![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
"Patrik Johansson"
Aug 2002
Uppsala, Sweden
42510 Posts |
![]()
I just did a successful double-check of 33238477 with residue D12F51397BCA233C. There is also a bad result for this exponent with residue D12F51397BCA23__ (by Daniel Weijand, computer name C7364A0E9). It is obvious that this result is not really a bad result, but somehow the masked bits made it into the database.
I looked in some old status files that I have kept, and the result of the first test looks like Code:
33238477,S67532,C7364A0E9,W?, Code:
33238477 69 0xD12F51397BCA23__ 01-Sep-03 14:16 S67532 C7364A0E9 Code:
33238477,S01167,laptop,WZ1,00000000 Code:
33238477 69 D 0xD12F51397BCA23__ 11-Nov-03 03:17 DL laptop Does anybody know what has happened? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2·7·563 Posts |
![]()
Well, from my fuzzy ancient memories....
A v4 server hiccup, the details of which I've long since forgotten about, caused some LL results to be lost -- only recoverable from a report that showed the masked bottom 8 bits. At the time, I figured it was best to add the results to the database without valid bottom bits so that the exponents would not be handed out as first-time tests and the user received proper CPU credit. In looking the last pre-v5 database, it looks like there were 4 such cases: 18050569,19857121,33238477,33254747 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Largest number of LL tests before matching residues achieved? | sdbardwick | Lounge | 1 | 2015-02-03 15:03 |
Can 1227133513 be the only composite number matching the conditions? | miket | Math | 5 | 2014-08-12 00:41 |
Three matching tests not closing exponent? | Dubslow | PrimeNet | 8 | 2012-04-27 18:19 |
"Verified" LLs with non-matching short residues? | cheesehead | Data | 6 | 2010-12-27 22:47 |
Masked residue | schneelocke | PrimeNet | 6 | 2003-11-22 01:26 |