20190515, 18:58  #23  
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
6267_{8} Posts 
Quote:
It's just funny that the residues seem almost arbitrary in how many bits they would include... 9 bits, 25, 48, whatever, who cares. 

20190515, 19:12  #24  
"Robert Gerbicz"
Oct 2005
Hungary
2^{4}×83 Posts 
Quote:


20190515, 19:34  #25  
Sep 2003
2·1,289 Posts 
Quote:


20190515, 19:42  #26  
Sep 2003
2×1,289 Posts 
Quote:
More likely than not, it is, in fact, composite. 

20190515, 20:13  #27  
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
3255_{10} Posts 
Quote:
Anyone with an assignment below 30 million who may still be working on it and will one day turn it in, well, they'd be out of luck. As it turns out, I didn't spot any < 30e6 assignments that have checked in since May 1, but there are some just above that threshold: M30574289 M30574351 M30574409 M30574529 M30718351 Those poor souls (or maybe the same anonymous user...I think the first 4 are for sure). Assigned in 2012, expired in 2014, definitely no longer needed, but they still keep checking in some 6.5 years after being assigned. These 2 were last updated in March, so not super recently but who knows, maybe they only check in once every few years: M25413671 M25413779 Maybe after 8.5 years, they'll actually go above 0% progress sometime soon? Anyway, point being, people can test out a small exponent to see if they match to confirm their machine is fine, but we really don't need those checked in. If someone (like me) felt like doing triplechecks on small exponents just to confirm that the old code was just as good as the new code (or vice versa) then we can always make exceptions for a oneoff project. 

20190515, 20:30  #28 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
FA1_{16} Posts 
Triple checks are good for the project, and a nice way to test hardware/software/etc.
I'm in favor of not recording any test beyond a quadcheck, and I'm not sure recording a 4th confirming test is useful. If it's easier to set an exponent cutoff, perhaps set it to the level where triplechecks have been done for all smaller exponents? 
20190515, 21:22  #29  
Sep 2003
101000010010_{2} Posts 
Quote:
All of the exponents with a very large number of results (other than 1,000,003 itself) appear to be from longextinct runaway processes involving a single user, rather than from multiple users). The numbers below seem like a lot, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of millions of exponents tested. The exponents with more than 10 good results are (as of May 1): Code:
656 21934219 (last runaway result: 20100708) 306 6522911 (last runaway result: 20020102) 245 8893783 (last runaway result: 20030526) 79 12670673 (last runaway result: 20041122) 78 18598117 (last runaway result: 20071117) 73 5721461 (last runaway result: 20001105) 67 1000003 (still getting 10 or fewer results per year from many different random users) 66 16213667 (last runaway result: 20060814) 62 19042577 (last runaway result: 20120222) 55 4983379 (last runaway result: 20011124) 45 9368201 (last runaway result: 20000810) 43 18491911 (last runaway result: 20040127) 37 13283969 (last runaway result: 20020706) 33 32629271 (last runaway result: 20071117) 33 15845057 (last runaway result: 20140721) 32 41224723 (last runaway result: 20081116) 32 22118647 (last runaway result: 20040713) 32 20234831 (last runaway result: 20050922) 32 16401349 (last runaway result: 20031008) 31 38973653 (last runaway result: 20080614) 29 8883257 (last runaway result: 20000216) 28 11425133 (last runaway result: 20060301) 27 30180739 (last runaway result: 20150105) 25 11636461 (last runaway result: 20010804) 22 11157473 (last runaway result: 20040308) 21 20494237 (last runaway result: 20031008) 21 13719179 (last runaway result: 20060814) 20 28232483 (last runaway result: 20110806) 20 13693733 (last runaway result: 20060201) 19 28488127 18 41012981 18 30078407 18 14942209 17 34835443 17 34295449 17 34242407 17 1000969 (last runaway result: 20090516) 15 27531443 15 24404123 15 21525227 15 18445487 15 14417057 14 375091 14 375029 14 21507709 14 15051347 13 375103 13 375101 13 34164479 13 18732037 12 4353311 12 30563657 12 15511487 12 15388291 11 8653889 11 3365707 11 30573449 11 18530399 11 17692357 11 13788781 10 28864207 10 28488913 10 28106591 10 13191533 The exponents with more than 10 bad results (as of May 1): Code:
67 13514429 (only one appears on the webpage) 67 12905257 (only one appears on the webpage) 32 10670573 (only one appears on the webpage) 31 10828327 (only one appears on the webpage) 28 10855109 (only one appears on the webpage) 26 11648237 (only one appears on the webpage) 24 13322633 (only one appears on the webpage) 23 7953793 (only three appear on the webpage, one real user) 20 7339489 (only five appear on the webpage, two real users) 19 7516657 (only four appear on the webpage, one real user) 19 12934189 (only one appears on the webpage) 14 14691829 (only one appears on the webpage) 12 2397103 (actually 12, but only one real user) 

20190518, 16:11  #30 
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
6267_{8} Posts 
Ugh... that one with all the results. Takes a VERY long time to load. I really need to fix up how that page loads results for a single exponent so it's faster.
As an example, here's the XML version of the report for that exponent and note how fast it loads: M21934219 (XML) 
20190518, 19:14  #31 
Feb 2005
Colorado
3×11×13 Posts 

20190519, 13:44  #32  
Jan 2004
Milwaukee, WI
2^{2}·37 Posts 
Done with GPUOwl most likely.
Quote:


20190519, 15:34  #33 
Feb 2005
Colorado
429_{10} Posts 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Largest number of LL tests before matching residues achieved?  sdbardwick  Lounge  1  20150203 15:03 
Can 1227133513 be the only composite number matching the conditions?  miket  Math  5  20140812 00:41 
Three matching tests not closing exponent?  Dubslow  PrimeNet  8  20120427 18:19 
Residue not matching due to masked bits  patrik  Data  1  20110924 23:44 
"Verified" LLs with nonmatching short residues?  cheesehead  Data  6  20101227 22:47 