48 000 000[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ATH;485931]We do not know that since we cannot see the B2 value. If B2 was the standard 100*B1 (B2=74.5M) then yes it missed the factor, but perhaps due to low memory assigned to Prime95/mprime B2 was lower than that.[/QUOTE]

No, the 47626037 is the exponent itself. It's the "p" in 2kp + 1

See [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/47626037"]the mersenne.ca page[/URL], the factor should have been found in stage 1 with B1=144511 or higher. The B2 would only be relevant for stage 2.