Is it forbidden to talk about manual testing strategies?
 

Manual testing is an essential part of GIMPS.
It the test assignments are generated only by the server, the project would be far less popular.
When volunteers select prime exponents manually, they often rely on their intuition, personal preferences, and empirical strategies rather than to just randomly shoot in the dark.
However, do the volunteers dare to share publicly their empirical manual testing strategies?

The OP doubts that after one of their threads was closed and a subsequent attempt to continue it was also closed.
First there was the attempt of intimidation by the mods by altering the title of the thread and posting sublime messages that hinted that they knew something about the personality of the OP (the funny part was that they were not even close).
Then there was the mocking that supposedly the OP intends to make "discoveries" when he actually posts simple verifiable empirical observations for the purpose of an ongoing discussion.
Finally, there was the post by a user who attached a fake graph (with non-normalized probabilities exceeding unity, and using a linear heuristic they admitted in a preceding post to not necessarily believe in) to 'compare' it with the tiny sample size of known Mersenne primes with the intention to disprove the OP (actually, the upper part of the fake graph tends to zero, which is in accordance with the zero Mersenne primes discovered in that upper domain) and asking for the thread to be closed.

Does this mean that all empirical manual testing strategies are inefficient, should not be pursued, and the 'best' way is to randomly select prime exponents?
Should the ones who think otherwise be suppressed and ridiculed?
What happened to the freedom of expression and the trials-and-errors way science operates?
Should ordinary users be intimidated by 'we-know-best' anonymous users with connections to the mods?

I hope that this thread could allow for an open discussion on manual testing strategies.

You are free to choose whatever methods (silly or practical) you want to select candidates to search. You can even say what you are doing and why, but when you go beyond and start suggesting that there's some actual basis to the selection that others should be considering without any supplying math or reasoning to back it up (other than statistics based on a ridiculously small sample), expect to meet resistance.

There are lots of specious claims made all the time, and there's not really enough time to discuss them all. To merit discussion, most people want some actual substance.

Nanos gigantum humeris insidentes
Sometimes, we just start jumping on the shoulders)
and after few fall, most wise
just stretch the neck,
no wonder they hiss like geese

Some good reasons to manually select exponents:
Organized drives to prioritize retesting exponents with conflicting results
Manual selection to QA test software near currently set upper exponent limits of FFT lengths
Random selection as QA, to perhaps stumble upon some unknown issue
Personal subprojects, which can vary greatly. Near-repdigits, 100Mdigits, rhymes, etc.
Refuting with factors or verified primality test results, dubious claims others make
Selections that serve multiple good reasons with the same exponent

Some less-good reasons:
Fallacious reasoning
Pseudo-science
Superstition
Numerology
Bad advice from someone else
Setting records for their own sake
Selfish self-interest (increasing your own chances of prize money or fame, by reducing others', cherry picking to the extent practical)

[QUOTE=kriesel;583419]Some less-good reasons:
Fallacious reasoning
Pseudo-science
Superstition
Numerology
Bad advice from someone else
Setting records for their own sake[/QUOTE]I'm fine with all of those reasons.

People can choose whatever they want. If it turns out to be useless then they will learn that eventually, while in the meantime they get involved.

As others above have mentioned, when those "silly" reasons are pushed as some sort of magical solution to improving chances, then that crosses the line into something else.

So, if you want to choose a number because it is the date of your birthday, or whatever, then go for it, but don't try to make it look like that is some sort serious mathematics.

[QUOTE=slandrum;583406]You are free to choose whatever methods (silly or practical) you want to select candidates to search. You can even say what you are doing and why, but when you go beyond and start suggesting that there's some actual basis to the selection that others should be considering without any supplying math or reasoning to back it up (other than statistics based on a ridiculously small sample), expect to meet resistance.

There are lots of specious claims made all the time, and there's not really enough time to discuss them all. To merit discussion, most people want some actual substance.[/QUOTE]
This is the tricky part with empirical observations. There is no way to back it up until a major breakthrough happens.

The OP does not claim that there is an actual basis, it is just an observation from the small sample that is open for discussion.

