[quote]
[I]But... You made a claim that you were one of the first 100 employees of Goggle.[/I]

[I]Might you be lying?[/I][/quote]

[QUOTE=LiquidNitrogen;265560]
[I]I can tell you what it used to say at [URL="http://www.7427466391.com/"]www.7427466391.com[/URL][/I]

[B]Congratulations. You've made it to level 2. Go to [URL="http://www.Linux.org"]www.Linux.org[/URL] and enter Bobsyouruncle as the login and the answer to this equation as the password.[/B]

[B]f(1)= 7182818284 [/B]
[B]f(2)= 8182845904 [/B]
[B]f(3)= 8747135266 [/B]
[B]f(4)= 7427466391 [/B]
[B]f(5)= __________ [/B]

This particular conversation is over.

I know who I am and who I worked for and what my stock portfolio is worth today.

And I don't have to answer to the likes of people such as yourself.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't prove much. Visit [URL]http://aleembawany.com/2004/07/20/google-billboard-puzzle-the-lazy-way/[/URL]

and you'll get:
[quote]
On this page you’ll find the following:
“Congratulations. You’ve made it to level 2. Go to [URL="http://www.Linux.org"]www.Linux.org[/URL] and enter Bobsyouruncle as the login and the answer to this equation as the password.”
f(1)= 7182818284
f(2)= 8182845904
f(3)= 8747135266
f(4)= 7427466391
f(5)= __________
...
5966290435, is the password to the login [I]bobsyouruncle[/I] for [URL="http://www.linux.org/"][COLOR=#0000dd]linux.org[/COLOR][/URL].
This will eventually land you at the [URL="http://www.google.com/labjobs/index.html"][COLOR=#0000dd]Google Labs[/COLOR][/URL] page from where you can send your resume directly to [EMAIL="problem-solver@google.com"][COLOR=#0000dd]problem-solver@google.com[/COLOR][/EMAIL] "[/quote]
Want to dig further? After you type in the login and password, you'll see:
[quote]
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=#222222]Congratulations. [/COLOR][/FONT]

Nice work. Well done. Mazel tov. You've made it to Google Labs and we're glad you're here.
One thing we learned while building Google is that it's easier to find what you're looking for if it comes looking for you. What we're looking for are the best engineers in the world. And here you are.
As you can imagine, we get many, many resumes every day, so we developed this little process to increase the signal to noise ratio. We apologize for taking so much of your time just to ask you to consider working with us. We hope you'll feel it was worthwhile when you look at some of the interesting projects we're developing right now. You'll find links to more information about our efforts below, but before you get immersed in machine learning and genetic algorithms, please send your resume to us at ********@google.com. We're tackling a lot of engineering challenges that may not actually be solvable. If they are, they'll change a lot of things. If they're not, well, it will be fun to try anyway. We could use your big, magnificent brain to help us find out.
[/quote]
Source: [URL]http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum86/313.htm[/URL]

[QUOTE=retina;265706]With this instead you don't limit yourself to 2GB of memory.[CODE]
for (j = x + 1; j > 0; j--) { i = j - 1; some stuff; }
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Ah, yes, but you forget that I'm a lazy programmer :wink:.
Why would I want to type extra characters and complicate my logic just so I can type 'unsigned' (more characters) instead of 'int'?

[QUOTE=bsquared;265722]Why would I want to type extra characters and complicate my logic just so I can type 'unsigned' (more characters) instead of 'int'?[/QUOTE]A fair question indeed. And I have no good answer. Let's just hope that 64 bit will solve everything for us lazy programmers. And if 64 bit isn't enough then hurry up Intel/AMD and roll out the 128 bit GPRs please. :rolleyes:

There is a reason that many of my programs begin

[code]
typedef unsigned int u32;
typedef unsigned long long u64;
[/code]

to give these types names of a shortness corresponding to their utility.

From time to time I express mild vexation at g++ -Wall, which enforces that I write monstrosities like

[code]
for (size_t u=0; u<weebles.size(); u++)
{
if (is_cromulent(weebles[u])) cromulent_indices.push_back(u);
}
[/code]

[QUOTE=Oddball;265719]That doesn't prove much. Visit [URL]http://aleembawany.com/2004/07/20/google-billboard-puzzle-the-lazy-way/[/URL]

and you'll get:

Want to dig further? After you type in the login and password, you'll see:

Source: [URL]http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum86/313.htm[/URL][/QUOTE]

Yes but how many people know that 5966290435 were the next 10 consecutive digits in e that happened to sum to 49, just like the other 4 "functions" above it?

Like I said, I'm done with this topic, and I don't care what people think if I haven't met them, they live far away, and they show so much ignorance that they are telling me I have not done something that I have done.

[QUOTE=LiquidNitrogen;265728]... I don't care what people think ...[/QUOTE]If that is true then why did you make the claim in the first place? Better to be like everyone else here and just pretend to be a nobody, then you will get more respect.

On the Internet no one knows if you are a dog.

[QUOTE=retina;265730]If that is true then why did you make the claim in the first place? [/QUOTE]

Someone implied I didn't know how to use Google. Couldn't let that one go.

[QUOTE=LiquidNitrogen;265731]Someone implied I didn't know how to use Google. Couldn't let that one go.[/QUOTE]

they only implied it because to them you act as though you know it all while not necessarily knowing it all and have forgotten things that likely are key to the subject at hand that should be easy to find with Google assuming one knows how to use it well.

Drop the subject already.

[QUOTE=LiquidNitrogen;265731]Someone implied I didn't know how to use Google. Couldn't let that one go.[/QUOTE]Well of course that shows that you indeed [b]do[/b] care what people think. Nothing to be ashamed of there, but at least be honest about it.

BTW: I'm pretty sure people here don't care if you are god himself, you will still be spoken to according to how honest you are being.

BTW2: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[QUOTE=retina;265738]
BTW2: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.[/QUOTE]

I agree, but, leaving aside the question about the facts that I couldn't care less about, I'm still struggling to understand what is so extrodinary about a google employee visiting a site catering to that exact type of person.

p.s.
@retina - not picking on you - you just had a convinient post to quote.

[QUOTE=LiquidNitrogen;265731]Someone implied I didn't know how to use Google. Couldn't let that one go.[/QUOTE]

Yes, you could. Indeed, you should. Were you not to start making a habit of letting go of such things, I would have to figure out where I left the banhammer and which way round one is supposed to hold it. Which would be sad; it would be unfortunate to lose you.

Last time I looked, this topic was "Predict M48" which was just two levels down from "Fun Stuff"

Blame me!
 

[QUOTE=LiquidNitrogen;265749]Last time I looked, this topic was "Predict M48" which was just two levels down from "Fun Stuff"[/QUOTE]

This thread was started back in June 2009, before the most recent
Mprime had been verified. See "Success?" thread in the Primenet subforum:
the manner of its discovery is entertaining.

Not being a clairvoyant, I focussed my attention on the probability
distributions in time and exponent, and pointed out that the expected
time for the next MP was about 6 years from now, given the current rate of
progress of the LL wave was a 6% increase in exponent per year.
Maintaining this rate requires a 20% increase in "computing" per year.

Post #133 on June 24th 2011 is what started the "digression".
The reason I posted it here was to suggest "how GPUs could best
help maintain the momentum of LL testing".

13 days, 170 posts in(ex)cluding a flame war or two later, [B]here we are now[/B]:smile:

David

[QUOTE=fivemack;265741]Yes, you could. Indeed, you should. Were you not to start making a habit of letting go of such things...[/QUOTE]


So you are saying I should tolerate other peoples' intolerance?

Watch how you hold the hammer then, you might hit yourself with it.

[QUOTE=LiquidNitrogen;265781]So you are saying I should tolerate other peoples' intolerance?

Watch how you hold the hammer then, you might hit yourself with it.[/QUOTE]Is the ambient temperature above your boiling point?

David

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SCt8JPAkgU]If I Had a Hammer[/url]

[QUOTE=LiquidNitrogen;265781]So you are saying I should tolerate other peoples' intolerance?[/QUOTE]Yes, please do. We appreciate your positive contributions, but there is plenty of intolerance here already; we don't need more. Cf. "Don't feed the troll."

It's quite possible to establish a solid and well-respected reputation here by making positive contributions over time, without needing to prove that you're a top dog by swiping at all the little dogs so soon after starting here.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;265786]Yes, please do. We appreciate your positive contributions, but there is plenty of intolerance here already; we don't need more. Cf. "Don't feed the troll."

