GIMPS vs. Primenet Stats
 

More of an observation than anything, since I understand these two stats come from different sources, but I took the time to compare the TOTAL output from these two sources. They were more different than I expected:

May 28, 2007: [url]http://www.mersenne.org/top.htm[/url] (I extracted and summed all files)
June 4, 2007: [url]http://mersenne.org/ips/topproducers.shtml[/url] (I extracted and summed the entire file.)

Being only a week apart one would expect they would be close.

This is what I have as simple totals (the first column of totals is from the first URL above):

Entries: ....... 52,139 .......... 75,067
P90 LL Years: 2,346,562.26 .. 2,257,511.63
Exponents: .. 1,332,118 ...... 947,404

All 52,139 entries from the first URL have either P90 Yrs or exponents or both.

For the second URL above, if I exclude entries that have zero P90 Yrs and zero Exponents there are: 37,271 left.

Now, if I assume report 1 includes LL/DC testing AND factoring then the new totals for report 2 would be:
75,067 (now much higher on entries since all of these did LL or DC or Fact.)
2,366,738.63 (much closer on the years)
1,056,631 (still lower on exponents)

The LL/DC total on the Summary reports is 812,841 with another 2,780,397 factored.

The first URL is the more accurate measure of work done. First, many exponents never get reported to Primenet and go to George directly. These obviously don't appear in the second URL. Second, Primenet credits all returned results regardless of whether doublechecking susequently proves the test to be wrong. Third, factoring does not come into the picture because George does not keep track of factoring work.

:smile: <-- Smiley face, since Garo probably only sounds harsh.

I don't see how you found my previous post harsh. It was short and to the point. Not harsh.

:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:

[SIZE=1][I]Edit: Smilies added, since again Garo is so terse it could be misconstrued as harshness.[/I][/SIZE]

I did not sense harshness from Garo.

If URL 1 (George) is considered the reliable source and since it is created the same time as his status report then I would expect the LL + 2*DC total (1,255,643) to equal the total exponents (1,332,118) from his Top Producers details ... or is the difference attiributed to triple+ checks ... mind you, you imply that George does NOT give credit for false tests. :smile: (not harsh either)

[QUOTE=garo;107699]I don't see how you found my previous post harsh. It was short and to the point. Not harsh.

:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:

[SIZE=1][I]Edit: Smilies added, since again Garo is so terse it could be misconstrued as harshness.[/I][/SIZE][/QUOTE]
I apologize, you misunderstood me. I'm familiar with the limitations of the printed word and just decided to make a random comment about it. It was meant to be humorous.

petrw1: Hint: TwoLL means [B]at least[/B] 2 tests.
yes George does not give credit for incorrect tests in his stats. However, test of unknown correctness are given credit until proven incorrect.

jasong: No offence taken! :devil:

Edit: What's with these added smilies? Damn gerbils... getting in places where they have no business being.

[quote=garo;107776]Edit: What's with these added smilies? Damn gerbils... getting in places where they have no business being.[/quote]
Maybe they're trying to make you lose some iteration time each time you want a special smilie...maybe as payment for the extra server load for loading all those animated gifs.

[QUOTE=garo;107776]petrw1: Hint: TwoLL means [B]at least[/B] 2 tests.
yes George does not give credit for incorrect tests in his stats. However, test of unknown correctness are given credit until proven incorrect.
[/QUOTE]

Would there only be more than 2 tests when it is deemed that one of the first two tests (LL + DC) are invalid, in which case the invalid test would be removed once again getting us back to only "valid" 2 tests per exponent?

And if my surmisal is close to accurate then the only difference between the two totals I refer to would be the tests yet to be validated ... I'm guessing not many? :w00t:

(p.s. I have no idea what "woot" means but I thought I would use it just for fun)

[QUOTE=petrw1;107798](p.s. I have no idea what "woot" means but I thought I would use it just for fun)[/QUOTE]
It simply means the person is really feeling enthusiastic about what they're talking about. Approximately equivalent phrases would be,"yes!!!," "That's what I'm talking about!!!," and "Hot damn!!!"

ok I will rephrase:
TwoLL means [B]at least 2 [I]valid[/I][/B] tests.