Strategic Double Clicking

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by LaurV

First, this seems to be unassigned and there is no residue showing non-zero stuff (like your double check you talk about). Then, his point was that if such cases still exist (obviously yes, as you just proved), then it should be nice to have a list with them, so someone can pick worktodo from it and eliminate all the doubt. Can you generate such a list and make it public?

Third, even if all are zero, it may not mean that the number is prime. This is only the tail of the full residue. Statistically, we can get a result with all the last 16 hex digits being zero every 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 exponents...

Take those 3 and do triple checks. The rest of the examples were ones I did a verifying run (they'd already been DC'd and mine matched). That was back in late 2014/early 2015 when I ran through those.

Examples:
M45001289
M57128059
M53878507
M53593511

[LaurV]

Well, it makes no sense for us to TC your DC work, or Jerry's (flashjh) DC work, who all we know they are serious users. No hard feeling, I thought that the list is longer...

[Mark Rose]

Originally Posted by frmky

38746493 needs a quad check.

We matched.

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by LaurV

Well, it makes no sense for us to TC your DC work, or Jerry's (flashjh) DC work, who all we know they are serious users. No hard feeling, I thought that the list is longer...

True, but feel free to tackle these... they still need a DC or TC:

M66921341
M62891251
M79060367

[Madpoo]

Here's another batch of 3:1 bad/good. A new machine has popped into this category with exponents 66M and up. Fun.

exponent	Bad	Good	Unk	Sus	Solo	Mis	worktodo
37556317	6	2	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=37556317,71,1
38469643	7	1	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=38469643,71,1
38554643	9	1	2	0	1	1	DoubleCheck=38554643,71,1
38687069	6	0	1	2	1	2	DoubleCheck=38687069,71,1
50556613	3	1	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=50556613,73,1
51224081	3	1	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=51224081,73,1
51808909	14	4	3	1	3	1	DoubleCheck=51808909,73,1
66003799	3	0	13	0	12	1	DoubleCheck=66003799,75,1
66009547	3	0	13	0	12	1	DoubleCheck=66009547,75,1
66010223	3	0	13	0	12	1	DoubleCheck=66010223,74,1
66028241	3	0	13	0	12	1	DoubleCheck=66028241,74,1
69280429	3	0	13	0	12	1	DoubleCheck=69280429,74,1
69294259	3	0	13	0	12	1	DoubleCheck=69294259,74,1
69695849	3	0	13	0	12	1	DoubleCheck=69695849,74,1
69698221	3	0	13	0	12	1	DoubleCheck=69698221,74,1
69698341	3	0	13	0	12	1	DoubleCheck=69698341,74,1
69699943	3	0	13	0	12	1	DoubleCheck=69699943,74,1
77187083	3	0	13	0	12	1	DoubleCheck=77187083,74,1
77187181	3	0	13	0	12	1	DoubleCheck=77187181,74,1

[ric]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

Here's another batch of 3:1 bad/good. <snip>

exponent	Bad	Good	Unk	Sus	Solo	Mis	worktodo
37556317	6	2	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=37556317,71,1
38469643	7	1	2	0	2	0	DoubleCheck=38469643,71,1
38554643	9	1	2	0	1	1	DoubleCheck=38554643,71,1
38687069	6	0	1	2	1	2	DoubleCheck=38687069,71,1

mine

[ATH]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

Here's another batch of 3:1 bad/good. A new machine has popped into this category with exponents 66M and up. Fun.

Just out of curiosity: How many users are on your "watch list" and how many computers?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

Here's another batch of 3:1 bad/good. A new machine has popped into this category with exponents 66M and up. Fun.

Took 50556613 through to 69699943 inclusive.

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by ATH

Just out of curiosity: How many users are on your "watch list" and how many computers?

There are 439 computers with 1 or more "solo checked" exponents and have more bad than good. That's the basic universe of bad machines I focus on.

Sometimes I look for any that have 1 or more bad and have an equal amount of good.

Once these "worst of the worst" are resolved (no more solo checked) I can focus on some that have a lot of bad but have more good. For instance there's one machine I'm curious about that has something like 1300 solo checked stuff, 85 or so bad and 320 or so good. That ~25% error rate is concerning, and they're spread out over a year. If it holds true there would be another few hundred bad results lurking in there.

It's just not as rewarding to do 4 tests and only one mismatched.

PS - Don't ask me how one machine could submit so many results in one year... beats me. Could have been manually checked in from multiple machines, or multi machines sharing one local.txt file... That's probably why only one in 4 is bad, because only one machine out of XX were flaky.

[UBR47K]

Triple Checks needed on:

DoubleCheck=37172633,71,1
DoubleCheck=37289719,71,1

[Mark Rose]

Originally Posted by UBR47K

Triple Checks needed on:

DoubleCheck=37172633,71,1
DoubleCheck=37289719,71,1

Mine.