mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2019-05-14, 16:34   #12
PBMcL
 
PBMcL's Avatar
 
Jan 2005

2·31 Posts
Default

Oddly enough, one of my assigned LL exponents (47570227) was just factored. Can I remove it from my work-to-do file and get a new assignment without any "penalty" for not reporting a result?
PBMcL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-14, 16:43   #13
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

23·3·17·19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMcL View Post
Oddly enough, one of my assigned LL exponents (47570227) was just factored. Can I remove it from my work-to-do file and get a new assignment without any "penalty" for not reporting a result?
I believe the penalty might be small (because that is down near the bottom end of the current DC range.) If you were working in the middle of the DC range, I think that it might not be a thing at all. Aaron could make it go away. I would not worry and just drop it if I was more than 25% away from finishing.
Uncwilly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-14, 17:35   #14
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

2·13·107 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMcL View Post
Oddly enough, one of my assigned LL exponents (47570227) was just factored. Can I remove it from my work-to-do file and get a new assignment without any "penalty" for not reporting a result?
Remove it from your worktodo.txt and then afterwards go to mersenne.org and login with your account and go to:
https://www.mersenne.org/workload/

Check mark the exponent 47570227 and then check mark in the bottom and click the button "Unreserve checked exponents".
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-14, 17:51   #15
GP2
 
GP2's Avatar
 
Sep 2003

1010000100102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madpoo View Post
And finally I cleaned up all of those funky "Myrman" residues. Most were off by a single bit, usually the last one. But I checked a bunch out and some were off by a bit somewhere else instead, or in addition to, the LSB. Which was strange. And instead of 64-bit residues, they were anywhere from a measly 7-24 bits, or maybe in rare cases 31-32 bits.
It's easy to filter out residues that are shorter than 16 characters (64-bits), so those very old results from Myrman and from Slowinski and others are still marked Verified and can probably be left alone.

To be more precise, there are exactly two 15-hex-digit residues, for 1,586,647 and 3,976,481, which are already marked Bad. Then there are exactly two 12-hex-digit residues, for 1,586,623 and 1,587,121, both Myrman, which are not marked Bad but could be. And everything else is 8 hex digits or less, and therefore very easily distinguished visually from a normal residue. The vast majority are 4 hex digits or less. The largest exponent that has a truncated-length residue is 7,293,379.

Quote:
One final category of "weirdness" I cleaned up... tests that suffered from the unusual bug where the shift count was between exponent-64 and exponent-1 or whatever. The end result was a residue that was kind of truncated to only a certain # of bits which didn't match the real residue.

I had a couple of those myself, and there were a handful (I think 4 or 5) others like that. Ultimately I ended up removing those results. They were technically bad, but because of a particular bug.
Actually, there is still one high-shift-count-bug result left, for 161,761. It just has fewer zeroed high-end bits than some of the others, so it was harder to spot.
GP2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-14, 21:32   #16
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

1E4816 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GP2 View Post
Actually, there is still one high-shift-count-bug result left, for 161,761. It just has fewer zeroed high-end bits than some of the others, so it was harder to spot.
I just tried submitting a new test with a different shift count. It was rejected as not needed. It doesn't show up on the exponent's page.
Uncwilly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-14, 22:23   #17
GP2
 
GP2's Avatar
 
Sep 2003

2×1,289 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
I just tried submitting a new test with a different shift count. It was rejected as not needed. It doesn't show up on the exponent's page.
Currently all new LL results for exponents under 1 million are rejected.

Feel free to add the 70th LL result for M1,000,003 though.

Last fiddled with by GP2 on 2019-05-14 at 22:34
GP2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-14, 22:27   #18
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

23×3×17×19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GP2 View Post
To be more precise, there are exactly two 15-hex-digit residues, for 1,586,647 and 3,976,481, which are already marked Bad.
I added a recheck to 3,976,481 so we would have 2 with non-zero shifts. The one that has a factor in GP2's original message I ignored.
Uncwilly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-15, 04:25   #19
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

2·33·5·31 Posts
Default

Ok, posts 10 and 11 from GP2 and Madpoo settles it. Only bad results were marked as bad. The issue was that when a LL test was run, but a factor found later, the LL test was marked as "verified" regardless of the fact it was good or not (because the exponent was "verified" as being composite, by finding a factor).

Case closed.
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-15, 10:48   #20
S485122
 
S485122's Avatar
 
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium

22·7·53 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMcL View Post
Oddly enough, one of my assigned LL exponents (47570227) was just factored. Can I remove it from my work-to-do file and get a new assignment without any "penalty" for not reporting a result?
It is a pity Sid & Andy (petrw1 on the forum) did not check the reservation status of the exponent before trying to factor it ... and succeeding.

Jacob
S485122 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-15, 15:14   #21
Madpoo
Serpentine Vermin Jar
 
Madpoo's Avatar
 
Jul 2014

62678 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMcL View Post
Oddly enough, one of my assigned LL exponents (47570227) was just factored. Can I remove it from my work-to-do file and get a new assignment without any "penalty" for not reporting a result?
You can just drop it from your work.

Assignments that expire for reasons like that (it was factored or poached) don't count against you.

The only thing that people should worry about is if an assignment expires because it took too long to complete, and the "penalty" is that computer wouldn't be eligible to get the lowest available exponents for a while (category 0, 1, and I think 2 as well?) until its reputation builds back up.
Madpoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-15, 17:59   #22
Madpoo
Serpentine Vermin Jar
 
Madpoo's Avatar
 
Jul 2014

325510 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GP2 View Post
It's easy to filter out residues that are shorter than 16 characters (64-bits), so those very old results from Myrman and from Slowinski and others are still marked Verified and can probably be left alone.

To be more precise, there are exactly two 15-hex-digit residues, for 1,586,647 and 3,976,481, which are already marked Bad. Then there are exactly two 12-hex-digit residues, for 1,586,623 and 1,587,121, both Myrman, which are not marked Bad but could be. And everything else is 8 hex digits or less, and therefore very easily distinguished visually from a normal residue. The vast majority are 4 hex digits or less. The largest exponent that has a truncated-length residue is 7,293,379.
If it was a partial match for as many bits as it had, I left it alone, but that was made harder by the fact that some of the Myrman results had an unusual # of bits that didn't align on 4-bit boundaries, so the most significant hex digit didn't necessarily match. So I resorted to doing an XOR for as many hexits as it had and then eyeballing them in a few cases.

Clearly with M1586623 there's a strange bit shift happening in the middle there, so I will mark it bad like the others, but now you have an idea that I was trying to give that code very benefit of the doubt. In the end though, a bad result is a bad result even if there's some perfectly good reason for it.

Quote:
Actually, there is still one high-shift-count-bug result left, for 161,761. It just has fewer zeroed high-end bits than some of the others, so it was harder to spot.
Ah, I must have overlooked that one. I'll scan again for others since I only did a quick and dirty look previously.
Madpoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
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
Residue not matching due to masked bits patrik Data 1 2011-09-24 23:44
"Verified" LLs with non-matching short residues? cheesehead Data 6 2010-12-27 22:47

All times are UTC. The time now is 20:33.

Sun Mar 29 20:33:01 UTC 2020 up 4 days, 18:06, 2 users, load averages: 2.09, 1.59, 1.47

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.