[QUOTE=Kevin;177006]...so things are just back to the way they would normally be if I wasn't lucky enough to get an early start.[/QUOTE]

and a second prime95 cannot serve as the "official" double-check because it doesn't pass the "independent software" requirement.

[quote=Prime95;177017]and a second prime95 cannot serve as the "official" double-check because it doesn't pass the "independent software" requirement.[/quote]

I have the feeling we will find the next Mersenne prime before double-checking this one :whistle:

Do you mean M48 or a false double-reporting of this newly yet already discovered prime?

[QUOTE=philmoore;177001]I didn't consider the probabilities of more than 8, which does raise the figures somewhat. However, we can't consider the 40 possible sequences as independent, so I would guess that 12.9% is an overstatement of the true probability, but I have no idea how much.[/QUOTE]

I don't know either. That's why I started by asking for someone else to do it for me. :smile: I only did the estimate because it looked like no one else would -- I started to compose my message before you posted.

Also, I have concerns about choosing the region precisely spanned by x primes; that seems to introduce a downward bias into the chances, though not too much for x as large as 8 or 10.

[quote=Primeinator;177020]Do you mean M48 or a false double-reporting of this newly yet already discovered prime?[/quote]
M48

[QUOTE=RichD;176695]That makes sense.
I seem to recall there is a Wd1 for TF, PM-1, ECM, ... results.[/QUOTE]

Oops, just completed a P-1 and the "code" is for Wd10. I guess each phase has its own code.

[QUOTE]M48 [/QUOTE]

Not unless George schedules another vacation.... George, I hear SouthWestern Airlines have discount tickets right now :smile:

[QUOTE]Oops, just completed a P-1 and the "code" is for Wd10. I guess each phase has its own code. [/QUOTE]

I think each program does as well.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;177023]I don't know either. That's why I started by asking for someone else to do it for me. :smile: I only did the estimate because it looked like no one else would -- I started to compose my message before you posted.

Also, I have concerns about choosing the region precisely spanned by x primes; that seems to introduce a downward bias into the chances, though not too much for x as large as 8 or 10.[/QUOTE]

Well I'm not a real statistician, I only play one in our tutoring center! My estimate was based on my "seat-of-the-pants" experience studying physics in graduate school, but no real experience in academic statistics. I fit the last 8 data points to a line of best fit and extended it 0.5 units each direction, getting a range of 20.3 million to 48.0 million. And of course, a proper analysis would ask how probable it would be to see [B]any[/B] consecutive 8 primes in an exponent range of about a ratio of 2.4. However, the question we want to ask ourselves here, is: does what we have seen over the last 8 primes possibly represent a new trend in Mersenne prime exponent distribution? And in that sense, your estimate of about 1 in 300 probability is pretty close to what would be required for publication in a particle physics journal. But more data is obviously required!

After a suggestion from my colleague Tom I have managed to get a [I]minor[/I] performance improvement.

The speed has improved from a consistent 0.0183 secs/iteration to 0.0182 secs/iteration. :lol:

My expected completion time is now a whole 40 minutes earlier at:

New Zealand - 9am, Tuesday June 16
France - 11pm, Monday June 15
USA EST - 5pm, Monday June 15

[QUOTE=Kevin;177006]Well, something went wrong with my test, so I'm out. Mprime didn't mention any errors, but the residues don't lie, so at this point I'm just trying to figure out what went bad. The good news is the more seasoned double-checkers are still matching residues, so things are just back to the way they would normally be if I wasn't lucky enough to get an early start.[/QUOTE]

You're sure it's not because of the issue with starting at iteration 2 or iteration 0?

[quote=Kevin;177006]Well, something went wrong with my test, so I'm out. Mprime didn't mention any errors, but the residues don't lie, so at this point I'm just trying to figure out what went bad. The good news is the more seasoned double-checkers are still matching residues, so things are just back to the way they would normally be if I wasn't lucky enough to get an early start.[/quote]
That's a shame.
I was assuming that Ernst's post had resolved the discrepency
in residues (counting from S(2) instead of S(0)).
I presume both Prime95 and MPrime remove the shift when
quoting interim residues?

Anyway I see no reason to stop your test.
If you are testing the same exponent, I am sure George would
want to know about any bug.