[QUOTE=RomanM;583408]Nanos gigantum humeris insidentes
Sometimes, we just start jumping on the shoulders)
and after few fall, most wise
just stretch the neck,
no wonder they hiss like geese[/QUOTE]
The OP totally agrees with this. The only giant here is George. Not just a giant, more than that, a titan.
Simply the olympic jumpers should tolerate and respect the other modest jumpers (recall the fable about the fast rabbit and the slow turtle).

[QUOTE=Dobri;583431]Simply the olympic jumpers should tolerate and respect the other modest jumpers ...[/QUOTE]You elevate yourself beyond your position.

You are the bystander in the crowd, issuing unasked for advice to the competitors. "Turn tighter, don't lose you balance, keep your arms in, etc.". They already know those things, there is no need to tell them, it is just a distraction. And worse, it is useless and/or wrong advice, "Close your eyes and use the force, pray to ${deity} for help, think of the fame and fortune [strike]if[/strike] when you win, ..."

[QUOTE=kriesel;583419]Some good reasons to manually select exponents:
Organized drives to prioritize retesting exponents with conflicting results
Manual selection to QA test software near currently set upper exponent limits of FFT lengths
Random selection as QA, to perhaps stumble upon some unknown issue
Personal subprojects, which can vary greatly. Near-repdigits, 100Mdigits, rhymes, etc.
Refuting with factors or verified primality test results, dubious claims others make
Selections that serve multiple good reasons with the same exponent

Some less-good reasons:
Fallacious reasoning
Pseudo-science
Superstition
Numerology
Bad advice from someone else
Setting records for their own sake
Selfish self-interest (increasing your own chances of prize money or fame, by reducing others', cherry picking to the extent practical)[/QUOTE]
So it seems that there is a shortage of good reasons except for mainly supportive QA tasks.

Concerning the less-good reasons:
- Fallacious reasoning: It happens all the time, but actually it is good to learn from one's errors.
- Pseudo-science: The evidence in empirical observations is always limited, so having a hypothesis and following a lead is normal. If it is exhausted and found to be wrong, it is a result of fallacious reasoning.
- Superstition: It would be too far indeed to think that mathematics could be linked to supernatural phenomena.
- Numerology: Obviously, there is no link between an abstract number and an actual event. Considering digit sums as numerology is borderline, Simply digit sums represent a multitude of numbers in combinatorics.
- Bad advice from someone else: It happens. Sometimes a bad advise to stop doing what you are doing is given for all the 'good' reasons.
- Setting records for their own sake: All records in finding large primes are set for their own sake until eventually a practical application is found.
- Selfish self-interest (increasing your own chances of prize money or fame, by reducing others', cherry picking to the extent practical): First of all, money is out of question, because the prize money could not cover even the electricity bills. Concerning fame, well, this is a teamwork and everyone is credited for the discovery (but let's be honest, it feels good). And there is nothing wrong with competitive advantage, if there is a small element of excitement in prime hunting, everyone just feels more motivated.

[QUOTE=retina;583433]You elevate yourself beyond your position.

You are the bystander in the crowd, issuing unasked for advice to the competitors. "Turn tighter, don't lose you balance, keep your arms in, etc.". They already know those things, there is no need to tell them, it is just a distraction. And worse, it is useless and/or wrong advice, "Close your eyes and use the force, pray to ${deity} for help, think of the fame and fortune [strike]if[/strike] when you win, ..."[/QUOTE]
The thread is about sharing simple empirical observations rather than giving an advice.
The observations can be simple (even elementary) but there are no meaningless observations as soon or later they serve their purpose to connect the dots.
It is not about winning or losing, it is about devising strategies (if at all possible) for manual testing.

[QUOTE=retina;583421]I'm fine with all of those reasons.

People can choose whatever they want. If it turns out to be useless then they will learn that eventually, while in the meantime they get involved.

As others above have mentioned, when those "silly" reasons are pushed as some sort of magical solution to improving chances, then that crosses the line into something else.

So, if you want to choose a number because it is the date of your birthday, or whatever, then go for it, but don't try to make it look like that is some sort serious mathematics.[/QUOTE]
Narrowing the scope of work is a scientific task.
I myself do no expect to discover the next Mersenne prime, using strategies is a teamwork.