It's quite possible to establish a solid and well-respected reputation here by making positive contributions over time, without needing to prove that you're a top dog by swiping at all the little dogs so soon after starting here.[/QUOTE]

I was looking for a rare Beatles (not original) song with the lyric
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lza3NVH6Ig"]Let me be your little dog till your big dog comes[/URL]
Couldn't find it, so this all time classic will have to do.

David

Nope still can't locate it. Meantime [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qlA2l8tWoU&feature=related"]this one[/URL] strikes me as
vaguely appropriate (not to say superb!)

Got it! [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20NEQUZ4DCw"]Carl Perkins wrote it?[/URL]
Don't know, [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tASiMVVTU1k]but...[/url]

Mavericks++
 

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWhA1atPO14&feature=related]Matchbox[/url]

[QUOTE=retina;265730]If that is true then why did you make the claim in the first place? Better to be like everyone else here and just pretend to be a nobody, then you will get more respect.

On the Internet no one knows if you are a dog.[/QUOTE]

Unless they know how to use Google to find out if you're a dog or not.

We all leave crumbs after doing away with our cookies. They're easier to trace if one boasts that they've just had Oreos, thus eliminating the need to track the scent of dog biscuits.

Could a [COLOR="DarkOrange"][SIZE="4"][B]MOD[/B][/SIZE][/COLOR] please split all posts starting at #248 and ff. into a different thread, please???

Suggested title for the new thread: "What does Google have to do with M48?"

[QUOTE=LiquidNitrogen;265532]As one of their first 100 employees, I guess not.[/QUOTE]
BTW: I have a friend in Google HR (a long time employee) that could verify your claim, if you provided me a few details via PM that would be unique.

[QUOTE=bsquared;265722]Ah, yes, but you forget that I'm a lazy programmer :wink:.
Why would I want to type extra characters and complicate my logic just so I can type 'unsigned' (more characters) instead of 'int'?[/QUOTE]

[code]
#include <stdio.h>

void stuff(unsigned x)
{
printf ("%u\n", x);
}

void stiff(int x)
{
printf ("%d\n", x);
}

main ()
{
unsigned u, x=10;
int i;

printf ("Unsigned version:\n");

u=x; do { stuff(u); } while (u--);
/* That previous line is 37 characters long, including the terminal \n */

printf ("\n\nInteger version:\n");

for (i=x; i>=0; i--) { stiff(i); }
/* That previous line is also 37 characters long! */

}
[/code]I rest my case your Honour.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;266202]
[code]
clever example omitted...[/code]I rest my case your Honour.

Paul[/QUOTE]

Look, all I was trying to say originally was that I can be an un-lazy programmer and yet still use ints as array index variables, given a situation in which that is a (IMO) natural choice.

[QUOTE=bsquared;266207]Look, all I was trying to say originally was that I can be an un-lazy programmer and yet still use ints as array index variables, given a situation in which that is a (IMO) natural choice.[/QUOTE]Sure.

All I was trying to say is that sometimes a for loop is not the appropriate control construct and that attempts to force its use can lead to lengthier and more contorted code.

Very rarely do I see a do-while loop used in code where it would be more appropriate than a for loop, IMO, and sometimes wonder why.


Paul

P.S. Flattery may get you everywhere, but was quite unnecessary on this occasion. The code I posted was far from "clever", IMO.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;266133]
BTW: I have a friend in Google HR (a long time employee) that could verify your claim, if you provided me a few details via PM that would be unique.[/QUOTE]

You suffer from the delusion that I care about who you know there 5 years after I retired and moved across the country.

But why don't you PM me the name of who you know there, so that I can verify your claim that you know somebody there.

Expected time before M48
 

[QUOTE=davieddy;262358]2011-05-26 1.244

[/QUOTE]

Expected new primes <793M:
2011-07-15 1.221

Decrease 0.023 in 50 days

Expected time to next prime is 2174 days

When you see "PrimeCare" painted on a van
 

So today on the way back from JP Morgan Chase bank in Wilmington, Delaware, I saw a van with "PrimeCare, Milford, DE" painted on the side of it. It took me 3 traffic lights to catch up to him and a few more to finally get right next to the van when the light was red. I beeped my horn at him, and gestured for him to roll down the window.

I said "Did you know that two raised to the power forty three million one one two six oh nine, minus one, is prime?" He was shaking his head and said "Sorry buddy, my radio was on, I didn't catch what you said." So I repeated the whole thing. He said "What?" and I said it more slowly again.

