mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-11-02, 13:08   #1
Aillas
 
Aillas's Avatar
 
Oct 2002
France

2×5×13 Posts
Default The Month of Double Check effort

Hi,

there is almost a gap of 20M exponents between head of LL and LL-D.

I don't know if this option has already been discussed, but there is maybe a solution to fill the gap without annoying LL workers.

Primenet could set up something called "The Month of the Double Check".

During one month by year (not too much), P95 users with option "Whatever makes the most sense" will receive only double check exponents to compute.

This will help to reduce the gap and to prove M4X.

What do you think about?

Thanks,

Last fiddled with by Aillas on 2011-11-02 at 13:09 Reason: Change title
Aillas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-11-02, 13:19   #2
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

5·1,889 Posts
Default

My twopence is: there is no need for it. Why we would want the DC front to catch up with LL front? If we would do so, then many old computers who now are crunching doublechecks would be out of business....

There is a long discussion here around somewhere...
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-11-02, 15:13   #3
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3×29×83 Posts
Default

Well, I do have two going right now, out of three workers, but then it's LL until December. LaurV, it seems to me that one month a year would not push it anywhere near the current wavefront; that's progressing relatively quickly at (it seems) a million every couple of months. Even if we pushed the DC wavefront from 28M to 38M, that would be a huge increase yet still leave >10M available for old DC machines.
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-11-02, 15:31   #4
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

32×5×103 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubslow View Post
Well, I do have two going right now, out of three workers, but then it's LL until December. LaurV, it seems to me that one month a year would not push it anywhere near the current wavefront; that's progressing relatively quickly at (it seems) a million every couple of months. Even if we pushed the DC wavefront from 28M to 38M, that would be a huge increase yet still leave >10M available for old DC machines.
In another thread (which may be found yet) a few months ago George said he was monitoring DC and for those who chose LL he was sending 15 or 25% as DC instead. This works our to more than 1 month's worth
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-11-02, 15:55   #5
davieddy
 
davieddy's Avatar
 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

2·3·13·83 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aillas View Post
Hi,

there is almost a gap of 20M exponents between head of LL and LL-D.

I don't know if this option has already been discussed, but there is maybe a solution to fill the gap without annoying LL workers.

Primenet could set up something called "The Month of the Double Check".

During one month by year (not too much), P95 users with option "Whatever makes the most sense" will receive only double check exponents to compute.

This will help to reduce the gap and to prove M4X.

What do you think about?

Thanks,
Without wishing to be offensive, this whole
venture is a load of crap.

Pakistani cricketers notwithstanding, it is a racing
certainty that there are no more primes below 50M.

Unless we get the LL wavefront going, we ain't gonna find
another prime for about 6 years.

And if the DC wavefront was 4x smaller than 1st time LLs,
that would make DC a better bet for finding one of the *******s

David
davieddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-11-02, 15:57   #6
davieddy
 
davieddy's Avatar
 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

145128 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
My twopence is: there is no need for it. Why we would want the DC front to catch up with LL front? If we would do so, then many old computers who now are crunching doublechecks would be out of business....

There is a long discussion here around somewhere...
Well said mate!

David
davieddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-11-02, 16:14   #7
Aillas
 
Aillas's Avatar
 
Oct 2002
France

2·5·13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davieddy View Post
Without wishing to be offensive, this whole
venture is a load of crap.
No problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davieddy View Post
Pakistani cricketers notwithstanding, it is a racing
certainty that there are no more primes below 50M.

Unless we get the LL wavefront going, we ain't gonna find
another prime for about 6 years.

And if the DC wavefront was 4x smaller than 1st time LLs,
that would make DC a better bet for finding one of the *******s

David
But in my point of view, to prove Mersenne Prime is "ALMOST" as important as to find another Mersenne prime.


Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
In another thread (which may be found yet) a few months ago George said he was monitoring DC and for those who chose LL he was sending 15 or 25% as DC instead. This works our to more than 1 month's worth
I didn't know about this feature. But it's not incompatible with my proposal
Aillas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-11-02, 23:11   #8
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aillas View Post
to prove Mersenne Prime is "ALMOST" as important as to find another Mersenne prime.
But proving Mersenne primes is not what the DC assignment category is for!

DC is for:

(1) proving that Mersenne numbers shown to be composite by the first LL test are also shown to be composite by a second LL test with matching residue,

or

(2) showing that the first LL test result may have been erroneous (because the second LL test returns a different nonzero residue), and thus that the particular Mersenne number needs to be triple-checked,

or

(3) (a remote possibility) finding (not proving) a Mersenne prime that was previously missed because the first LL test on that number returned an erroneous nonzero residue.

Proving a Mersenne prime (after an LL test has returned a zero residue) is done by immediately repeating the LL test for that number on fast dedicated systems, not by making a DC assignment through PrimeNet.

- -

Now, it is sometimes said that completing the DCs for all exponents below a certain limit has proved that there are no remaining undiscovered Mersenne primes below that limit. But this means that all remaining nonprimes (i.e., omitting the known Mersenne primes) below that limit are proved to be composite -- not the same as proving any of them to be prime.
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-11-02, 23:49   #9
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

160658 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesehead View Post
But proving Mersenne primes is not what the DC assignment category is for!

DC is for:

(1) proving that Mersenne numbers shown to be composite by the first LL test are also shown to be composite by a second LL test with matching residue,

or

(2) showing that the first LL test result may have been erroneous (because the second LL test returns a different nonzero residue), and thus that the particular Mersenne number needs to be triple-checked,

or

(3) (a remote possibility) finding (not proving) a Mersenne prime that was previously missed because the first LL test on that number returned an erroneous nonzero residue.

Proving a Mersenne prime (after an LL test has returned a zero residue) is done by immediately repeating the LL test for that number on fast dedicated systems, not by making a DC assignment through PrimeNet.

- -

Now, it is sometimes said that completing the DCs for all exponents below a certain limit has proved that there are no remaining undiscovered Mersenne primes below that limit. But this means that all remaining nonprimes (i.e., omitting the known Mersenne primes) below that limit are proved to be composite -- not the same as proving any of them to be prime.
I think he meant all of the above, but grammar derped.
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-11-03, 00:14   #10
Christenson
 
Christenson's Avatar
 
Dec 2010
Monticello

5×359 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aillas View Post
Hi,

there is almost a gap of 20M exponents between head of LL and LL-D.

I don't know if this option has already been discussed, but there is maybe a solution to fill the gap without annoying LL workers.

Primenet could set up something called "The Month of the Double Check".

During one month by year (not too much), P95 users with option "Whatever makes the most sense" will receive only double check exponents to compute.

This will help to reduce the gap and to prove M4X.

What do you think about?

Thanks,
If you want to reduce the gap, do P-1 and/or GPU TF in the DC areas...or run CudaLucas on your GPU. All of these things reduce the gap....for relatively little effort.
Christenson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-11-03, 00:33   #11
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3×29×83 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christenson View Post
....for relatively little effort.
I'm pretty sure most people already put "little effort" into GIMPS; I certainly don't.
(Exceptions of course include George, TheJudger, you, and all the other programmers.)
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Double Check Unregistered Information & Answers 3 2011-10-01 04:38
First check and double check llrnet servers. opyrt Prime Sierpinski Project 3 2009-01-02 01:50
Double-check check? M0CZY Software 15 2008-10-30 14:20
Here's why we double-check... gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 0 2008-02-11 19:23
Best month ever for PSPs prp effort ltd Prime Sierpinski Project 22 2006-03-02 17:55

All times are UTC. The time now is 17:47.

Tue May 11 17:47:22 UTC 2021 up 33 days, 12:28, 1 user, load averages: 3.13, 2.95, 3.11

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.