But let me propose a friendly bet: If the digit sum of the next discovered Mersenne prime exponent is less than or equal to 41, then the forum will reopen the closed thread. And if the digit sum is greater than 41, I will admit the fallacy of my reasoning and leave the forum.

[QUOTE=Dobri;583436]... it is about devising strategies (if at all possible) for manual testing.[/QUOTE]
[I]1 Corinthians 13:11[/I]
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

[QUOTE=Dobri;583437]But let me propose a friendly bet: If the digit sum of the next discovered Mersenne prime exponent is less than or equal to 41, then the forum will reopen the closed thread. And if the digit sum is greater than 41, I will admit the fallacy of my reasoning and leave the forum.[/QUOTE]That isn't how mathematics works.

You either have some mathematical basis or you don't. No amount of bets or empirical results will change that.

[QUOTE=Batalov;583439][I]1 Corinthians 13:11[/I]
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."[/QUOTE]
That's good for you. I would add to that also to keep an open mind.

[QUOTE=retina;583440]That isn't how mathematics works.

You either have some mathematical basis or you don't. No amount of bets or empirical results will change that.[/QUOTE]
As I wrote in another post, this is an empirical work at this stage. The mathematical basis has to be extended to cover the gray area after trials and errors (lots of them).

I will at some point implement a method so my dog picks an exponent! Getting her to tread on the keyboard should be easy enough.

I did at one point test a few exponents which have a twin-prime below the exponent I was testing, based on this observation
[URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=26812[/URL]
However, manual assignments are larger than the category 0 & 1 exponents I can get from the server, so take longer to test. I guess, if I wanted, I could set [FONT=Arial]GetMinExponent [/FONT]& [FONT=Arial]GetMaxExponent [/FONT]in local.txt to get category 1 assignments of the twin-primes. But I'm not convinced the observation is any more than pure chance, so I am not bothering.

There's someone on here doing testing of exponents in a certain range, based on some mad idea he has. I think I would keep quite if I had such a stupid idea, but otherwise I don't see any reason to keep quite about testing strategies.

[QUOTE=Dobri;583442]As I wrote in another post, this is an empirical work at this stage. The mathematical basis has to be extended to cover the gray area after trials and errors (lots of them).[/QUOTE]So far you have no maths basis, so it isn't extending, it is creating.

And so far no one has said you are wrong (or right). You might be right, but without some actual analysis other than "I eyeballed the graph" then there is no way to know.

And making your claim contingent upon a single future result is very reckless IMO. Your claim might still be correct (we don't know) even if the next prime is outside of what you predict.

[QUOTE=drkirkby;583443]I will at some point implement a method so my dog picks an exponent! Getting her to tread on the keyboard should be easy enough.

I did at one point test a few exponents which have a twin-prime below the exponent I was testing, based on this observation
[URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=26812[/URL]
However, manual assignments are larger than the category 0 & 1 exponents I can get from the server, so take longer to test. I guess, if I wanted, I could set [FONT=Arial]GetMinExponent [/FONT]& [FONT=Arial]GetMaxExponent [/FONT]in local.txt to get category 1 assignments of the twin-primes. But I'm not convinced the observation is any more than pure chance, so I am not bothering.

There's someone on here doing testing of exponents in a certain range, based on some mad idea he has. I think I would keep quite if I had such a stupid idea, but otherwise I don't see any reason to keep quite about testing strategies.[/QUOTE]
Your dog would serve as an excellent assistant to randomly select exponents.
Manual testing is concerned with Category 4 assignments and they take much longer to test indeed (years per exponent).
Anyway, using empirical strategies or not, the amount of work done by the volunteers would remain the same, so the GIMPS performance would remain unaffected.

[QUOTE=retina;583444]So far you have no maths basis, so it isn't extending, it is creating.
And making your claim contingent upon a single future result is very reckless IMO. Your claim might still be correct (we don't know) even if the next prime is outside of what you predict.[/QUOTE]
It is a calculated risk. I do not expect a new Mersenne prime to be found in the next 3-5 years.
Meanwhile, substantial work could be done to better understand the empirical observations.

