Will the 64-bit residue be the SAME when a given exponent
was originally Lucas-Lehmer tested with a 384K FFT, but
the double-check is performed using a 448K FFT ?
mikus
_
Unsubscribe list info --
On Saturday 28 June 2003 18:47, you wrote:
Will the 64-bit residue be the SAME when a given exponent
was originally Lucas-Lehmer tested with a 384K FFT, but
the double-check is performed using a 448K FFT ?
Hopefully - in fact the whole 2^p-1 bit residue R(p) should be the same!
R(2)=4
R(n+1)
Congratulations GIMPSters,
Yesterday the last double-check below M(6972593) came in. This proves
there are no undiscovered Mersenne primes below M(6972593) making it
the 38th Mersenne prime.
Thanks to everyone for all their hard work in making this milestone possible.
Keep on crunching and
Is there a double check for factoring when no factor is found? Since it
seems to be interesting to know what are the smallest factors of mersenne
numbers, it seems wothwhile to have a proof (by double checking) that the
smallest factor is, say, 2^66 (This also applies to the case where factors
At 07:28 PM 8/9/2002 -0700, Gary Edstrom wrote:
That brings to mind another question. I was wondering what you
do when you detect an error during double checking. Do you notify the
person that sent in the erroneous result so that he can check out his
computer further?
No, for several reasons.
Yes George,
A list of all bad results would be an excellent idea. It would go
a long way in helping us keep tabs on our computers and at the same time
keep the stats junkies - like those on Team Prime Rib :-) - accurately
informed on their contribution or lack thereof.
Anurag Garg
to be a moot point in 99.%
of the cases I can imagine.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:mersenne-invalid-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of George Woltman
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 11:25 AM
To: Gary Edstrom; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Double Checking
On Mon, 05 Aug 2002 15:09:55 -0400, George Woltman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:58 AM 8/4/2002 -0700, you wrote:
I was curious about how often the PrimeNet server detects a problem in a
double-check result and has to re-submit the exponent for another round
of testing.
I looked around the
I was curious about how often the PrimeNet server detects a problem in a
double-check result and has to re-submit the exponent for another round
of testing.
I looked around the GIMPS web pages and couldn't find any figures.
Thanks, Gary
TWIMC:
Is a single Double Check always enough to retire an exponent?
Regards,
Stefanovic
_
Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Stefan Struiker asked:
Is a single Double Check always enough to retire an exponent?
Regards,
Stefanovic
IIRC, George compares the residues once per week of all the double-checks
compared that ween when he updates the database. If they don't match, then
either one or both of the previous
Hi All,
Well it finally happened to me, I was double checking an exponent in
the 5M range, using the beta of V20 and it found a factor! I often wondered
about how often that happened, anyone have any other hard data?
5008021 63 DF 7054282710141713489 10-Apr-00 07:09 gateway
regards
Assume that a set of 400,000 exponents get single checked,
and double checked, and the error rate per check is 0.5%.
If the error occurrence is independent, that means about 4000
will not match. Of these 4000 then the triple checks would
have errors in about 20, and require a quadruple
Do ALL exponents get Double-Checked? ...or are only selected exponents
done beecause the original LL run was suspect?
Just curious,
Russ
_
Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ --
I just started my second machine on double-checking and am curious on
whether I would expect to see my LL P90 year total increase when a
double-checking assignment is turned in.
Also, I notice that one can disable "Request whatever type of work makes
the most sense" and then proceed to select
At 11:59 AM 1999/03/05 GMT, "Brian J Beesley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Ken wrote)
Right. The odds heavily favor both mismatched residues being nonzero.
A zero residue at the last iteration is what indicates primality.
Depends on what you mean. If a Mersenne number that has been
tested once
Hi,
At 07:35 PM 2/26/99 -0800, Spike Jones wrote:
How about sweetening the pot for anyone who is doing double checking
that discovers a mistake in the first LL analysis? How does this work?
The first LL test returns a residual, then the double checking
routine takes that residual and... what?
Hi Bryan,
At 03:45 AM 11/18/98 -0500, Bryan Fullerton wrote:
I've noticed that when I manually request exponents from the Primenet web
page the lines to be inserted into worktodo.ini all
start with Test=, but when the util gets double checking exponents itself
the lines start with DoubleCheck=.
18 matches
Mail list logo
