[QUOTE=Madpoo;415770]...First, I know someone is going to notice that I'll be checking in triple-checks for a bunch of small exponents (between 1M and 10M). The reason for that is I ran into an interesting thing... there were something like 5200 old exponents where all of the verifying runs had a shift-count of zero. Now, they were done by different application versions, but I figured I might as well get a verifying run on the books that uses a different shift count as well....[/QUOTE]

I just had a weird thing happen with one of these.
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M1350029"]M1350029[/URL]

Technically it was verified... 3 previous results, but only 2 had the long 64-bit residue. All 3 of them were from old code with zero shift count. The 2 with the long partial residue were from the same app version (short residue was from a Cray run by Slowinski).

Anyway, when I checked in my result, Primenet said it completed the double-check for that exponent, different than the "LL result matches previously verified..." message it normally gives.

I thought that was mildly interesting. Residues matched anyway but it seems like technically it wasn't already verified previously, going by the "different app versions when the shift count was zero" rule. :smile:

35355259 7 1 11 4 10 5 DoubleCheck=35355259,71,1

Mismatched.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;415816]That probably would have been a good idea, but unfortunately I wasn't keeping track of the exponents listed here. I guess I could go back through and look them all up, see if they matched on the 2nd try or not. Might be a fun project for a rainy day.[/QUOTE]

It's raining today, so...

Here are some rough stats... I basically just grepped all of the work I'd mentioned in the thread thus far and pulled the data. I didn't look at the context of each mention of "doublecheck=blahblah" but it'll be close enough I think.

[CODE]1152 total exponents mentioned
1032 were double/triple checked
760 DC's didn't match the first check
524 verified (either by double or triple check)
508 tested at least twice with still no match
272 tested twice with a match
252 tested 3+ times with a match (and some result(s) marked bad)
115 still only tested once
12 factored
9 tested 3 times without a match (also included in the 508 above)[/CODE]

Something like that. The #'s might not add up right... probably some overlap (factored stuff may also contain some results that are bad) or I wasn't paying attention very well to a few things, but that'll give you an idea.

Summary: ~ 1032 exponents were tested, and only 272 of those were a match on that double-check. That's only a 26.4% match rate (or seen the other way, a 73.6% failure rate), so I'd say we're doing a pretty good job picking out the bad stuff so far.

[QUOTE=sdbardwick;415385]Finished the above.
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=36574903&full=1"]M36574903[/URL] needs a TC; [/QUOTE]

Triple check matched.

[QUOTE=LaurV;415987]And we understand that you are stressed and pissed off when you are busy in RL. :razz:
And you want to punch everybody in the nose. We feel the same in our RL, daily.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. Sorry (sincerely).

I need to learn how to calm down...

MF is my comfort zone; smart people arguing. :smile:

[URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/35366041"]35366041[/URL] matched

New list
 

I haven't put out a list in a while... here are 47 exponents. I used a 3:1 bad/good ratio to spot these:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
35427037 3 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=35427037,72,1
35516737 3 1 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=35516737,72,1
36008263 6 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=36008263,72,1
36746981 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=36746981,72,1
36760007 7 1 11 4 9 6 DoubleCheck=36760007,72,1
36822131 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=36822131,72,1
36834233 7 1 11 4 9 6 DoubleCheck=36834233,72,1
38127673 3 1 10 5 10 5 DoubleCheck=38127673,71,1
38156317 6 2 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=38156317,71,1
38208713 5 1 6 0 4 2 DoubleCheck=38208713,71,1
38313757 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=38313757,71,1
38363993 5 1 6 0 4 2 DoubleCheck=38363993,71,1
38389081 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=38389081,71,1
39946261 7 1 11 4 9 6 DoubleCheck=39946261,71,1
42668323 3 1 10 5 10 5 DoubleCheck=42668323,72,1
42668371 3 1 10 5 10 5 DoubleCheck=42668371,72,1
42740833 3 0 4 3 4 3 DoubleCheck=42740833,72,1
43109593 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=43109593,72,1
43354559 3 0 9 3 9 3 DoubleCheck=43354559,72,1
43450157 3 0 9 3 9 3 DoubleCheck=43450157,72,1
43532779 3 0 9 3 9 3 DoubleCheck=43532779,72,1
43533937 3 0 4 3 4 3 DoubleCheck=43533937,72,1
44155807 3 0 8 1 8 1 DoubleCheck=44155807,72,1
44161193 3 0 8 1 8 1 DoubleCheck=44161193,72,1
44162483 3 0 8 1 8 1 DoubleCheck=44162483,72,1
44171297 3 0 8 1 8 1 DoubleCheck=44171297,72,1
44792863 3 0 8 1 8 1 DoubleCheck=44792863,72,1
44932729 3 0 8 1 8 1 DoubleCheck=44932729,72,1
45298613 3 0 8 1 8 1 DoubleCheck=45298613,72,1
45527257 3 0 9 3 9 3 DoubleCheck=45527257,72,1
45527897 3 0 9 3 9 3 DoubleCheck=45527897,72,1
45538709 3 0 6 0 4 2 DoubleCheck=45538709,72,1
46094927 3 0 6 0 4 2 DoubleCheck=46094927,72,1
47456863 3 0 1 6 1 6 DoubleCheck=47456863,72,1
47811013 3 0 1 2 1 2 DoubleCheck=47811013,72,1
50485727 3 1 12 6 12 6 DoubleCheck=50485727,73,1
50836231 3 1 12 6 12 6 DoubleCheck=50836231,73,1
51157151 3 1 12 6 12 6 DoubleCheck=51157151,73,1
52708763 3 1 12 6 12 6 DoubleCheck=52708763,73,1
54025849 3 1 12 6 12 6 DoubleCheck=54025849,73,1
54363629 3 1 12 6 12 6 DoubleCheck=54363629,73,1
54468251 3 1 12 6 12 6 DoubleCheck=54468251,73,1
54669541 3 1 12 6 12 6 DoubleCheck=54669541,73,1
56510917 3 1 12 6 12 6 DoubleCheck=56510917,73,1
57798707 3 1 12 6 12 6 DoubleCheck=57798707,73,1
57936677 3 1 12 6 12 6 DoubleCheck=57936677,73,1
59272363 3 1 12 6 12 6 DoubleCheck=59272363,73,1[/CODE]

I'll take the last three-
[QUOTE]DoubleCheck=57798707,73,1
DoubleCheck=57936677,73,1
DoubleCheck=59272363,73,1[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;416468]I'll take the last three
DoubleCheck=57798707,73,1
DoubleCheck=57936677,73,1
DoubleCheck=59272363,73,1 [/QUOTE]

Please allow me to back off from some of this. I am much more involved with TF work, so I was thinking backwards about the workload of higher exponents in LL.

[U][B]I would like to throw these two back in the pool:
[/B][/U]
[COLOR=Blue]DoubleCheck=57936677,73,1
DoubleCheck=59272363,73,1[/COLOR]

[U][B]I am running 57798707.

[/B][/U]Thanks,
Kieren

[QUOTE=Madpoo;416464]I haven't put out a list in a while... here are 47 exponents. I used a 3:1 bad/good ratio to spot these:[/QUOTE]
I grabbed everything below [STRIKE]44M[/STRIKE] 45M.

I've got some LL tests to do so I'll just take the 4 45M exponents