[QUOTE=Dobri;583436]...
The observations can be simple (even elementary) but there are no meaningless observations as soon or later they serve their purpose to connect the dots.
...[/QUOTE]
That assumes every observation gets us closer to some grand theorem, the vast majority of observations actually obscure what mathematical dots can be meaningfully connected. Don't get me wrong it can be fun to be a crank and massage sequences and concepts into some eldritch horror of a theorem, but in the end it's no more meaningful than completing a crossword puzzle.

[QUOTE=Dobri;583404]Finally, there was the post by a user who attached a fake graph (with non-normalized probabilities exceeding unity, and using a linear heuristic they admitted in a preceding post to not necessarily believe in) to 'compare' it with the tiny sample size of known Mersenne primes with the intention to disprove the OP (actually, the upper part of the fake graph tends to zero, which is in accordance with the zero Mersenne primes discovered in that upper domain) and asking for the thread to be closed.[/QUOTE]

:soapbox:

In the words of Joe Biden, "C'mon, man!"

Before you immediately accuse someone of malice, stop and think whether there might be any other explanation for what they've done.

It's true that for p=3 and p=5, the heuristic gives a probability exceeding 1. But the fact that I didn't adjust these probabilities down to exactly 1 (after all, we know they're prime) in the graph was an honest mistake; I just hadn't checked whether the heuristic always gave reasonable values for small primes. I only discovered the mistake later, and I didn't correct the graph because I hoped any sane person would understand that this would only matter for a couple of very small values of p. I've attached a corrected version so you can see just how little difference there is. :deadhorse:

It's not that I don't necessarily believe in the heuristic. There are good reasons for thinking it might be true, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, but I would not be totally shocked if someone were to prove it wrong, whereas I would be shocked if someone disproved the Goldbach conjecture, for example. By the way, the heuristic is only linear in the limit. The version I've been using is the following:

[quote]The probability that 2^p-1 is prime is about (e^gamma log ap )/(p log 2) where a=2 if p=3 (mod 4), and a=6 if p=1 (mod 4).[/quote]

The linear fit comes from approximating log ap as log p, which then cancels with the 1/(log p) probability that p is prime, making the integral easier. I haven't been making this approximation.

Of course the probabilities for higher digit sums tend to zero, because we've only searched up to p a little over 100M. That doesn't contradict any of what I said. The graph does not say anything about probabilities for higher exponents that we haven't searched yet!

[QUOTE=M344587487;583449]That assumes every observation gets us closer to some grand theorem, the vast majority of observations actually obscure what mathematical dots can be meaningfully connected. Don't get me wrong it can be fun to be a crank and massage sequences and concepts into some eldritch horror of a theorem, but in the end it's no more meaningful than completing a crossword puzzle.[/QUOTE]
This may still sound ridiculous in number theory but computational advances in pattern analysis become increasingly powerful.

Rather than proving a grand theorem, one could potentially use software tools to eliminate possibilities and end up with a limited set of exponents for a given strategy. Please do not misunderstand me, we are far from applying this directly in number theory at present.

But if thinking about it strategically, imagine a future version of Prime95 in the next 10-15 years (I hope to be still around) which has "Select Assignment" and also "Select Team Strategy" options.

[QUOTE=Dobri;583445]Manual testing is concerned with Category 4 assignments and they take much longer to test indeed (years per exponent).[/QUOTE]Nope. The bottom of Cat 4 is 112840494. Let's round that up to 114000000. That is an assignment of about 500 GHz-days. On a multi core machine running at 3 to 4 GHz that is not months, much less years. Even an exponent in the 332000000 range can be tested in under 4 months on an of the shelf desk top.
The lowest exponent that hasn't had a completed first time check is 103580003. That is a 412 GHz-days assignment. It does have a lower FFT size and thus will run faster. But there is not the amount of difference that you imply.

[QUOTE=charybdis;583450]
In the words of Joe Biden, "C'mon, man!"
[/QUOTE]
I understand your point of view and actually appreciate all of your responses as I learned a few things in the process.
What I am hesitant to accept is the intention to close the thread (even if assuming that there is a fallacy in my reasoning).
I myself follow in life the saying of Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
There is no urgency to stop discussions in my opinion. But if the forum works this way, let it be. No harm done anyway.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;583452]Even an exponent in the 332000000 range can be tested in under 4 months on an of the shelf desk top.
[/QUOTE]
That is correct if using the new generation i7-i9 Intel CPUs.
However, an assignment in the 330000000 range was completed last month after a 5-year period of continuous testing.
The new rules for new assignments limit the period of testing to only one year though.