He said "So what?" and I said "You mean you don't care?" and he said "No, I don't!" so then I pointed to the side of his van and said "But you work for PrimeCare!" and then the light changed green.

There are 19 days left until we match the longest gap in the GIMPS era. And 42 days from hitting the average gap + 2 std dev.
axn has our next closest (non-expired) guess, 68,407,496 on 10/1/2011 (hmmm that looks close.)

First time tests have now passed the lowest guess:
tom11784.....38,066,453 [strike]6/23/2007[/strike]

And these look not long for this world:
T.Rex...........38,500,000
PrimeCrazzy..39,999,999 [strike]9/1/2007[/strike]

And ET just went on holiday (maybe that will do it.)

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;271155]There are 19 days left until we match the longest gap in the GIMPS era. And 42 days from hitting the average gap + 2 std dev.
axn has our next closest (non-expired) guess, 68,407,496 on 10/1/2011 (hmmm that looks close.)

First time tests have now passed the lowest guess:
tom11784.....38,066,453 [strike]6/23/2007[/strike]

And these look not long for this world:
T.Rex...........38,500,000
PrimeCrazzy..39,999,999 [strike]9/1/2007[/strike]

And ET just went on holiday (maybe that will do it.)[/QUOTE]

I am going to give you the benefit of the (considerable) doubt,
and assume you understand the term "Poisson process".

The expected time to the next prime is ~6 years from the time
you are reading this. (At the current rate of testing).

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;271158]I am going to give you the benefit of the (considerable) doubt,
and assume you understand the term "Poisson process".

The expected time to the next prime is ~6 years from the time
you are reading this. (At the current rate of testing).

David[/QUOTE]Your post and that of Uncwilly are completely compatible. You are stating the currently expected time until the next discovery. He is reporting on historical data. Why do you need to give the benefit of any doubt?

Paul

Christmas is coming..
 

[QUOTE=xilman;271176]Why do you need to give the benefit of any doubt?

Paul[/QUOTE]

For the joy of giving?
Anyway there's many a gambler who's lost his shirt. Or does Legend have it?.

[QUOTE=davieddy;266538]Expected new primes <79[SIZE=3][B][COLOR=Red].[/COLOR][/B][/SIZE]3M:
2011-07-15 1.221

Decrease 0.023 in 50 days

Expected time to next prime is 2174 days[/QUOTE]

Fixed that. Nodigitty.

Thought I needed another drink for a mo then...
 

[QUOTE=ckdo;271303]Fixed that. Nodigitty.[/QUOTE]
Then I realized that some folks think 793M is a suitable
exponent to search for the next Mprime.

I'll get some more supplies in anyway;
Merry Christmas:smile:

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;266538]Expected new primes <79.3M:
2011-07-15 1.221

Decrease 0.023 in 50 days

Expected time to next prime is 2174 days[/QUOTE]

2011-09-10 1.195

Decrease 0.026 in 57 days

Expect next Mprime in 2192 days.

[QUOTE=davieddy;271364]Expect next Mprime in 2192 days.[/QUOTE]Aren't they randomly distributed? How can you predict the date so accurately?

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;271368]Aren't they randomly distributed? How can you predict the date so accurately?[/QUOTE]
Talking "Probability" here.

It's the mean of an exponential distribution.

50/50 one turns up within 4 years.

David

@ Paul
Are you starting to doubt your doubt re my doubt yet?

[QUOTE=davieddy;271364]Expect next Mprime in 2192 days.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;271368]Aren't they randomly distributed? How can you predict the date so accurately?[/QUOTE]

That's "expect" in the statistical sense of "expected value." Statisticians abuse the language to make complicated concepts sound simple. Think of "confidence" and "normal" for more examples.

[QUOTE=wblipp;271423]That's "expect" in the statistical sense of "expected value." Statisticians abuse the language to make complicated concepts sound simple. Think of "confidence" and "normal" for more examples.[/QUOTE]
Thanks William.
I was being slightly casual with the lingo, and I usually
try to convey precision by quoting a s.d. or using an appropriate
number of sig figs, but I couldn't be bothered to round the four digit
answer to 57/0.026 or whatever it was.

David

PS doesn't that word "exponent(ial)" get overworked around here?
It's especially confusing when you consider that "taking logs" is
the inverse of exponentiation!

