On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 3:10 PM, George Woltman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
>
Ok, I got curious and wrote a little program that searches lucas_v.txt
for adjacent lines that are exact duplicates. Throwing away the tedious
part of the output that lists the duplicates, the summary from the program
is:
Found 132497 unique exponents.
136 of them had duplicated records.
52 of them had ONLY duplicated records.
A few observations:
1. The counts may be slightly off due to weirdness in the data file.
My program is pretty stupid.
2. There are few enough bad cases that processing them by hand shouldn't
be too hard.
3. A lot of the duplications involve "team" accounts, and many of them
are duplicated a lot more than two times. This could well be due
to point #2 in George's list above. Or it could be some kind of
network error. But if 20-30 machines really ran the same LL test,
it's a shame to have wasted the resources.
4. The "duplicates only" tend to be the bigger, more recent exponents.
5. The duplicates were reported by various programs - mostly the
WT, WU, WV, and WW series of programs. I guess that means that
manual check-ins are NOT responsible for the duplications.
If anyone wants the program, or the output (650 lines), let me know.
Otherwise, I'll go back to waiting for my next LL test to finish.
---------------------------
Robert Deininger
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt
