20150314, 16:09  #12 
Aug 2002
Rovereto (Italy)
3×53 Posts 
Precisely. I was just offering some spare cycles to do some targeted work, if needed... and without contraindications of any sort...

20150314, 16:47  #13 
"Victor de Hollander"
Aug 2011
the Netherlands
2^{3}×3×7^{2} Posts 
My apologies to the people who 'lost' GPU hours because I uploaded my results earlier then them. If you care about the TF credits you can PM me and I'll run some TF that they can report.
For the record: I'm still running some TF and P1 on the second exponent. 
20150314, 19:02  #14 
Feb 2010
Sweden
173 Posts 
I do not live for TF credit, but as we talk, I lost some in the beginning of 2M range, due to your excursion to TF65 . As a compensation I demand that you complete the expos to TF66 (you know the first 196 expos in 2M range) . No, seriously I do not care, but if you are willing to extent 2M's a bit more, please do, I will finish all to TF68, but my GPU is slower than yours. So please help, since you started there. By the way I am running Pminus1 for the second candidate with B1=1300000, B2=130000000. What are your B1s, B2s?

20150314, 20:11  #15  
"Victor de Hollander"
Aug 2011
the Netherlands
2^{3}×3×7^{2} Posts 
Quote:
Do you have more work queued/assignments in the 2M range that I should be aware of? I'm currently doing 2.0M2.2M to 65 and after that 2.7M2.9M to 65bits. 

20150314, 20:27  #16 
Feb 2010
Sweden
173 Posts 
No, I am running 2M from TF65 to TF68 (slowly). So you can submit your 2M TF65 work without any concern. What I was asking is to help extend 2.02.09999M to TF66 (or if you wish to TF68). My game in 2.02.1M range is to see if we complete everything to TF68, also ECM's first level (B1=50000) and some extended Pminus1 (B1=1e08, B2=5e09) how many will survive. However, I do not mind some help (just to coordinate the effort in order not to do double work). I played this game for 2 years now, I expect to finish in 5 years.
Last fiddled with by bloodIce on 20150314 at 20:29 
20150314, 21:49  #17 
May 2013
East. Always East.
11×157 Posts 
With enough mismatched residues, does it become a good idea to triplecheck as well? Maybe with a safer FFT or something if that might have been what caused the excessive mismatches?

20150314, 22:49  #18  
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
2·5·7·47 Posts 
Quote:
There's a good number out there that have had 2 mismatched runs and need a basic triplecheck. By the way, Sergey Nosov who has the assignment on 47,540,719 may have seen this thread and did a manual reservation, asking for that exponent specifically. It's far enough ahead of the current DC assignments that any other explanation seems unlikely. That's why I was hoping if someone took it, they'd reply here to let other people know. 

20150314, 23:31  #19  
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
2×5×7×47 Posts 
Quote:
There are definitely some oddities in the data... I mean, there are some winners like this one: http://www.mersenne.org/M2397103 Of course all of the bad ones were from the same user, and there's a triple verification on it. That one is the record for most bad residues. Other multiple bad ones with more than 4 distinct residues: 16073131 = 9 different residues 23057101 = 8 (this one should be tripleverified) 12136727 = 7 2513153 = 6 10916119 = 6 26026433 = 6 30078407 = 6 (another worthy of a tripleverification, even though that one user apparently tested it *17* times and got the same matching residue each time, besides the 5 bad ones) 2525329 = 5 5094653 = 5 7021433 = 5 26146763 = 5 41940097 = 5 If you only see one entry in the history, that means the same user provided the matching residue. They are distinct in the database with the residues and different shiftcounts, but there's something happening that coalesces the history to that single one... I should look into that. But yeah, the code will NOT treat it as a valid DC if the shiftcount is the same, like if you submitted the same manual result more than once. For example: http://www.mersenne.org/M23057101 There are another 147 exponents that have 4 distinct residues, 2766 with 3 distinct residues, and a whopping 53,825 that have 2 distinct residues. Undoubtedly some of those are still in need of a matching test, but I wasn't looking for that specifically. Last fiddled with by Madpoo on 20150314 at 23:34 

20150315, 03:38  #20 
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada
3×37×41 Posts 
2513153 DONE...
....

20150315, 04:34  #21 
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA
5·223 Posts 
I'll do 2525329...

20150315, 05:04  #22 
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
2·5·7·47 Posts 
That's good and all, but I should have been more clear that all of those have been verified at this point. Just those 2 that I mentioned probably need an independent check since the matching residues both came from the same user.
There's another thread going on where I just started talking about doing triple checks where the first and second tests were done by the same user. Those 2 exponents I mentioned might not be listed there once I put up the list since it only includes exponents where *only* 2 results are recorded, just as a start. 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Double checks  casmith789  PrimeNet  7  20150526 00:53 
Doublechecks under M24xxxxxx  DW52  PrimeNet  7  20110407 04:47 
Double checks  Rastus  Data  1  20031219 18:20 
How do I get rid of the Triple Checks??  outlnder  Lounge  4  20030407 18:06 
Doublechecks come in pairs?  BigRed  Software  1  20021020 05:29 