[QUOTE=wblipp;271423]That's "expect" in the statistical sense of "expected value." Statisticians abuse the language to make complicated concepts sound simple. Think of "confidence" and "normal" for more examples.[/QUOTE]

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o]Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition[/url]

[QUOTE=davieddy;271371]@ Paul
Are you starting to doubt your doubt re my doubt yet?[/QUOTE]Not in the slightest. I stand by my statement about the compatibility of the posts which report historical records and expected future behaviour under a particular statistical model.

Paul

Irony weapons
 

[QUOTE=xilman;271444]Not in the slightest. I stand by my statement about the compatibility of the posts which report historical records and expected future behaviour under a particular statistical model.

Paul[/QUOTE]

We two (and William etc) know whether we are taking the P or being serious (usually simultaneously).

Amusing as many of UncWilly's posts are, I'm not sure that he (or even
Crandall) quite appreciates the irrelevance of historical data when it
comes to "Predicting M48".
(note the rare "staying on topic" bit)

BTW how is 10metreh doing these days?

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;271448]the irrelevance of historical data when it
comes to "Predicting M48".[/QUOTE]Exactly. That's why I stand by my evaluation of the situation. Uncwilly's and your statements are compatible because they are conveying truths about two essentially uncorrelated phenomena.


Paul

Doornob's broken...
 

[QUOTE=xilman;271450]Exactly. That's why I stand by my evaluation of the situation. Uncwilly's and your statements are compatible because they are conveying truths about two essentially uncorrelated phenomena.


Paul[/QUOTE]

Don't send me more letters please
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah9dO4Ebfck"]Desolation Row[/URL] excepted:smile:

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;271448]Amusing as many of UncWilly's posts are, I'm not sure that he (or even Crandall) quite appreciates the irrelevance of historical data when it comes to "Predicting M48".[/QUOTE]Hadn't you noticed that this thread is in the lounge and not in Math or Data?

Didn't you consider that this thread is:
[attach]6989[/attach]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;271502]Hadn't you noticed that this thread is in the lounge and not in Math or Data?

Didn't you consider that this thread is:
[attach]6989[/attach][/QUOTE]

Infamy, Infamy...

I don't think many here would consider a lack of frivolity
to be one of my chief faults.

Besides, I find math fun, and certainly discuss it frequently
over coffee or something stronger.

David

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jdIESQOrhQ&feature=related"]the_mi|k's[/URL]

° : 3 5

[QUOTE=davieddy;271616]Infamy, Infamy...
David[/QUOTE]

I assume that's the Carry On (?) line. Always makes me giggle.

[QUOTE=Flatlander;271731]I assume that's the Carry On (?) line. Always makes me giggle.[/QUOTE]

Nah.
We haven't heard of Frankie Howard this side of the pond since
Roman Times.

PS If Paul wishes to argue the toss, I will [B]stand [/B]corrected.

Sid James

PPS I wouldn't put that line past Kenneth Williams.

T'was Kenneth Williams. "Infamy! Infamy! They've allllll got it infamy!"

[QUOTE=Flatlander;271740]T'was Kenneth Williams. "Infamy! Infamy! They've allllll got it infamy!"[/QUOTE]

Well at least I covered all bases.

Meantime, if you ever wondered why Billie Holiday and Lester young
got together [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTruL8h83RM]Listen to this[/url]

David

It is now Sep 27th here in Denmark, and we may have a new sad record. The biggest prime gap since GIMPS started: 898 days (since April 12th 2009).

I say [B][I]may[/I][/B] since there is a very small chance (0.01% according to George, since [B]a lot[/B] of error codes on it) that we found a prime on Sep 21st: [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=16074"]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=16074[/URL]


[QUOTE]GIMPS found 13 primes so there are 12 gaps. Maximum gap is 897 days, minimum gap 14 days.

M(1398269) Nov 13 1996
M(2976221) Aug 24 1997 +284 days
M(3021377) Jan 27 1998 +156 days
M(6972593) Jun 1 1999 +490 days
M(13466917) Nov 14 2001 +897 days
M(20996011) Nov 17 2003 +733 days
M(24036583) May 15 2004 +180 days
M(25964951) Feb 18 2005 +279 days
M(30402457) Dec 15 2005 +300 days
M(32582657) Sep 4 2006 +263 days
M(43112609) Aug 23 2008 +719 days
M(37156667) Sep 6 2008 +14 days
M(42643801) Apr 12 2009 +218 days
[/QUOTE]

Lol I was reading the guesses at the beginning of this thread, and given the excellent perception of my hindsight, I laughed :)
But... 49.6M<M48<50.1M, in May of 2012. If you'll excuse my rather ambiguous notation. (Woe that is Indo-European languages! Woe that is Mersenne, that his last initial is the same as Million!)