[QUOTE=Dobri;583454]What I am hesitant to accept is the intention to close the thread (even if assuming that there is a fallacy in my reasoning).
...
There is no urgency to stop discussions in my opinion.[/QUOTE]You were intentionally drawing things out (by your own declarative statement). That is what trolls do. Thus that thread was closed. And that is why the other thread was merged into the closed one. Moderators have noticed that this thread is turning back into the same discussion of your idea and not what you posted as the subject of the thread. This attempt to continue droning on on the same topic is being looked upon with very jaundiced eyes. Tread lightly, the ice is thin here.

Do what ever assignments you like. That is a guiding principle here.

I would suggest you look for patterns in your next bowl of rice, plate of pasta, serving of beans, etc. that indicate which numbers to test.

Manual testing? Are you people talking about paper and pencil? If so, I will need to stock some erasers, they will be high demand soon, I may make some money...

[QUOTE=Dobri;583455]However, an assignment in the 330000000 range was completed last month after a 5-year period of continuous testing.[/QUOTE]That is one exponent. That is over 2x the value for the bottom of the Cat 4 range. Even a then current PC from 5 years ago would have taken less than "years" to complete the test. Unless you count 0.7 years as "years". You are taking a single datum and applying it to an entire category. :cmd::groan:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;583457]
Do what ever assignments you like. That is a guiding principle here.

I would suggest you look for patterns in your next bowl of rice, plate of pasta, serving of beans, etc. that indicate which numbers to test.[/QUOTE]
Certainly, I am not going to annoy the viewers in this thread with technicalities as it is about policies.

Concerning where to look for patterns, I sense a fallacy of reasoning in your suggestion.
But I wouldn't close the thread if it was yours and I was a mod.

[QUOTE=LaurV;583459]Manual testing? Are you people talking about paper and pencil? If so, I will need to stock some erasers, they will be high demand soon, I may make some money...[/QUOTE]
My bad, it is manual selection, to be precise.
Hope you are vaccinated and doing well, be safe.

OP's ideas were debunked as numerology in original thread. After ignoring the math provided and repeatedly claiming his idea was sound, the thread was locked.

OP starts a second thread to continue blabbing about the same idea, adding no new ideas or info. Surprise, second thread locked.
Most people at this time would interpret moderators' actions as a warning.

But our OP starts a third thread to argue for his right to argue useless pseudomath on a math forum, which (surprise!) quickly devolves into more discussion of OP's original idea (there is still no evidence he has more ideas or more to contribute).

Dobri, this is not how people contribute to a forum. You are much closer to a timeout from forum posting than you are to changing anyone's mind. Threads are locked for a reason, and trying to circumvent that is not how one should Fight The Power.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;583464]OP's ideas were debunked as numerology in original thread. After ignoring the math provided and repeatedly claiming his idea was sound, the thread was locked.

OP starts a second thread to continue blabbing about the same idea, adding no new ideas or info. Surprise, second thread locked.
Most people at this time would interpret moderators' actions as a warning.

But our OP starts a third thread to argue for his right to argue useless pseudomath on a math forum, which (surprise!) quickly devolves into more discussion of OP's original idea (there is still no evidence he has more ideas or more to contribute).

Dobri, this is not how people contribute to a forum. You are much closer to a timeout from forum posting than you are to changing anyone's mind. Threads are locked for a reason, and trying to circumvent that is not how one should Fight The Power.[/QUOTE]
I do not know if the empirical observations are sound.
If I knew and could also provide contributions on a daily basis, I would publish a paper and not bother opening a thread for discussion.
GIMPS is one of my hobbies and I am not a devoted pure mathematician. If the forum expects from me to contribute immediately after being asked a specific question in a gray zone of inquiry, I would prefer not to fall in the trap but rather take time and reflect on it, use computer tools, and have a verified response in the future.

