New PRP for k=90527 - Page 2

Bold_Seeker · 2010-07-03, 09:04

Hello all,

I'm very happy that I discovered this missing prime

It's the first "price" I scored in a period of 10 years of DC-activity and I must say: it motivates me to keep continuing the effort!

Good luck in finding new primes!

Zuzu · 2010-07-08, 08:47

Hello,
I've noticed in the stats page, that the k=168451 queue lies behind, stuck at value 9182196 while all other queues are between 9185 and 9187K. Having checked the Sob.dat k=168451 is expected to have several exponents in the interval.
Since I remarked the k=90527 queue was behind before the prime was announced, is a prime expected for 168451 also ?
OTOH I'd noticed a similar behavior for k=222113 a few months ago, this was a false alert. So I presume this is only a matter of restructuring. Thanks to the admins for confirming it

Joe O · 2010-07-08, 11:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuzu

is a prime expected for 168451 also ?

Yes.
Imminently?
No. (But you never know!)
It looks like three tests timed out after hitting the four week cutoff and have been reassigned. On a fast machine, two of these look to be close to finishing. But who knows the speed of the machine they are on, and how much that machine is powered on. When any of them finish, this queue will be at 9185xxx.

ltd · 2010-07-08, 17:32

With k=222113 you have not been that wrong. There was a prp reported but in the end we found that it was a false positive. In the end we had to put all the
tests back into the queue.

Edit: Forgot one thing. No there are no PRPs under investigation at the moment.

Sloth · 2010-07-09, 00:19

Wow a false positive. I thought that was a "never" happens event.

VJS · 2010-07-09, 02:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sloth

Wow a false positive. I thought that was a "never" happens event.

Hold on a minute... I'm going to cry foul! I completely agree with Sloth!!!

If there is a false postive, I'd think the only way this could realistically happen (what is it 1:2^64) is through screwing around. aka cheating...

Please tell me this couldn't be the case, b/c if it is a true false positive that made it through 2 sets of tests both with 0000000000000000000 as a residual. How many tests made it through with matching alsdkjf9as03fjla093u234 residuals. Second please don't tell me this happend through PG...

Interested...

opyrt · 2010-07-09, 08:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by VJS

If there is a false postive, I'd think the only way this could realistically happen (what is it 1:2^64) is through screwing around. aka cheating...

From what I can see from the logs publicly available, it seems a probable prime was found by LLR in first pass (not a prime). When properly checked it turned out to be a composite. But I could be wrong.

Joe O · 2010-07-09, 11:43

False positive, though accurate, might be too strong a description. First pass LLR reported a 0 residue. Lars and I both ran LLR on different architectures and had matching residues. This is why we both verify results before submission to the prime pages.

VJS · 2010-07-09, 22:31

Good!!!

I thought it made it through the double check process. And especially worried it came from PG.

Be interested in knowing the test k n if willing.

2010-07-08, 08:47	#13
Zuzu Sep 2009 11 Posts	k=168451 queue: a prime ? (with some doubt) Hello, I've noticed in the stats page, that the k=168451 queue lies behind, stuck at value 9182196 while all other queues are between 9185 and 9187K. Having checked the Sob.dat k=168451 is expected to have several exponents in the interval. Since I remarked the k=90527 queue was behind before the prime was announced, is a prime expected for 168451 also ? OTOH I'd noticed a similar behavior for k=222113 a few months ago, this was a false alert. So I presume this is only a matter of restructuring. Thanks to the admins for confirming it

2010-07-08, 17:32	#15
ltd Apr 2003 2²×193 Posts	With k=222113 you have not been that wrong. There was a prp reported but in the end we found that it was a false positive. In the end we had to put all the tests back into the queue. Edit: Forgot one thing. No there are no PRPs under investigation at the moment. Last fiddled with by ltd on 2010-07-08 at 17:36

2010-07-03, 09:04	#12
Bold_Seeker May 2010 2² Posts	Hello all, I'm very happy that I discovered this missing prime It's the first "price" I scored in a period of 10 years of DC-activity and I must say: it motivates me to keep continuing the effort! Good luck in finding new primes!

2010-07-09, 00:19	#16
Sloth Mar 2006 2·47 Posts	Wow a false positive. I thought that was a "never" happens event.

2010-07-09, 11:43	#19
Joe O Aug 2002 1000001101₂ Posts	False positive, though accurate, might be too strong a description. First pass LLR reported a 0 residue. Lars and I both ran LLR on different architectures and had matching residues. This is why we both verify results before submission to the prime pages.

2010-07-09, 22:31	#20
VJS Dec 2004 100101011₂ Posts	Good!!! I thought it made it through the double check process. And especially worried it came from PG. Be interested in knowing the test k n if willing.