I might have delivered some bad results

[Christenson]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

(I know you didn't accuse anybody of anything, but in this case there were 20-25 factors found among the 1250 exponents tested.)

If Iconized found 20-25 factors, we can safely accuse him of actually doing the work he said he did the factors are proof!

Unless there's an obvious, time-based pattern where he suddenly stops finding factors 3/4 of the way through his work, there will be little point in double-checking all that work.

[iconized]

Yeah well I don't even want to go there, defending myself against an accusation that hasn't been made technically. But place yourself in the shoes of someone who likes to score lots of points and doesn't want to do the real work. They will not create a topic like this one a forum to avoid attention. Then you can argue that by making a thread like this one I may look more innocent. In the end the confirmed factors plead for my innocence I hope. :D

But I have seen cheating. Dimes for example:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...N-Team-Ukraine
Cheating is real unfortunately. Something that a scientific project really doesn't need.

[Dubslow]

Well if you guys don't think a retest is necessary, okay. Until I get more consensus, I will be running them (when my ckdo stuff finally finishes).

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by Christenson

If Iconized found 20-25 factors, we can safely accuse him of actually doing the work he said he did the factors are proof!

Hey, I am not accusing anybody! I am always the last guy to point my finger (or to throw the stone) on someone. I knew about the factors he found from the discussion on this (and/or the clonned on Serp. project) thread. I am checking the assignments Dubslow sent me, doing the bit level one more time, and taking everything (except the first 6 results, for which I lost the exponents from worktodo, they were deleted after completion) one bit further, to 72, as I explained before! So, if you check the database you will see something like this for few exponents already:

57862313    No factors below    2^72
   <SNIP>
    History    no factor for M57862313 from 2^70 to 2^71 [mfaktc 0.17-Win barrett79_mul32] by "iconized" on 2011-09-26
    History    no factor for M57862313 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.17-Win barrett79_mul32] by "LaurV" on 2011-11-16

Every time when you see my name under his name it means that I did (re-check) his (iconized's) range AND one additional bit. So, the DB is checked, I get some credit, everybody is happy.

And sorry for the fact that I overreacted to the "no crc key" thing (now I admitted that I overreacted!). I was overestimating the importance of "no factor" lines, and did not know what George said about trusting such reports.

[Dubslow]

And we all lived happily ever after!

[cheesehead]

Moderators,

Quick! Lock this thread with the happy ending!

[kladner]

I was surprised to find this on the Results report on PrimeNet for this double-check job:

Processing result: no factor for M55751407 from 2^71 to 2^72 
[mfaktc 0.17-Win barrett79_mul32] CPU credit is 8.5784 GHz-days.

This was instead of the expected "Error 40-Not Needed" response.

[lycorn]

Why are you surprised? The exponent was done to 71 and you did it to 72.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by lycorn

Why are you surprised? The exponent was done to 71 and you did it to 72.

Interesting... http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...&B1=Get+status

Might those "double checking" iconized work actually be doing more work?

[kladner]

Originally Posted by lycorn

Why are you surprised? The exponent was done to 71 and you did it to 72.

Thanks, lycorn. I had overlooked that detail.

Quote chalsall: "Might those "double checking" iconized work actually be doing more work?"

It is interesting that this exponent had been assigned for LL. I'm sure that this must have been discussed before, but will that assignment be killed when that worker contacts the server?

On that subject, I have been questioning the value of re-running these TFs. In this case it did find a factor, but only at a higher level than previously checked.

Is it worth the time and electricity?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by kladner

In this case it did find a factor, but only at a higher level than previously checked.

No, it didn't find a factor.