[QUOTE=ATH;557643]New TC: [M]53571863[/M][/QUOTE]
You and I have proved that this is not a prime.

I took these:

DoubleCheck=56873423,74,1
DoubleCheck=57005393,74,1
DoubleCheck=57033289,74,1
DoubleCheck=57039707,74,1
DoubleCheck=57194437,74,1
DoubleCheck=57243961,74,1
DoubleCheck=57258979,74,1
DoubleCheck=57309079,74,1

I finished the previous three and took these three.

Doublecheck=54346063,74,1
Doublecheck=54385493,74,1
Doublecheck=54494767,74,1

[QUOTE=Viliam Furik;558126]I took it. It's assigned on PrimeNet. Will do a PRP CERT test[/QUOTE]
It has been completed and Ben ran the cert.


The list has been updated.

Reserved 55842469; P-1 running now. If NF, expect DC done Oct 2. ECC ram workstation prime95 V30.3b6.

[QUOTE=kriesel;558367]Reserved 55842469; P-1 running now. If NF, expect DC done Oct 2. ECC ram workstation prime95 V30.3b6.[/QUOTE]
:ttu:

A few of the 88s are under work by some folks:
[M]88540577[/M]
[M]88535329[/M]
[M]88514381[/M]
[M]88476737[/M]

And I took these ones:
[M]88457249[/M]
[M]88470937[/M]
[M]88475831[/M]
[M]88494971[/M]
[M]88503689[/M]
[M]88504093[/M]

Is there a strong preference if they are run as PRP or LL? Krisel writes (edited):

[QUOTE=kriesel;558378]It's worth thinking about the pros and cons.
Reliability data versus exponent on LL will show the effectiveness of the current error detection methods including Jacobi check.

The timeliness of a prompt GEC check or Cert is of much greater value in my opinion than LL reliability feedback on a computer that ran LL first test several years ago. Many of those systems that produced existing LLDC candidates' first tests (54M and higher) are likely to no longer be in operation or running primality tests by the time the LL reliability feedback is obtained, if not already replaced by now.

There is a very slight ~2% throughput advantage to PRP/GEC/CERT over LLDC, and a large reliability advantage. Approx 2% x 506K DC to Mp51 adds up (~10,120 tests).
[/QUOTE]

Just checking if folks have strong feelings about it either way. If not, I'll run them as PRPs.

[QUOTE=Runtime Error;558386]
And I took these ones:
[M]88457249[/M]
[M]88470937[/M]
[M]88475831[/M]
[M]88494971[/M]
[M]88503689[/M]
[M]88504093[/M]

Is there a strong preference if they are run as PRP or LL? [/QUOTE]
Since those have a suspect LL, our most efficient tests would be PRP. Unless someone asks for a test specifically (like has been done before in this thread), suspect LL's with a mismatch should get PRP.

Take 88476737 too, it has shown Zero progress in more than a year.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;558393]Since those have a suspect LL, our most efficient tests would be PRP. Unless someone asks for a test specifically (like has been done before in this thread), suspect LL's with a mismatch should get PRP.

Take [M]88476737 [/M]too, it has shown Zero progress in more than a year.[/QUOTE]

Ok cool, thanks for the info. I'll have to come back for that one!

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;558393]Since those have a suspect LL, our most efficient tests would be PRP. Unless someone asks for a test specifically (like has been done before in this thread), suspect LL's with a mismatch should get PRP.

Take 88476737 too, it has shown Zero progress in more than a year.[/QUOTE]


One disadvantage of that strategy is that without a tie-breaker, my one machine is no longer considered reliable enough to do CERT work.


However, that can probably be handled by tweaking the criteria for CERT work if needed.


I don't strongly care either way, beyond the ego-boost of having a "reliable" computer.


Everyone I mentioned it to IRL were confused due to the lack of context.


"What's up?"


"One of my computers is now considered reliable enough to do certification work!"


"???"

[QUOTE=phillipsjk;558412]One disadvantage of that strategy is that without a tie-breaker, my one machine is no longer considered reliable enough to do CERT work.[/QUOTE]The error checking code used in the PRP test will tell if your computer is reliable enough. It can even fix problems.