[QUOTE=ATH;272811]It is now Sep 27th here in Denmark, and we may have a new sad record. The biggest prime gap since GIMPS started: 898 days (since April 12th 2009).

I say [B][I]may[/I][/B] since there is a very small chance (0.01% according to George, since [B]a lot[/B] of error codes on it) that we found a prime on Sep 21st: [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=16074[/URL][/QUOTE]

You'll also notice that we have never seen a gap including two full primeless calendar years (i.e. if you look at the sequence of years in which we found primes, you never skip over more than a single year). If neither of the two "M48" candidates are really prime, we have but 96 days until the end of 2011 and the first time in GIMPS history that the sequence of prime-discovery years will skip two slots.

Well, the wavefront is about 10M+ in front of the last prime, so either there's a HUGE gap, or we're in for a large group coming in close succession (though probably not two weeks like last time).

Gaps
 

[QUOTE=ATH;272811]It is now Sep 27th here in Denmark, and we may have a new sad record. The biggest prime gap since GIMPS started: 898 days (since April 12th 2009).

GIMPS found 13 primes so there are 12 [B][COLOR=#ff0000]gaps[/COLOR][/B]. Maximum gap is 897 days, minimum gap 14 days.

M(1398269) Nov 13 1996
M(2976221) Aug 24 1997 +284 days
M(3021377) Jan 27 1998 +156 days
M(6972593) Jun 1 1999 +490 days
M(13466917) Nov 14 2001 +897 days
M(20996011) Nov 17 2003 +733 days
M(24036583) May 15 2004 +180 days
M(25964951) Feb 18 2005 +279 days
M(30402457) Dec 15 2005 +300 days
M(32582657) Sep 4 2006 +263 days
M(43112609) Aug 23 2008 +719 days
M(37156667) Sep 6 2008 +14 days
M(42643801) Apr 12 2009 +218 days

[/QUOTE]

You might add (if you want):

Jan 4 ([FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]±3 days) 1996 Beginning of GIMPS[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]M(1398269) Nov 13 1996 +314 ([FONT=Times New Roman]±[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]3) days[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]or if you prefer:[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Jan 4 ([FONT=Times New Roman]±[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]3 days) 1996 Beginning of GIMPS[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]M(1257787) Sep 3 1996 +243 ([FONT=Times New Roman]±[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]3) days[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT] [David Slowinski & Paul Gage][/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]M(1398269) Nov 13 1996 +71 days[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]And the gap from Apr 12 2009 is today 903 days (or if you prefer Jun 4 2009 as the date of discovery of [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]M(42643801)[/SIZE][/FONT] [/SIZE][/FONT]850 days).[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]So I suppose there is 12, 13, 14 or 15 gaps depending on your perspective.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[/FONT]

I have a side bet...M48 (here meaning the 48th Mersenne to be found, since there's a nonzero chance that M(43112609) is actually M48) has already had an LL check performed on it, but the residue was erroneously returned nonzero.

[QUOTE=Christenson;273249]I have a side bet...M48 (here meaning the 48th Mersenne to be found, since there's a nonzero chance that M(43112609) is actually M48) has already had an LL check performed on it, but the residue was erroneously returned nonzero.[/QUOTE]

I too believe that this is bound to happen (if not with M48, then at some point in the near future) as the tests get larger, admitting more chance for fatal errors (whether the usual hardware variety or cosmic ray type), and also as the sheer number of tests performed increases to the point where the quoted 1.5% error rate even for "good" first time LLs becomes significant. If you perform one million LLs, and expect 1.5% of them to have a blank-but-incorrect error code, that is 15,000 potential candidates to be found prime on a double check!

[QUOTE=Christenson;273249]I have a side bet...M48 (here meaning the 48th Mersenne to be found, since there's a nonzero chance that M(43112609) is actually M48) has already had an LL check performed on it, but the residue was erroneously returned nonzero.[/QUOTE]
You're on!
If you mean 50/50 I'll bet my shirt for yours:smile:

David

PS I would offer to eat my hat if I still owned one.

Another shirt in prospect
 

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;273254]I too believe that this is bound to happen (if not with M48, then at some point in the near future) as the tests get larger, admitting more chance for fatal errors (whether the usual hardware variety or cosmic ray type), and also as the sheer number of tests performed increases to the point where the quoted 1.5% error rate even for "good" first time LLs becomes significant. If you perform one million LLs, and expect 1.5% of them to have a blank-but-incorrect error code, that is 15,000 potential candidates to be found prime on a double check![/QUOTE]

Suffering from disbelief in PNT?

David

[QUOTE=Christenson;273249]I have a side bet...M48 (here meaning the 48th Mersenne to be found, since there's a nonzero chance that M(43112609) is actually M48) has already had an LL check performed on it, but the residue was erroneously returned nonzero.[/QUOTE]
This had also occurred to me after my previous post... and is very good motivation for speeding up the DC's. Otherwise we'll never find it!!

[QUOTE=davieddy;273257]Suffering from disbelief in PNT?

David[/QUOTE]

Not really; it's not like I'm making a claim about the distribution of primes. Just saying that one day, we might miss one on the first go-around, and that we'll catch it on the double-check. If hardware errors can cause a non-zero residue to be corrupted to zeroes, I'm sure the other way around could very easily happen, as well.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;273258]This had also occurred to me after my previous post... and is very good motivation for speeding up the DC's. Otherwise we'll never find it!![/QUOTE]

If that's Washington DCs, I would recommend a sedative or two.

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;273260]If that's Washington DCs, I would recommend a sedative or two.

David[/QUOTE]

More like an enema...or maybe a series thereof.

Argument
 

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;273259]Not really; it's not like I'm making a claim about the distribution of primes. Just saying that one day, we might miss one on the first go-around, and that we'll catch it on the double-check. If hardware errors can cause a non-zero residue to be corrupted to zeroes, I'm sure the other way around could very easily happen, as well.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y]Asking for it[/url]

David

PS you will need to specify a time limit on your suggestion to
get me interested in a wager.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;273261]More like an enema...or maybe a series thereof.[/QUOTE]

:smile:

Don't tempt me!

[QUOTE=davieddy;271364]2011-09-10 1.195

Decrease 0.026 in 57 days

Expect next Mprime in 2192 days.[/QUOTE]

2011-10-16
Expected new primes < 79.3M 1.177
Decrease 0.018 in 36 days.

Expected time before next prime 2000 days.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;271155]There are 19 days left until we match the longest gap in the GIMPS era. And 42 days from hitting the average gap + 2 std dev.
axn has our next closest (non-expired) guess 10/1/2011[/QUOTE]Well, we are now sitting on average gap plus 2 std dev.
XYYXF guessed 11/1/2011
Christenson guessed 11/11/2011 (on 6/27/2011)

Insert PhilF avatar.

[QUOTE=davieddy;274741]2011-10-16
Expected new primes < 79.3M 1.177
Decrease 0.018 in 36 days.

Expected time before next prime 2000 days.[/QUOTE]
2011-12-20
Expected new primes < 79.3M 1.149
Decrease 0.028 in 65 days.

Expected time before next prime 2320 days.

What's 79.3M? And why the increase in time?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;282977]What's 79.3M? And why the increase in time?[/QUOTE][URL="http://mersenne.org/report_classic/"]Classic Summary[/URL].

Failure to keep the 1st time LL effort increasing by the necessary (and feasible) 20% per year?

Hence my crusade:smile:
David

[QUOTE=Dubslow;282977]What's 79.3M?[/QUOTE]qv. [url]http://mersennewiki.org/index.php/79.3_million[/url]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;275137]Well, we are now sitting on average gap plus 2 std dev.
XYYXF guessed 11/1/2011
Christenson guessed 11/11/2011 (on 6/27/2011)[/QUOTE]
Since then we have also passed these guesses:
davar55 12/31/2011 (on 12/25/2010)
davieddy 1/1/2012

1/7/12 marks a nice round 1000 days since the last prime.

petrw1 guessed 55,555,543 would drop on 5/5/2012
[YOUTUBE]angi1vwUkQc[/YOUTUBE]

[QUOTE=Dubslow;272861]Lol I was reading the guesses at the beginning of this thread, and given the excellent perception of my hindsight, I laughed :)
But... 49.6M<M48<50.1M, in May of 2012. If you'll excuse my rather ambiguous notation. (Woe that is Indo-European languages! Woe that is Mersenne, that his last initial is the same as Million!)[/QUOTE]

Screw this. >60M in 2013. (Or found on a DC.)

