[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;140198]32582657/11*14*.9=37321953 (same things as last time, but with a 10% reduction)
[/QUOTE]

This would still be approx. 11.2 million digits, if I calculated correctly.

[QUOTE=rgiltrap;140163]I can tell you that one of the verifications is being performed on a Unix server with at least one cpu core. Sorry, but you'll have to wait for more information :smile:[/QUOTE]

Dammit, Robert, must you always give away the proverbial store with your distressing tendency towards gushiness? I thought you Kiwis were supposed to be a taciturn lot. :razz:

I was just thinking how reserved you had been lately, Ernst:smile:

[QUOTE=davieddy;140202]I was just thinking how reserved you had been lately, Ernst:smile:[/QUOTE]

Have I been more laconic than usual? I apologize unreservedly for any uncharacteristic terseness which I may have displayed.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;140206]Have I been more laconic than usual? I apologize unreservedly for any uncharacteristic terseness which I may have displayed.[/QUOTE]

Ah, laconic. Continuous everywhere, differentiable nowhere.........
Not very smooth are we?????

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;140210]Ah, laconic. Continuous everywhere, differentiable nowhere.........
Not very smooth are we?????[/QUOTE]

Reminds me of a silly episode from one of my graduate-math classes at Michigan - the instructor was lecturing on compact operator theory and summarized with "...so we can think of compact operators essentially as *smoothing* operators..."

At that point a couple of us in the back row started spontaneously singing, paraphrasing a popular song by the singer Sade:
[i]
"He's a smoothing operator,
Yeah he's a compact operator..."
[/i]
Ah, good times.

Getting back to my ragging on Kiwi Rob: Being a thoroughly chastised Kiwi, I expect he's feeling a tad :alex::alex::alex::alex:ish just now.

[QUOTE=jinydu;140156]If the verification runs show that the number is in fact not prime, isn't the number disclosed anyway?[/QUOTE]

I think so.
If the number turned out to be compsite, it would have a residue, which is different to the fake one now.
So it is easy to find that candidate when comparing primenet reorts.

To [quote=jinydu;140156]That doesn't sound right. If the verification runs show that the number is in fact not prime, isn't the number disclosed anyway?[/quote] and [quote=biwema;140218]I think so.
If the number turned out to be compsite, it would have a residue, which is different to the fake one now.
So it is easy to find that candidate when comparing primenet reorts.[/quote]
please read
[quote=ixfd64;140157]I'm pretty sure it's not disclosed. I think it's to prevent embarrassment to the "discoverer" in the event of a false positive, which is what happened several years back.

See this thread for more information: [URL]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=672[/URL][/quote]
and its link.

We should be able to find it if the exponent and/or residue of "M45" are publicly disclosed, but for the same reason the GIMPS admins wouldn't post it, we shouldn't.

[quote=davieddy;140191]I note that curtisc has no fewer than 4 horses in the race:smile:[/quote]

The palomino attends by codename TWEEF608

[QUOTE=ewmayer;140213]Getting back to my ragging on Kiwi Rob: Being a thoroughly chastised Kiwi, I expect he's feeling a tad :alex::alex::alex::alex:ish just now.[/QUOTE]

All I can say is that it's reassuring to know that there more sheep in New Zealand than the number of digits in any suspected M45 candidate :alex:

Judging by the time the verification runs are expected to take, I'm guessing the exponent is in the 42M range. It took seven days to verify that M32582657 was prime. A Mersenne number with an exponent in the 42M range would be about 1.3 times as long as M32582657. That makes about nine days days. For exponents in the 42M range, each iteration takes about 1.5 times as long as for M32582657. Thus, we have to multiply our figure by an additional factor of 1.5. This is fairly consistent with the expected finishing time of between September 12th and September 16th.