[QUOTE=Dobri;583454]...
I myself follow in life the saying of Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
...[/QUOTE]Like so many you confuse "I will defend your right to say it", with "I am under obligation to help you say it and publish it". Most forumites will defend your right to see patterns without any rational ground. But that doesn't mean we are under an obligation to support numerological rants. I suppose there are forums where you will get away with numerology. Why not post there.

Just post some unacceptable content (according to the rules you accepted when getting a forum ID and posting here) and see what will happen to your login ...

Jacob

[QUOTE=Dobri;583465]If the forum expects from me to contribute immediately after being asked a specific question in a gray zone of inquiry, I would prefer not to fall in the trap but rather take time and reflect on it, use computer tools, and have a verified response in the future.[/QUOTE]But, you brought up the topic and so you are being asked about it. You don't need to answer immediately. You could say, let me get back to you. But you didn't. You jumped into this "gray zone" with 2 left feet. There was no trap. You were handed rope and you tired the snare around your own foot. I suspect a moderator will give you "time [to] reflect on it". Go back and try to learn the lessons that were pointed out in the the other thread. This thread you have studiously chosen not to address the issues brought up.

Sit on your hands for a while.

[QUOTE=S485122;583466]Like so many you confuse "I will defend your right to say it", with "I am under obligation to help you say it and publish it". Most forumites will defend your right to see patterns without any rational ground. But that doesn't mean we are under an obligation to support numerological rants. I suppose there are forums where you will get away with numerology. Why not post there.

Just post some unacceptable content (according to the rules you accepted when getting a forum ID and posting here) and see what will happen to your login ...

Jacob[/QUOTE]
I am aware that this is a borderline topic. My intention is to treat the matter as a combinatorial problem and this is the reason not to share now more work in progress that would only open a new can of worms rather than gain acceptance.

[QUOTE=Dobri;583445]Your dog would serve as an excellent assistant to randomly select exponents.
Manual testing is concerned with Category 4 assignments and they take much longer to test indeed (years per exponent).[/QUOTE]Manual testing is not limited to category 4. According to the rules at
[URL]https://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/[/URL]
category 2 is available for manual testing, although I admit my attempt to get a category 2 exponent for manual testing failed.

However, if you know the exponent you want, and have a semi-reasonable computer, it should be possible to get the server to assign it to that computer. Just as a test, I did a quick search for a Mersenne exponent, with a twin-prime below it. I aimed for a category 1 assignment. Sure enough, I just reserved [M]M108201493[/M] by putting the appropriate entry in worktodo.add, then executing mprime -c.

Exponents around 333 million don't take years to test. I have only been on here since January, and tested [M]M332646233[/M] in about 3-months of [B]very [/B]sporadic testing. Sometimes it was not running at all, and sometimes on only one core. Doing [M]M332646233[/M] was enough to convince me that the exponents are too time-consuming, but it is not years - even on a fairly modest computer it would not take years. I reckon I could do them at a rate of about 1 every 10 days, but still 10x as long as first-time tests of the smallest exponents.

BTW, I will unreserve [M]M108201493[/M]. I'm fairly confident the twin-prime thing is just coincidence, and the exponent is much bigger than I would want to test. I've got a few under 105 million to test, so are not going to bother with one over 108 million.

[QUOTE=drkirkby;583469]
... but it is not years - even on a fairly modest computer it would not take years.[/QUOTE]
It seems that there are some users who still use i3 and i5 CPUs for LL testing of large exponents.
There was one user who three years ago completed a 6-year test of an exponent in the 100M-digit range.

I myself chose to experiment with 999,996,073 in an i7 10th Gen machine and the estimate is that it would take 1,945 days for the PRP to be completed. So I cannot fit within the 1-year time frame and will apply for an extension, then continue further the test till the end even if the exponent is re-assigned.

This way I am also testing the SSD memory and so far the PRP test was able to recover from one Gebricz/double-check error.

For comparison, I never had any errors when using hard disks.

