mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Data

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-02-06, 00:17   #1
tha
 
tha's Avatar
 
Dec 2002

31316 Posts
Default New milestone

From the first 10M digits Mersenne prime candidate upwards a range of 212.100 has been tested at least once.

All exponents between 33.219.127 and 33.431.227 have either been factored or Lucas-Lehmer tested once. Some tests have error codes and are currently server assigned double checked ahead of the regular double check range. Other exponents in this range have been successfully double checked already.

My main machine is currently crunching on the next two lowest 10M digits exponents. The results will be checked in at the end of this month.
tha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-19, 11:14   #2
jinydu
 
jinydu's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Hopefully Near M48

2·3·293 Posts
Default Another New Milestone

Just moments ago, I was assigned my very first double-checking assignment larger than 19M. I'm not sure whether to consider that good news or bad news (GIMPS is moving forwards, but the tests are taking ever longer to complete)...

Last fiddled with by jinydu on 2007-02-19 at 11:15
jinydu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-19, 12:38   #3
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jinydu View Post
I'm not sure whether to consider that good news or bad news (GIMPS is moving forwards, but the tests are taking ever longer to complete)...
Well, one of those is good news and the other is a natural consequence. :-)
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-05, 20:54   #4
tha
 
tha's Avatar
 
Dec 2002

787 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tha View Post
From the first 10M digits Mersenne prime candidate upwards ...
all exponents up to (therefore not including) 33,490,007 have been checked at least once. That means a range of 270,880 has been cleared. I am currently working on the next two exponents.
tha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-05, 22:32   #5
S485122
 
S485122's Avatar
 
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium

65D16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tha View Post
all exponents up to (therefore not including) 33,490,007 have been checked at least once.
I do not understand ? You mean the 32M numbers I am testing have changed in doublechecks ?

As far as I can see GIMPS mentions some 23 numbers below 20,4M as untested and PrimeNet lists some 14M numbers as untested. (PrimeNet is up to date but counts only those tests it assigned, the data from GIMPS is a few days old.)

Jacob
S485122 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-05, 22:52   #6
davieddy
 
davieddy's Avatar
 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

145128 Posts
Default

He's talking about exponents with 10 million digits
davieddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-08, 19:02   #7
tha
 
tha's Avatar
 
Dec 2002

787 Posts
Default

All exponents between 33.219.127 and 33.500.837 have been tested at least once, spanning a range of 281.710. A few percent has been double checked and a few exponents have results with error codes other than zero without a matching double check.
tha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-09, 20:24   #8
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

17·263 Posts
Default

Then why do I still see these 18 first-time LL assignments on the status file?

33219127 69 24232000 223.6 16.8 59.8 08-Apr-07 15:45 29-Aug-06 05:54 S424555 GeidiPrime
33230963 69 355.6 49.3 78.3 09-Mar-07 04:07 19-Apr-06 06:38 S16447 shum
33249343 69 18517696 671.5 -3.5 56.5 14-Mar-07 08:24 07-Jun-05 07:06 S16447 aav
33271549 69 7178426 15.5 14.8 72.8 25-Mar-07 14:54 25-Mar-07 07:45 S102309 C60657715
33279397 69 7834768 18.8 10.2 69.2 22-Mar-07 01:14 wmjmoeller conrac01
33288743 69 16874981 6.2 11.8 68.8 03-Apr-07 15:23 wherbert Sonya2400
33289229 69 10931776 67.0 19.9 60.9 09-Apr-07 17:37 01-Feb-07 20:38 Malloe AS2G
33322867 69 26048030 758.1 63.7 85.7 07-Apr-07 12:01 12-Mar-05 18:11 hopey C8AC1010B
33386203 69 6449568 1561 369.3 65.3 01-Apr-07 04:35 31-Dec-02 03:53 GTS GTS
33411179 69 610094 25.0 79.8 56.8 05-Apr-07 16:47 15-Mar-07 20:08 S19490 C92281B84
33431227 69 80.7 37.5 60.5 09-Apr-07 07:00 19-Jan-07 04:59 kmr tiger1
33460759 69 80.6 106.4 97.4 28-Mar-07 05:43 19-Jan-07 05:19 S16447 peg
33469109 69 1337600 80.6 12.9 61.9 14-Mar-07 18:38 19-Jan-07 05:13 RTR007 QV-1
33475369 69 13705728 1285 136.9 62.9 05-Apr-07 17:05 02-Oct-03 14:46 simba1999 jochen
33484673 69 14892417 510.2 110.3 54.3 03-Apr-07 02:23 15-Nov-05 16:00 Obsidian D4100pc
33489727 69 6395648 80.6 7.3 34.3 14-Mar-07 04:26 19-Jan-07 05:13 RTR007 QV-2
33490007 70 1043201 251.0 51.7 59.7 08-Apr-07 13:59 01-Aug-06 20:23 darkshikari Athlon64
33498719 69 7151976 570.7 -41.5 18.5 31-Jan-07 07:32 16-Sep-05 03:12 bjtags bjtags
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-09, 21:13   #9
tha
 
tha's Avatar
 
Dec 2002

787 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
Then why do I still see these 18 first-time LL assignments on the status file?
I did not check them but most or all of them will have been from the batches that were reassigned due to error codes <> 0 returned with the results. So there is a result known, but the result is not considered reliable enough to pass for a first time LL test.
tha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-10, 19:40   #10
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

17·263 Posts
Default

On a related point ...
I just noticed that on the PrimeNet Individual Accounts Page where it defines the various test it says:

"Double-check assignments are identical to Lucas-Lehmer assignments, however a (D) also appears to the right of the exponent. These comparatively rare tests recompute earlier residues of questionable reliability."

... comparatively rare tests ... of questionable reliability ...

Does this imply that NOT ALL LL tests are double checked. In fact this statement suggests to me that MOST ARE NOT double checked.

On the other hand the: http://www.mersenne.org/math.htm page states:

"To verify that a first-time Lucas-Lehmer primality test was performed without error, GIMPS runs the primality test a second time."

This statement suggest to me that ALL are double checked?

As well when I look at the numbers in the "Double Check Avail" column it looks just as high as the numbers in the "LL Avail" column, again suggesting ALL exponents are double checked?

Do you what is the correct answer?
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-10, 19:56   #11
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

769210 Posts
Default

All LL tests are double-checked, eventually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
"Double-check assignments are identical to Lucas-Lehmer assignments, however a (D) also appears to the right of the exponent. These comparatively rare tests recompute earlier residues of questionable reliability."

... comparatively rare tests ... of questionable reliability ...
It is rare, however, to find an ace programmer who is also an ace technical writer who obsessively reviews all web page wording every time the project is tweaked.

Quote:
Does this imply < snip >
No, it just imp^H^H^Hreveals that this is a volunteer-run project. :-}

Thank you for bring that wording to our collective attention, petrw1 !!

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2007-04-10 at 20:06
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another milestone! tcharron PrimeNet 3 2013-08-29 06:44
Another milestone frmky Msieve 7 2012-04-25 22:12
Big milestone coming up schickel Aliquot Sequences 8 2011-07-29 10:54
New Milestone opyrt Prime Sierpinski Project 65 2010-10-06 13:18
Milestone davieddy PrimeNet 2 2007-09-08 12:38

All times are UTC. The time now is 20:29.

Thu Dec 3 20:29:30 UTC 2020 up 16:40, 1 user, load averages: 1.46, 1.37, 1.28

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.