20030927, 19:02  #1 
Sep 2003
5031_{8} Posts 
Project Unsportsmanlike: gunning for curtisc
The following are exponents that:
1) have been LL tested once 2) have been LL tested by curtisc! 3) have been tested on machines that may be more errorprone than average, based on past historical results 4) are not currently assigned by Primenet Doing an early doublecheck of these exponents could: a) Find a mismatch with curtisc's result, which means he loses credit when a triplecheck is done later to confirm that his result was bad. b) Find a Mersenne prime that curtisc missed (OK, highly unlikely). Warning: the errorproneness of these machines has been determined based on very low stats. For instance the machine that returned the first 3 exponents below has one knowngood result and two knownbad results for an error rate of 66%. Warning: curtisc actually has a fairly low overall error rate, whereas Team_Prime_Rib has a number of errorprone (presumably overclocked) machines. So he could turn around and test some of TPR's errorprone firsttime tests and cause TPR to lose credit. Ordered in decreasing order of likeliness to be erroneous. The top exponents were for a machine with 66% error rate, the bottom one for a machine with 6% error rate (all based on very low stats, however). DoubleCheck=13695317,65,1 DoubleCheck=17514929,65,1 DoubleCheck=18500561,66,1 DoubleCheck=16760893,65,1 DoubleCheck=16000987,65,0 DoubleCheck=16164389,65,1 DoubleCheck=16749487,65,1 DoubleCheck=17723819,65,1 DoubleCheck=16179931,65,1 DoubleCheck=16480921,65,1 DoubleCheck=17218867,65,1 DoubleCheck=18124811,66,1 DoubleCheck=14605973,65,1 DoubleCheck=16665697,65,1 DoubleCheck=12562483,64,1 DoubleCheck=16853293,65,1 Last fiddled with by GP2 on 20030930 at 02:02 
20030927, 19:09  #2 
Sep 2003
5·11·47 Posts 
There are a number of cases where we might want to do early doublechecks of exponents.
George is already doing this for firsttime tests that return most kinds of nonzero error code. It could also be done for results returned by machines that are suspected of being errorprone based on previous stats. The problem is, the server only hands out the currently lowest available exponent for doublechecking. So if the leading edge of doublechecking is sweeping through the 10.2M range, it will be a long time (maybe years) before an exponent in the 17M range gets assigned for automatic doublechecking. Ideally, there should be some mechanism where the server occasionally randomly tosses out a nonlowestavailable exponent for early doublechecking. Then these could be done for Primenet credit. But if the only way to do such early double checks is by manual testing, then it could be a project for volunteers. George how do you currently handle early double checks of nonzeroerrorcode results? Do you just do them yourself, or is there a more formal mechanism? 
20030927, 21:47  #3 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE
2^{2}·691 Posts 
GP2,
George has a system for this. He tosses all those exponents that have nonzero error codes back in the pile as LL tests. He does it manuall so it happens once every few months. Since they are assigned as LL tests they are on the top of the pile and get assigned quickly. However, this method does not deal with exponents that are from suspect machines but with zero error codes. You may want to send him a list of such exponents and he will toss them in the next time he does a manual release. All these exponents including the ones you listed above should easily work with Primenet and for Primenet credit. There is no reason to run them as manual tests. You wonn't be breaking anything by running them with Primenet. 
20030928, 04:40  #4 
Aug 2002
2^{3}·5^{2} Posts 
For the past several months shaneamy and I have been running doublechecks of all numbers in the range 10.95M  11.0138M (see threads Doublechecking 10950053  10987343 and Doublechecking 10987349  11013853). Among these we've doublechecked 64 curtisc exponents without finding a single error.
But, in the spirit of this thread, we have eliminated four curtisc exponents via P1: Code:
Exponent Factor 10987841 3602179992480329067961 10953673 1197987487463370010447 10956797 2035213159147168949089 10974919 111036620818926603303137 
20030928, 06:06  #5 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE
2^{2}×691 Posts 
GP2,
Why are you gunning for curtisc? He is #2. If anything, you should be going after #1. Especially since TPR has many "latent" bad tests due to bad overclocks. <ducks> 
20030928, 12:39  #6  
Sep 2003
5×11×47 Posts 
Quote:
But you're right, it's better to avoid manual tests. After the next release of data files (which ought to be in a day or so) I should have a fairly complete list of "errorprone" firsttime exponents, so we can take it from there. 

20030928, 19:03  #7 
Aug 2002
2·3·53 Posts 
You will find a lot of bad results and triple checks needed from outlnder boxes. Do not worry, all those boxes are gone. I no longer crunch with them.

20030928, 23:34  #8 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE
2^{2}×691 Posts 
GP2, that was meant to be tongue in cheeck since I'm from TPR too!! BTW, our folks were ambitious with their overclocking but more importantly relied on the torture test to see if an overclock is stable or not. Well, turns out the stress/torture test was not reliable and machines that passed it still returned bad results. If anything, our experience has shown that the best way to check the stability of the machine is to run a few DCs and wait a week to see the results show up in the LUCAS_V.TXT file. DO NOT rely on the torture test,
Anyway, I think your efforts are wonderful, I had many of the things you have done on my wishlist for a long time and time was the only thing that had prevented me for so long. Regardless it is really good of you to do all this work. Much appreciated! 
20030929, 15:49  #9  
Sep 2003
A19_{16} Posts 
Quote:
I think you're right. If George is willing I'll just send him a batch of such exponents after the next release of the data files (which will hopefully include the computerid in HRF3.TXT). I think it would be legitimate to release exponents from errorprone machines as "first time" LL tests because there's a much higher than average probability of getting a different residue. So for people who request only firsttime tests because they hope to be the next Mersenne prime discoverer, I don't think they'd mind getting these exponents to work on. All machines could be classified as either "errorprone", "not errorprone", or "unknown". The unknown machines would be the ones that have returned nothing but large exponents and none of them have ever been verified as good or bad. So Mersennearies could do manual doublechecks of small random samples of exponents from such "unknown" machines, to definitively classify every machine as either "errorprone" or "not errorprone". In this case, it might not be legitimate to release such exponents to Primenet as "first time" LL tests, because they really would be just routine doublechecks with no more than average (low) chance of getting a different result, and people who request true firsttime LL tests because they hope to find a prime might be annoyed to get assigned such exponents. So to summarize: the "curtisc" exponents above probably should just get sent to Primenet for reassignment. But there will be some other manual LL tests for Mersennearies to do... 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Curtisc has retaken #1 from GPUto72  NBtarheel_33  GPU to 72  11  20130805 07:43 
Stuck curtisc exponents?  NBtarheel_33  PrimeNet  70  20120807 11:06 
Special project #3b  Project 400  schickel  Aliquot Sequences  307  20111028 01:29 
Special project #3a  Project 300  schickel  Aliquot Sequences  29  20110812 17:45 
pi(x) project  ATH  Miscellaneous Math  4  20060830 17:59 