[QUOTE=Dobri;583445]Your dog would serve as an excellent assistant to randomly select exponents.
[COLOR=Red]Manual testing is concerned with Category 4 assignments[/COLOR] and they take much longer to test indeed ([B][COLOR=Red]years[/COLOR] [COLOR=red]per exponent[/COLOR][/B]).
Anyway, using empirical strategies or not, the amount of work done by the volunteers would remain the same, so the GIMPS performance would [COLOR=Red][B]remain unaffected[/B][/COLOR].[/QUOTE]Drkirkby already debunked somewhat the first of your provably false claims highlighted above. Manual testing is specified as applicable to Cat 2, 3 or 4.

Since you did not specify first test vs DC, I checked both, referring to [URL]https://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/[/URL]
Cat4 minimum first test 7/18/21: above 112840494
add 100K: 112940494
assigned exponent above that: PRP=aid,1,2,112941749,-1,77,2
Gpuowl V6.11-380 ETA:
[CODE]2021-07-18 10:58:39 asr2/radeonvii4 Proof using power 9
2021-07-18 10:58:44 asr2/radeonvii4 112941749 OK 4000 0.00%; 886 us/it; [B]ETA 1d 03:48[/B]; ef6f162ded98f08d (check 2.00s)[/CODE] Cat4 minimum DC 7/18/21: above 63748134
add 100K: 63848134
assigned exponent above that: PRP=aid,1,2,63848203,-1,74,0
Gpuowl V6.11-380 ETA:
[CODE]2021-07-18 10:16:53 asr2/radeonvii3 63848203 OK 2000 0.00%; 660 us/it; [B]ETA 0d 11:42[/B]; a7b1720661156407 (check 0.79s)[/CODE]Both the above test exponents are Cat 4, which you claimed take years. Their ETAs computed by gpuowl indicate they will be done [B]tomorrow[/B], and [B]tonight[/B], respectively. A 100Mdigit primality test is ~15 [B]days[/B] on a Radeon VII GPU.
Not even exponents ~10[SUP]9 [/SUP]require 6 months, much less years, on a Radeon VII.
And those ETAs are for GPUs that are [B]operating at reduced power [/B]for power efficiency, and a model (Radeon VII) that's no longer in production. There exists at least one GPU model with ~2.5 times the primality test computing speed rating of a Radeon VII, which could complete the 112.9M Cat 4 primality test in [B]hours[/B].
Your claim of years per exponent is only rarely anecdotally supported with badly misguided allocation of resources to much higher exponents, if at all. Don't bother claiming GPUs are a rare exception; even EWMayer and Prime95, authors of CPU oriented GIMPS software, are doing substantial primality testing on GPUs. And Uncwilly has already debunked the CPU side of your misleading claim. Such severe inaccuracy in a posted easily checked claim, ~10[SUP]4[/SUP]:1, casts considerable doubt on the rest of your posted material.

Attempting as you appear to do, to divert computational resources from where it is most productive (lowest available exponents), to where it is less productive (higher exponents selected via unproven or fallacious reasoning), based on a voluminously advocated yet fundamentally unsupported claim masked by unpersuasive allegations of grounding in statistical analysis of a very small data set, and similarly divert forum participants' and moderators' time with your too frequent, argumentative, and poorly reasoned posts, acts to reduce GIMPS productivity. Stop.

My cat does not make such erroneous claims as you do. Has the good sense to not say anything, when she has nothing germane & accurate & constructive to say.

You've steadfastly reduced perceptions of your credibility to a good approximation of zero, been determined a troll/spammer, and earned a spot on my mersenneforum [URL="https://www.mersenneforum.org/profile.php?do=ignorelist"]ignore list[/URL] setting. Few have, in years.


Moderators: how much more rope are you going to allow Dobri?

What I wrote about can be easily verified in the server database.
Also, I do not troll or spam anyone. You will not find my posts anywhere else except in the post I created and in the Lounge.
Despite all of your negativity, you are not on my ignore list.
Wishing you all the best, I will not post anymore.

«De tous ceux qui ont traité cette mautîè, c’est sans contredit M. de la Condamine qui l ’a fait avec plus de succès. Il est déjà venu à bout de persuader la meil­leure partie du monde raisonnable de la grand utilité de l’inoculation: quant aux autres, il serait inutil de vouloir employer la raison avec eux: puisqu’ils n ’agissent pas par principes. Il faut les conduire comme des enfants vers leur mieux...»
(Daniel Bernoulli, 1760)

[QUOTE=charybdis;583450]
Before you immediately accuse someone of malice, stop and think whether there might be any other explanation for what they've done.[/QUOTE]

One should always apply Hanlon's Razor in my view.

