Hi,
At 10:48 AM 9/11/00 -0400, Robert Deininger wrote:
> >> I noticed some exponents where the first-time and double-check results
> >> were submitted by the same person, using the same software, on the same
> >> machine. If there is a reproducible hardware problem, or one of these
> >> "bad" multiplications, then this double-check would not catch an error.
> >
> >If the offset was different then this would be a valid double check.
The server is not responsible for determining if a double-check is valid.
That step is done by me (well, really a program I wrote) using log files
from the server and emailed results.
An exponent is considered double-checked if either tested by a different
program or tested by prime95 using a different shift count (called offset
by some).
If the first and second tests were done by the same user, then my program
prompts me as to whether I really want to accept this result. I usually
accept the double-check for the following reasons:
1) It is not uncommon for top producers to get assigned a
double-check where they did the first test.
2) It is not uncommon for folks to "screw up" the setup in
multi-machine environments. A process called "ghosting"(?)
results in the prime95 directory being copied from a central
server. Now each machine has the same worktodo.ini file.
Some users make the same mistake manually setting up
multiple machines initially.
3) How likely is it that someone goes to the trouble of figuring out
how to forge the 32-bit verification code on each results line
and then use that info to turn in bogus *composite* results?
After all, such a clever person might well be smart enough to
get a variety of userids too.
Regards,
George
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt
