What does "Unverified LL" mean?

[LiquidNitrogen]

Sorry for so many questions, I looked around online and did not see this mentioned anywhere.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by LiquidNitrogen

Sorry for so many questions, I looked around online and did not see this mentioned anywhere.

I believe it means either:

1) the ll test has never been double checked or;
2) if it has been double checked the residues don't match and so a third check etc. may be needed to figure the correct residue.

of course I'm a crap source for information.

[Mini-Geek]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

I believe it means either:

1) the ll test has never been double checked or;
2) if it has been double checked the residues don't match and so a third check etc. may be needed to figure the correct residue.

Yep, that's right.

Originally Posted by science_man_88

of course I'm a crap source for information.

Well, this time anyway, you were spot on.

For more info, see http://www.mersenne.org/various/math.php

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by LiquidNitrogen

Sorry for so many questions, I looked around online and did not see this mentioned anywhere.

A more concise answer:

there has been at least one LL, but not two LLs with matching residues.

science_man_88's part 1) might be interpreted as including the cases where there has not yet been any LL test at all. But GIMPS does not count not-yet-LL-tested exponents as "unverified LL".

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

Yep, that's right.

Well, this time anyway, you were spot on.

For more info, see http://www.mersenne.org/various/math.php

thanks for the knowledge I'm learning something. and the link ( I've already made a PARI version of that TF method, and it appears to work).

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

science_man_88's part 1) might be interpreted as including the cases where there has not yet been any LL test at all. But GIMPS does not count not-yet-LL-tested exponents as "unverified LL".

Only your logic would delibrately misinterpret "an LL test" as
"not an LLtest"!

OTOH if you viewed an erroneous LLtest as "no LL test",
it might help you get the gist of my "MPs via DC" post.

[LiquidNitrogen]

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

For more info, see http://www.mersenne.org/various/math.php

Thanks, a great page, lots of good info.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by LiquidNitrogen

Thanks, a great page, lots of good info.

yeah like I said I've already tried implementing the TF method they use there in PARI and, I've already PM'd mini geek about something I realized about what a modified form of it might be able to do ( though the numbers get bigger quicker in my idea).