So I guess it's the big day :question: :exclaim: :mrgreen:

Also do you think I should call the news if we find a prime? (Houston, Texas, USA)

I think I should notify them of the information in advance so it would be easier chronologically for them and us.

Maybe you should tell me all of the exact information I should say to make it an easier and better report.

I know there are some Texans in the house so if you live here maybe we could work together.

Thanks!

Clowns789

Isn't the unofficial doublecheck over? I don't seem to be able to go offline. Must know ... :surprised:ops:

My verification run of M#40 just completed....not prime. Now we wait for
Guillermo Ballester Valor's run to complete in the next few days. Our runs
matched at 13 million iterations.

Possibilities are:
1) The original run was flawed or there is a bug in the version of prime95 used. It is hard to imagine a bug or hardware glitch that generates an all zero LL result. If memory is zeroed at some point, the next LL iterations are -2, 2, 2, 2, ...
2) My overclocked machine generated an undetected error or the prime95 version I'm using has a bug that is affecting my result.
3) I was debugging an out-of-memory bug report last night. It is theoretically possible there is an OS bug that affects other processes in these severe circumstances.

I have save files every million iterations. If this really is a new Mersenne prime, then I'll rerun the last iterations again to make sure the latest prime95 does not have a bug.

I'm sorry to continue the drama for a few more days. I'm also somewhat worried that GIMPS may have suffered its first false alarm.

Hi, George:

I for one am still quite hopeful - as you say, I can imagine a lot
of ways in which a stressed-out overclocked P4 system running
Windows could corrupt your data in such a way as to produce a
false nonzero residue, whereas an incorrect zero residue seems
much less likely - in all the cases I've seen with my own program
where some bug in the FFT code or the compiler used to build it
causes something seriously to go awry, the result is either the -2,2,2,2...
sequence you mention, or (in the case where result of the FFT/square/IFFT
returns zero) -2,-2,-2,..., which winds up looking like 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFD
in 64-bit hexadecimal form.

George, you don't need to wait for Guillermo to rerun the last few million
iterations, starting with the 13M residue. Or, if Guillermo is very close to
reaching 14M, you could wait for that result, and if you match, restart your
run from there. (And this time, perhaps try not to touch your system while
it's completing the rerun - probably not even looking at it will be best. :))

I'm trying to bang together a multithreaded version of Mlucas, so as to
speed up the "official" independent-hardware-and-software verification
run (I'm currently @7.5M, running on just a single 1GHz CPU), but
there's still some coding and debug to do. I can't guarantee I'll be able
to pull it off in time to speed my double-check, but I'll try my best to do so.

-Ernst

Hmm. Today is the 10th, the prime was reported on the first, Ernst was confirmed to be starting a confirmation run on the 2nd, he's expected to finish on the 20th or 21st, and is 7.5M iterations in. Hmm.

Guillermo started on unknown date, but is at least 13M iterations in and is expected to finish within a few days. Hmm.

The candidate I picked out is looking more and more possible. :D

Where is the new (maybe not) prime?
 

Okay, so maybe this reported prime isn't. But where do you think this candidate is?

Re: Where is the new (maybe not) prime?
 

[quote="trif"]Okay, so maybe this reported prime isn't. But where do you think this candidate is?[/quote]

16M :question:

Oh gees, I didn't mean to jinx M40, by saying it's probably not composite...... This does make it interesting to watch what happens in the next episode.

Good luck George! :D

It's a horrible thing to say, but I hope your CPU went crazy :shock: :D :shock:

[quote="flava"]It's a horrible thing to say, but I hope your CPU went crazy :shock: :D :shock:[/quote]

Me too! I've resumed the test at iteration 14 million.

I wish I hadn't investigated the P-1 out-of-memory crash bug yesterday!

What are the odds that a test would give a false positive?