20150726, 21:00  #56 
Jul 2003
So Cal
2×3×349 Posts 
There lies the problem. You only have the residue mod 2^64. Therefore after performing the loop, you know s = (res + k * 2^64) mod f for some unknown k. The problem is that you can always find a value of k that works for any residue. For your M2000143 example, the decimal residue following the loop using f is 1838775420032325409. From this and the verified residue, you can find k = 815412537616906440. For the invalid residue 0x6AFB854059F08BEF, you can find k = 1201294030677328637.

20150726, 21:20  #57 
Jul 2003
So Cal
82E_{16} Posts 
I'll take all of seven on the second list, 34769731 to 45951173 inclusive.

20150726, 22:18  #58  
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
37×89 Posts 
Quote:
I won't worry about it terribly though. There's around 26,00027,000 exponents where the residue is verified, but has a factor. Another nearly 18K exponents where a factor was found after only 1 LL test was done. I thought it'd be cool to figure out, for those 18K tests, whether the residue was good or not. It'd be a pretty impressive and large set of data to figure out the reliability of the LL tester. 

20150726, 22:44  #59  
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
37×89 Posts 
Quote:
Plus the tens of thousands of "good" results I can pull out, where those verifying residues exist but it was factored. Yeah, I think that kind of info is useful, and maybe I can get George to approve adding new "result types" instead of the single "factored" code that exists now. Like: Factored  Unverified Factored  Verified Factored  Bad I don't know if we'd need a "Factored  Suspect" to indicate if the residue was originally marked "suspect" or not. Don't know if that matters as much. 

20150726, 22:54  #60  
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
20C0_{16} Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 20150726 at 23:11 

20150726, 23:17  #61 
Jul 2003
So Cal
2×3×349 Posts 
Huh?
Code:
(16:16) gp > f=6174103888966755151;s=4;b=8861823203214920687;for(x=3,2000143,s=Mod(Mod(s,f)^22,1<<64));if(lift(s)==lift(Mod(Mod(b,f),1<<64)),print("factor found:"f)) (16:16) gp > lift(s) %8 = 1838775420032325409 (16:16) gp > lift(Mod(Mod(b,f),1<<64)) %9 = 2687719314248165536 Last fiddled with by frmky on 20150726 at 23:19 
20150727, 00:21  #62 
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
10010101101000_{2} Posts 
I just took the last 23 in this list. As in, I now "own" all of the candidates from the list of 47. Better build another list Aaron....
BTW, seven from my first batch of 14 from the original list are now completed. None matched. All but the highest two will be completed in about three hours. BTW2... Aaron, two in the list of 47 were suboptimally TF'ed. Anything between 40M and 50M should be TF'ed to 72. I'll TF them myself in parallel. 
20150727, 00:30  #63  
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
37×89 Posts 
Quote:
Code:
exponent Bad Good Unk Sus worktodo 37952297 19 3 5 5 DoubleCheck=37952297,71,1 41573579 17 2 6 3 DoubleCheck=41573579,72,1 41626679 11 2 6 10 DoubleCheck=41626679,72,1 41678927 17 2 6 3 DoubleCheck=41678927,72,1 

20150727, 01:23  #64 
"/X\(‘‘)/X\"
Jan 2013
5563_{8} Posts 
In less than a day, I'll begin finishing the trial factoring for about 90 50M+ exponents per day. Finishing the trial factoring of the 50M+ exponents will take me approximately two weeks. That should be good for daily lists for a while. :)

20150727, 01:29  #65 
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
37·89 Posts 
Here are some more:
Code:
exponent Bad Good Unk Sus worktodo 34865477 9 2 15 8 DoubleCheck=34865477,71,1 34949749 9 2 15 8 DoubleCheck=34949749,71,1 34996139 5 1 3 0 DoubleCheck=34996139,71,1 35143627 5 1 10 6 DoubleCheck=35143627,71,1 35476471 5 1 10 6 DoubleCheck=35476471,71,1 35578973 9 2 15 8 DoubleCheck=35578973,71,1 36131197 9 2 15 8 DoubleCheck=36131197,71,1 36337391 9 2 15 9 DoubleCheck=36337391,71,1 36453931 5 1 10 6 DoubleCheck=36453931,71,1 36529453 5 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=36529453,71,1 36808613 5 1 10 6 DoubleCheck=36808613,71,1 36815837 9 2 15 8 DoubleCheck=36815837,71,1 37260259 5 1 9 2 DoubleCheck=37260259,71,1 38501137 5 0 6 3 DoubleCheck=38501137,72,1 40882241 9 2 15 9 DoubleCheck=40882241,72,1 41471879 9 2 15 8 DoubleCheck=41471879,71,1 41501183 5 0 5 0 DoubleCheck=41501183,72,1 41620973 11 2 1 8 DoubleCheck=41620973,72,1 42019207 5 1 9 2 DoubleCheck=42019207,72,1 42022873 9 2 15 9 DoubleCheck=42022873,72,1 42100753 39 9 13 18 DoubleCheck=42100753,72,1 42174677 9 2 15 8 DoubleCheck=42174677,71,1 42240043 19 4 5 4 DoubleCheck=42240043,72,1 42791519 9 2 15 8 DoubleCheck=42791519,71,1 43263431 9 2 15 8 DoubleCheck=43263431,70,1 
20150727, 01:50  #66  
"/X\(‘‘)/X\"
Jan 2013
3·977 Posts 
Quote:
Edit: should be finished 60 minutes from now. Last fiddled with by Mark Rose on 20150727 at 01:54 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
DoubleDouble Arithmetic  Mysticial  Software  52  20210423 06:51 
Clicking an exponent leads to 404 page  marigonzes  Information & Answers  2  20170214 16:56 
x.265 half the size, double the computation; so if you double again? 1/4th?  jasong  jasong  7  20150817 10:56 
What about doublechecking TF/P1?  137ben  PrimeNet  6  20120313 04:01 
Double the area, Double the volume.  Uncwilly  Puzzles  8  20060703 16:02 