| Author |
Message |
|---|
 Michael Goetz Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14036
ID: 53948
Credit: 475,889,971
RAC: 246,026
                               
|
|
It's been over 10 years since the last Woodall prime was discovered. Earlier today, a new record Woodall was discovered.
17016602*2^17016602-1
It's 5,122,515 digits, and enters the T5K list as the 16th largest known prime.
A huge congratulations to ScOrPIoN for this amazing discovery!
(This number appears on the T5K list in its reduced form as 8508301*2^17016603-1.)
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Congrats to the discoverer. I will be starting on WOO in about two weeks' time. |
|
|
Dave
Send message
Joined: 13 Feb 12
Posts: 3253
ID: 130544
Credit: 2,422,216,586
RAC: 3,911,326
                      
|
|
Congratulations! I'm nowhere near doing anything like any more WOO.. |
|
|
HonzaVolunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 15 Aug 05
Posts: 1963
ID: 352
Credit: 6,397,367,571
RAC: 2,446,438
                               
|
|
Congrats!
This is a very rare one nad perhaps long overdue.
We got 3 of them during 2007H2 (only latest one was megaprime) and none since.
____________
My stats |
|
|
dukebgVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 17
Posts: 242
ID: 950482
Credit: 23,670,125
RAC: 0
                 
|
|
WOO-hoo! |
|
|
|
|
|
So nice!
Will appear on top of The Top Twenty: Woodall Primes once primes.utm.edu (Caldwell) has finished checking it.
Then 19 titanic Woodall primes will be known. We just need to find one more to fill that list!
(Sloane's A002234 knows fifteen Woodall primes that are too small for Caldwell (non-titanic).)
/JeppeSN
|
|
|
RafaelVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 22 Oct 14
Posts: 918
ID: 370496
Credit: 604,680,191
RAC: 564,803
      
|
|
*Incoming Numberphile video about the first Woo prime, followed by another spike in users, like always* |
|
|
rogueVolunteer developer
Send message
Joined: 8 Sep 07
Posts: 1259
ID: 12001
Credit: 18,565,548
RAC: 0
|
|
Why do the stats pages for Cullen and Woodall not show the number of "in progress" work units? Why don't these pages have the same columns as the other projects?
Can those pages be updated so that they have the same stats (where applicable) as the other projects? |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14036
ID: 53948
Credit: 475,889,971
RAC: 246,026
|
Why do the stats pages for Cullen and Woodall not show the number of "in progress" work units? Why don't these pages have the same columns as the other projects?
Can those pages be updated so that they have the same stats (where applicable) as the other projects?
Those pages are very old.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
rogueVolunteer developer
Send message
Joined: 8 Sep 07
Posts: 1259
ID: 12001
Credit: 18,565,548
RAC: 0
|
|
You didn't answer my last question. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14036
ID: 53948
Credit: 475,889,971
RAC: 246,026
|
You didn't answer my last question.
That was intentional. I don't have an answer for that question.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
JimBHonorary cruncher
Send message
Joined: 4 Aug 11
Posts: 920
ID: 107307
Credit: 989,301,362
RAC: 976
        
|
|
I've been updating the LLR stats pages one at a time. I just don't have the same enthusiasm for it that I did back in 2012 when I first got access to everything. It'll get done sooner or later. |
|
|
|
|
|
Was there a double checker for the Woodall Prime? I didn't see it on the announcement. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14036
ID: 53948
Credit: 475,889,971
RAC: 246,026
|
Was there a double checker for the Woodall Prime? I didn't see it on the announcement.
It was double checked internally.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14036
ID: 53948
Credit: 475,889,971
RAC: 246,026
|
Was there a double checker for the Woodall Prime? I didn't see it on the announcement.
It was double checked internally.
To expand upon that explanation a bit, we sometimes intervene when large primes are found. If we left BOINC to its normal processing, this is what would happen:
1) Someone returns a result that says "Prime!".
2) Sometime later -- anywhere from seconds later to months later -- someone else returns a second result that also says "Prime!".
3) BOINC's validator is activated to validate those two tasks. This is the first instant where the server will recognize that a prime has been found. This is where we get notified a prime was found.
The problem there is that for long tasks, especially if multiple timeouts are involved, it can be months until we learn that someone found a prime.
We have an early warning system that lets us see all tasks that have a prime result, even before they're validated. For some projects, including Woodall, the nature of the algorithm is such that calculation errors are likely to produce false prime reports, so we don't get very excited when we see unvalidated Woodall primes. However, if the host computer doesn't have a history of faulty results, we'll run it on one of our machines to get an early double check rather than waiting for the actual double checker.
If our internal double check confirms the prime, we start the prime reporting process immediately, manually validate the original prime result in BOINC, and set that workunit to not send out any additional tasks to wingmen. If the in-progress wingman task eventually completes successfully, then that's the double checker. But if it doesn't, the only double check will be the internal check we did.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the explanation ! |
|
|
|
|
It was double checked internally.
To expand upon that explanation a bit, we sometimes intervene when large primes are found. (...)
I am too curious. While the prime does not yet show up in "PrimeGrid Primes by Project" (when will it?), I can follow the link to the user who found it (first post). From there I can go to his primes (new feature!), and because this one is recent, I can go to the workunit in question.
The workunit shows that two tasks were sent out to two users on the same day. After one week, ScOrPIoN returned his result. And after two weeks (i.e. one additional week) the other user aborted his task. Please do not tell the poor guy :-)
/JeppeSN |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14036
ID: 53948
Credit: 475,889,971
RAC: 246,026
|
It was double checked internally.
To expand upon that explanation a bit, we sometimes intervene when large primes are found. (...)
I am too curious. While the prime does not yet show up in "PrimeGrid Primes by Project (when will it?)
March 28th, 2018. Yes, that date is in the past. I'm not sure why you're saying this prime isn't on the list, because it definitely is. If it's not showing up somewhere it's supposed to, please provide the URL and I'll look into it.
The official announcement went out on April 1st, and we don't do that until after it clears verification at T5K. When it's verified at T5K our server automatically makes it visible. In this case, Chris marked it as "verified" based upon Jim's verification of the prime, which he provided to Chris on that day.
And after two weeks (i.e. one additional week) the other user aborted his task. Please do not tell the poor guy :-)
This is exactly why we often run the verifications internally.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
While the prime does not yet show up in "PrimeGrid Primes by Project (when will it?)
March 28th, 2018. Yes, that date is in the past. I'm not sure why you're saying this prime isn't on the list, because it definitely is. If it's not showing up somewhere it's supposed to, please provide the URL and I'll look into it.
Argh, I was just being silly. I think I picked "(CUL) Cullen Prime Search" instead of "(WOO) Woodall Prime Search", and of course the prime did not show up then! When I pick the correct "Sub-project:" it works fine. And the link to the workunit can be found there as well.
In other words, just forget my sentence quoted above, about it not showing up.
/JeppeSN |
|
|
|
|
|
Congratulations!!! But it's reduced form is 8508301*2^17016603-1, not 8508301*2^217016603-1 (which is not prime by the way). |
|
|
JimBHonorary cruncher
Send message
Joined: 4 Aug 11
Posts: 920
ID: 107307
Credit: 989,301,362
RAC: 976
|
Congratulations!!! But it's reduced form is 8508301*2^17016603-1, not 8508301*2^217016603-1 (which is not prime by the way).
Fixed, thanks. |
|
|
