I used MS Access to get some results regarding the bad results file on the status page. These results use the versions of "BAD" and "LUCAS_V.TXT" from 8/24/02. I deemed any bad results with the same exponent, user id, and residue to be duplicates and removed them. Oh, and my overall error rate was 2.21% ( pretty much the same as Colin's ).
Error rate for a clean run in v19 or later: 2.18% out of 114079 results Error rates of all Woltman versions for all numbers and any value in the error field: ( columns are: version, error rate, total # of results ) v13 1.49% 25928 v14 2.40% 50116 v15 3.62% 18014 v16 3.59% 40954 v17 1.87% 37618 v18 3.05% 65273 v19 3.12% 36428 v20 2.57% 46842 v21 1.84% 30174 v22 0.36% 2800 Some older versions where I don't know what the actual version name is: W? 45.00% 20 W1 2.15% 2323 W2 1.09% 14795 W3 0.97% 9758 W4 0.06% 11090 W5 0.09% 8466 W6 0.01% 8067 W7 0.00% 1843 W8 1.04% 1059 W9 0.00% 961 WA 0.00% 1324 WB 0.65% 3561 WC 0.69% 16155 WL 0.72% 971 Some interesting stats regarding reported errors ( the last 4 digits of the error field ): Error field = 0000: 2.02% error rate out of 213369 results Error field > 0000: 22.24% error rate out of 5765 results For bad results with an error field: 77.11% had error field = 0000 22.89% had error field > 0000 I find this interesting because one time I had a machine that had some overheating problems, but it never got any errors during its double check LL test, so I figured the result would be fine. It turned out the result was incorrect. This stat agrees with this because it indicates that if you are going to return a bad result at some point, it is most likely to occur even when the program gives no errors. This is no reason to doubt your results in general; just doubt them if your computer has problems that might cause bad results even if the program did not record any errors. For good results with an error field: 97.90% had error field = 0000 2.10% had error field > 0000 The above stats apply to all exponents, but below are some stats that apply to only exponents from 1,345,000 to 5,255,000. This leaves some of the lower exponents out which weren't necessarily using George's program and also are so small that errors are extremely unlikely. It also leaves out exponents above the current limit of what has been fully verified since a disproportionate amount of these exponents will be good results. This is because it requires only 2 LL tests to produce two good results, while it takes 3 or more on the same number to produce bad results ( basically, a disproportionate amount of the bad results have not been uncovered yet ). Total error rate for this range: 2.60% out of 213112 results Error field = 0000: 2.19% out of 99045 results Error field > 0000: 25.52% out of 1834 results Does anyone want anything else out of this data? I've gotten to the point where I can get most calculations out of it fairly quickly. At 00:02 24/08/02 -0400, George Woltman wrote: >What is the error rate if prime95 reported a clean run (version WVn or later >and the last 4 digits of the error field are zero)? Nick Glover [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computer Science, Clemson University "It's good to be open-minded, but not so open that your brains fall out." - Jacob Needleman _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
