mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Data > Marin's Mersenne-aries

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-08-01, 14:14   #12
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

22×7×103 Posts
Default

When there are no known factors type 5 is the same as type 1:
a^(N*known_factors-1) vs a^(N-1) because known_factors=1

But you do not need to specify type, just let Prime95/mprime use the default type:
PRP=1,2,84946391,-1



Gpuowl only does type1 still I believe, and unless the input format changed in the last few months it should be:
PRP=<AID>,1,2,84946391,-1,75,0

Gpuowl need the ,75,0 at the end for some reason (unless this has changed lately):

Code:
## worktodo.txt
The lines in worktodo.txt must be of one of these forms:
* 70100200
* PRP=FCECE568118E4626AB85ED36A9CC8D4F,1,2,77936867,-1,75,0
ATH is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-02, 00:36   #13
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

8,389 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATH View Post
Version 30 has the new PRP-VDF where it only needs 1 test and a short proof validation instead of a double check.
Do you agree that as any new single LL runs that pop up as suspect, that we should just do a fresh PRP on v30? Roughly the same amount of time to run the test, but savings if a LL-TC were needed.
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-02, 14:06   #14
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

1011010001002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
Do you agree that as any new single LL runs that pop up as suspect, that we should just do a fresh PRP on v30? Roughly the same amount of time to run the test, but savings if a LL-TC were needed.
Yes, Suspect tests should be run with PRP VDF.
If there is 1 Suspect and 1 Unverified LL I guess if the person really wants they can run LL DC because in most cases probably >95% it will match the non-suspect, but PRP-VDF preferred.
ATH is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-06, 22:24   #15
danc2
 
Dec 2019

2×7 Posts
Default Double Counted; One Mistaken Submission of "Prime"

For my account -- Danc2 -- I have a few errors from a couple of modified primenets I have been working on (the errors have been fixed, and we will now have primenet for CUDALucas). I was told posting here is the place to have these fixed in primenet.

Duplicate Submissions
Code:
Manual testing	104923657	C-LL - Mismatch	2020-07-01 14:20	0.0	BDDD133B975F23__	472.5208
Manual testing	104923657	C-LL - Mismatch	2020-07-01 14:20	0.0	BDDD133B975F23__	472.5208
Triple Submissions
Code:
Manual testing	104923649	C-LL - Factored	2020-07-01 08:20	0.0	82CFA7515D5B1AE1	472.5207
Manual testing	104923649	C-LL - Factored	2020-07-01 08:20	0.0	82CFA7515D5B1AE1	472.5207
Manual testing	104923649	C-LL - Factored	2020-07-01 08:20	0.0	82CFA7515D5B1AE1	472.5207
Errant Submissions
Code:
Danc2	108928711	P-LL	2020-08-06 21:41	0.0	M108928711 is prime!	0.2924
I do apologize again for these... and as I said the bugs have been fixed and hopefully they are a necessary evil for us to get a new functioning primenet for CUDALucas.

Last fiddled with by danc2 on 2020-08-06 at 22:24
danc2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-07, 00:18   #16
Runtime Error
 
Sep 2017
USA

12710 Posts
Default

@ Danc2

I'm happy to run these (104923657 & 108928711) as PRPs with the new VDF check to help clear the deck. It looks like @ewmayer has run the first as PRP but judging by the date it probably doesn't have a proof file. I'll P-1 the later too. It should take a couple of days.

(Unfortunately I wasn't able to reserve them. If someone finishes them first, so be it.)
Runtime Error is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-07, 00:31   #17
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

20C516 Posts
Default

RTE, that will settle the prime/not-prime status, but not if the initial run was correct if it was not prime on the first one.

The triple submission of one with a factor is a non-issue for us here. The server verified that it is a factor. So, we know it is not prime.

BTW, PrimeNet is the server. Prime95, mprime, CUDALucas, etc. are the programs.
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-07, 00:51   #18
Runtime Error
 
Sep 2017
USA

127 Posts
Default

Right right.

Also, I grabbed a dozen off the bottom. (13 of you count the one that was already done somehow)

Code:
DoubleCheck=88722407,76,1
DoubleCheck=88727773,76,1
DoubleCheck=88790237,76,1
DoubleCheck=88798639,76,1
DoubleCheck=88807379,76,1
DoubleCheck=88808789,76,1
DoubleCheck=88827503,76,1
DoubleCheck=88903769,76,1
DoubleCheck=88906319,76,1
DoubleCheck=88828589,76,1	<--- someone did this one already
DoubleCheck=88911799,76,1
DoubleCheck=88945781,76,1
DoubleCheck=88976267,76,1
Edit: I'm running them as PRP-VDF instead of LL, but they are reserved as LL-DC. Thanks!

Last fiddled with by Runtime Error on 2020-08-07 at 00:54
Runtime Error is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-07, 08:21   #19
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

5·72 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Runtime Error View Post
Code:
...
DoubleCheck=88828589,76,1	<--- someone did this one already
...
You yourself are listed as the triplechecker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Runtime Error View Post
Edit: I'm running them as PRP-VDF instead of LL, but they are reserved as LL-DC. Thanks!
At least for the non-anonymous first or second time LLs, it would be nice to do the TC with LL, too. This is the only way a non-anonymous user can now if his machine was having an oopsie or the other machine.
Of course, no one will/can force you.
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-07, 14:20   #20
Runtime Error
 
Sep 2017
USA

127 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kruoli View Post
At least for the non-anonymous first or second time LLs, it would be nice to do the TC with LL, too. This is the only way a non-anonymous user can now if his machine was having an oopsie or the other machine.
Yeah, perhaps this needs to be discussed more. UNC Willy had split off another thread that began with me asking about recommended DC protocol, but it devolved into a discussion about server-pushed updates. (Perhaps our exchange will be relocated there.)

If the goal is to "clear the deck" of double checks, then PRP-VDF is the way to go. From above:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATH View Post
Yes, Suspect tests should be run with PRP VDF.
If there is 1 Suspect and 1 Unverified LL I guess if the person really wants they can run LL DC because in most cases probably >95% it will match the non-suspect, but PRP-VDF preferred.
If a known forumite is actively trying to diagnose hardware issues, then I am happy to help with a LL-DC, provided that someone else is just as willing to run another test. But PRP has been out for over a year & everyone should have switched by now. At this point, it would hopefully be finding errors that have already been fixed.
Runtime Error is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-07, 14:37   #21
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

5·72 Posts
Default

You are correct. I skipped the fact that those were exponents with one suspect result. In that case, my reasoning from above weighs in much less.
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Strategic Double Clicking Madpoo Marin's Mersenne-aries 1841 2019-07-16 03:30
PRP triple checks? GP2 Marin's Mersenne-aries 4 2019-03-16 15:31
How often are triple checks released? patrik Data 5 2004-01-31 22:19
How do I get rid of the Triple Checks?? outlnder Lounge 4 2003-04-07 18:06
Triple Checks- How are they disposed of?? outlnder Lounge 6 2003-01-24 22:01

All times are UTC. The time now is 09:38.

Sat Aug 8 09:38:27 UTC 2020 up 22 days, 5:25, 1 user, load averages: 2.57, 2.14, 2.07

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.