[QUOTE=tServo;515010]Usually I'm a patient person, buy not in this case. That's why I have these toys.
I just started the 2 smallest exponents; one on a Radeon Vii and one on my Titan V.
Expect results Monday afternoon.

I apologize if I stepped on anyone's toes who was planning to run these.[/QUOTE]



didnt u say monday afternoon, it is almost over why u not reporting it here?


is it because it is PRIME! i told you people! please share the news! =))))))

[QUOTE=samuel;515178]GREAT! 1 day 20 hours left count down to me being creditted for finding the formula that everyone cant find!!![/QUOTE]Or...... You might be shown to be wrong.
[QUOTE=samuel;515179]didnt u say monday afternoon, it is almost over why u not reporting it here?[/QUOTE]Maybe tservo is in Hawaii. Further if they are still at work (you know the thing that most adults do) and only check up on things and post at home you might have to wait a while (some folks work swing shift.)

And if you are wrong.....?

88680457 is composite
 

M( 88680457 )C, 0xf1400f836a8cd4__, offset = 44344608, n = 5184K, CUDALucas v2.06beta

Unfortunately, I had a home wiring issue doing the other one on the radeon VII so it won't be available for 25 hours. My apologies.

[QUOTE=tServo;515182]M( 88680457 )C, 0xf1400f836a8cd4__, offset = 44344608, n = 5184K, CUDALucas v2.06beta

Unfortunately, I had a home wiring issue doing the other one on the radeon VII so it won't be available for 25 hours. My apologies.[/QUOTE]


maybe your computer has a hardware error, well let's see the other one.


remember there is a 1-(36/76)^2 chance that both of them is not prime.

[QUOTE=tServo;515182]M( 88680457 )C, 0xf1400f836a8cd4__, offset = 44344608, n = 5184K, CUDALucas v2.06beta

Unfortunately, I had a home wiring issue doing the other one on the radeon VII so it won't be available for 25 hours. My apologies.[/QUOTE]

I am a day and a half away from completing the exponent for 88680457. You should go ahead and submit it then I'll submit it as a DC. That way someone doesn't have to do another DC down the road right? :lol:

Oh and you should probably mask the last two of the residue.

[QUOTE=dcheuk;515186]Oh and you should probably mask the last two of the residue.[/QUOTE]Fixed that.

let's wait on the other one and we'll see.


if they are both not prime there must be a hardware error or i am just extremely unlucky, my logic are flawless

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;515181]Or...... You might be shown to be wrong.
Maybe tservo is in Hawaii. Further if they are still at work (you know the thing that most adults do) and only check up on things and post at home you might have to wait a while (some folks work swing shift.)

And if you are wrong.....?[/QUOTE]


there is no way i am calling my formula bad until 3 of them is bad, which is highly extremely unlikely, we should wait for the next 2, if they are bad i will admit defeat. if one of them is prime yall have to acknowldge me as brilliant mind!


my three claimed prime that is probably prime is 88680457,89023807,103404713

[QUOTE=samuel;515189]let's wait on the other one and we'll see.


if they are both not prime there must be a hardware error or i am just extremely unlucky, my logic are flawless[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE=samuel;515189]

there is no way i am calling my formula bad until 3 of them is bad, which is highly extremely unlikely, we should wait for the next 2, if they are bad i will admit defeat. if one of them is prime yall have to acknowldge me as brilliant mind![/QUOTE]

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Our chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and fear.Two weapons. Surprise and fear and ruthless efficiency. Our three weapons are surprise, fear, ruthless efficiency and fanatical devotion to the pope. Four weapons!

samuel, you wrote this before testing started:

[QUOTE=samuel;514855]i am extremely overwhelmingly very absolutely confident and certain at least one of my first two is prime, i dont know how to explain it but it is the gut that is telling me i am right.[/QUOTE]

And then, in response to this question of mine,

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;515020]3. Suppose two numbers were tested and neither was a Mersenne prime. Given your analysis in #2, how confident would be in your method? Suppose three were tested instead without finding a Mersenne prime. (You may need to do some calculations like in #2.) Suppose ten, or a hundred were tested. How confident would you be?[/QUOTE]

you wrote:

[QUOTE=samuel;515025] 3, then i screwed up yes i get it but can we get to that point after the results are go. stop judging me base on probabilties[/QUOTE]

But now you are changing your tune:

[QUOTE=samuel;515189]if they are both not prime there must be a hardware error or i am just extremely unlucky, my logic are flawless[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=samuel;515191]there is no way i am calling my formula bad until 3 of them is bad, which is highly extremely unlikely, we should wait for the next 2, if they are bad i will admit defeat. if one of them is prime yall have to acknowldge me as brilliant mind![/QUOTE]

[b]I asked you specifically[/b] about this case: how confident you would be if both of your tests failed. You didn't say that you'd blame the hardware, you said that you would have screwed up. Now that it looks like it's coming to pass you're [url=https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving-the-Goalposts]moving the goalposts[/url].

Step up, admit what you said you'd admit.

Then take the next step: if you still think there's some chance to salvage your method, [url=https://www.mersenne.org/gettingstarted/]learn how to use the tools that others have written for you[/url] and check the third number for yourself. Then report back here with the results, positive or negative. But before that, tell us: what will you say if it's a prime? What will you say if it's composite? Remember, your updated odds are 32/78 failures, 40/78 successes (if the data are not [url=https://statisticsbyjim.com/regression/overfitting-regression-models/]overfit[/url]). Maybe you need to check several more numbers; if so, decide on that plan upfront so you don't look foolish afterward. (You may wish to learn about the importance of [url=https://cos.io/prereg/]preregistration[/url]... or else you could look into [url=https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2016/06/bayesian-statistics-beginners-simple-english/]Bayesian techniques[/url].)

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;515207]samuel, you wrote this before testing started:



And then, in response to this question of mine,



you wrote:



But now you are changing your tune:





[B]I asked you specifically[/B] about this case: how confident you would be if both of your tests failed. You didn't say that you'd blame the hardware, you said that you would have screwed up. Now that it looks like it's coming to pass you're [URL="https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving-the-Goalposts"]moving the goalposts[/URL].

Step up, admit what you said you'd admit.

Then take the next step: if you still think there's some chance to salvage your method, [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/gettingstarted/"]learn how to use the tools that others have written for you[/URL] and check the third number for yourself. Then report back here with the results, positive or negative. But before that, tell us: what will you say if it's a prime? What will you say if it's composite? Remember, your updated odds are 32/78 failures, 40/78 successes (if the data are not [URL="https://statisticsbyjim.com/regression/overfitting-regression-models/"]overfit[/URL]). Maybe you need to check several more numbers; if so, decide on that plan upfront so you don't look foolish afterward. (You may wish to learn about the importance of [URL="https://cos.io/prereg/"]preregistration[/URL]... or else you could look into [URL="https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2016/06/bayesian-statistics-beginners-simple-english/"]Bayesian techniques[/URL].)[/QUOTE]


ok ok i get it i get it i should not blame it on the hardware i am so sorry tservo dcheuk prime95 thank you guys all of you for using ur titan graphics and i7s and other monsters to check the first two numbers. i should not have do that blame it on the hardware


and for crgreathouse, if the second number comes out to be not prime my algorithm is bad and should be tossed, total defeat, white flag. i learned, let me live, have mercy


i learned a lot about math here surprisely on an internet forum, i know my dad has more powerful beasts and check primes with p95 he told me to read this website to learn about prime numbers and mersenne primes so i tried to write algorithms to find them, then i stumbled on this forum