I'm closing this thread. I will move some of the more productive posts into a separate thread. Link will be posted here

EDIT:- Move posts are available here: [url]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=27024[/url]

[QUOTE=kriesel;583828]...claimed manual assignments were cat 4 and took (required as a minimum) years to complete...[/QUOTE]
The exact sentence was
"[FONT=&quot]Manual testing is concerned with Category 4 assignments and they take much longer to test indeed (years per exponent).[/FONT]"

It was written in the context of users with modest computational resources who would attempt to potentially explore the entire remaining 9-digit exponent range.

It was not intended to mean "(required as a minimum) years to complete." Obviously, users having the latest state-of-the-art computers could complete 332xxxxxx assignments for less than a year.

The previous thread was intended for volunteers who could be students thinking how to pay their student loan or hard working individuals who have to provide for their families and cannot afford expensive CPUs, and yet are genuinely interested in GIMPS.

For a modest computer, the weighted time average is years for the entire Category-4 range till [FONT=&quot]M999999937.[/FONT]

Even Kriesel currently has some attempted assignments that are scheduled to be completed in 2022, 2023 and 2024 (whatever the reasons are, there is no need to speculate), see <[URL]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=333333333&exp_hi=999999999&execm=1&exdchk=1&exp1=1&extf=1&excert=1[/URL]>.

[QUOTE=Dobri;583967]The previous thread was intended for volunteers who could be students thinking how to pay their student loan or hard working individuals who have to provide for their families and cannot afford expensive CPUs, and yet are genuinely interested in GIMPS.[/QUOTE]

I have a many years old laptop that was cheap when I bought it, came with Windows 7 (was force updated to Windows 10 years ago back when Microsoft forced that on millions of unsuspecting people), but it is not years to complete a cat 4 exponent. It would be on the order of 5-6 months to do a fresh cat4 FTC PRP assignment. If I was silly enough to go out and look for much higher exponents with that machine, it could take years. I see a lot of people using less capable equipment than my old cheap laptop, but I really would not expect such equipment to generally be what students would have at their hands.

[QUOTE=slandrum;583978]I have a many years old laptop that was cheap when I bought it, came with Windows 7 (was force updated to Windows 10 years ago back when Microsoft forced that on millions of unsuspecting people), but it is not years to complete a cat 4 exponent. It would be on the order of 5-6 months to do a fresh cat4 FTC PRP assignment. If I was silly enough to go out and look for much higher exponents with that machine, it could take years. I see a lot of people using less capable equipment than my old cheap laptop, but I really would not expect such equipment to generally be what students would have at their hands.[/QUOTE]
Let me share my personal routine. During the day, I use most of my computers for work and even though Prime95 could run in the background, it uses the lowest default priority 1, so that other apps could run normally. This slows down Prime95 substantially. Only at night, the computers are fully dedicated to GIMPS. Also, my i7 Gen10 laptop (bought last year) uses a default lower frequency to operate, and speeds up to 3.5 GHz when running Prime95 but it still lacks the performance of the previous generation i7 CPUs for desktop computers. My desktop computers are too slow to participate on a regular basis in the immediate ranges above 104,xxx,xxx (in Categories 1-3) which are dedicated to the exhaustive computations not to leave untested exponents behind. I am selecting occasionally Category 4 assignments close to Category 3 though. So, my intention is to upgrade gradually and still aim at the 100M-digit range (which is the silly enough part) in a few computers while in the remaining ones I would continue doing mostly DD, TF, and ECM.

[QUOTE=Dobri;583465] If the forum expects from me to contribute immediately after being asked a specific question in a gray zone of inquiry, I would prefer not to fall in the trap but rather take time and reflect on it, use computer tools, and have a verified response in the future.[/QUOTE]
Man, then take your time, verify the answer, and come back in the future with a verified one. You don't need to reply to every post. Really!