Expected new primes < 79.3M
 

A summary of Davieddy's and others post above:

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]2001-04 we expected 1.64 (found 2)
2004-07 we expected 1.28 (found 4)
2007-10 we expected 0.69 (found 3)[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]2008-10-25 1.747
2008-12-03 1.719
2009-10-25 1.528
2010-05-11 1.420
2010-10-25 1.342
2010-11-22 1.328
2010-12-25 1.314
2011-01-11 1.306
2011-02-05 1.295
2011-03-07 1.281[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]2011-05-26 1.244[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]2011-06-22 1.231[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]2011-07-15 1.221 Expected time to next prime is 2174 days[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]2011-09-10 1.195 Expected time to next prime is 2192 days[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]2011-10-16 1.177 Expected time to next prime is 2000 days[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]2011-12-20 1.149 Expected time to next prime is 2320 days[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]

Expected new primes < 596M ?
 

It would also be very nice if anyone could give a figure of the number of expected new primes < 596M. 596M is the largest exponent that can presently be handled by the current version of prime95.

Davieddy got at least some of his stats from [url]http://mersenne.org/report_classic/[/url] .
I'm sure someone around here know the formula for the expected primes.

Expected new primes < 79.3M
 

So Expected new primes < 79.3M

2012-01-31 1.131

Expected new primes < 596M
 

A rough estimation of exptected new primes between 79.3M and 596M is 5.384 so

Expected new primes < 596M is

6.515

I used the this formula:

"1 chance in ( p / ( (b-1) x 1.803 )) of being prime"

from

[URL]http://mersennewiki.org/index.php/GIMPS_chances_of_finding_a_prime_number[/URL]

[QUOTE=ixfd64;291608]Eliminating the result with the error code, that leaves M55253827. Unless the server completely removed the possible prime, then I think we have the candidate.[/QUOTE]

So it seems that petrw1 came about as close as anyone.
On 1/24/2011 he predicted 55,555,543 would be found prime on 5/5/2012. This is the first prediction in the future from yesterday's date.

As previously noted: davar55 predicted 12/31/2011 (on 12/25/2010) and davieddy predicted 1/1/2012

Christenson is also close 55,000,000 being found on 11/11/2011 (predicted 6/27/2011)

We were 2 days from having a gap of the average length plus 2.5 std dev.
1054 days.

Before you give me credit, let the DC go through...... but :smile: !

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;291670]So it seems that petrw1 came about as close as anyone.[/QUOTE]

Somehow my guess of 40% likely to be prime became 100%. Very curious.

[QUOTE=Prime95;291676]Somehow my guess of 40% likely to be prime became 100%. Very curious.[/QUOTE]

Didn't you know that once it's posted to the forum, it becomes gospel?

[QUOTE=Prime95;291676]Somehow my guess of 40% likely to be prime became 100%. Very curious.[/QUOTE]This thread is for fun only.:popcorn: It is not a press announcement.

[QUOTE=Prime95;291676]Somehow my guess of 40% likely to be prime became 100%. Very curious.[/QUOTE]That's what happens when the QM probability function collapses. Spooky action at a distance.

[QUOTE=aketilander;287874]A rough estimation of exptected new primes between 79.3M and 596M is 5.384
I used the this formula:

"1 chance in ( p / ( (b-1) x 1.803 )) of being prime"

from

[URL]http://mersennewiki.org/index.php/GIMPS_chances_of_finding_a_prime_number[/URL][/QUOTE]
With negligible LL-testing done, a simpler and more authorative
estimate is (log 596 - log 79.3)/log 1.476 = 5.18

Your formula probably overestimated because it assumes
P-1 has been done.

Similarly (log 79.3 - log 59.4)/ log 1.476 = 0.742
whereas the "classic summary" gives 0.391 + 0.356 = 0.747

David

@ Mods: please rescind my posting limit.
I have accumulated a considerable backlog of posts
demanding contentful reply.

Thanks Davieddy for the clarification! I just did a rough estimation. Thanks for clarifying the matters.

[QUOTE=aketilander;292205]Thanks Davieddy for the clarification! I just did a rough estimation. Thanks for clarifying the matters.[/QUOTE]
No Probs.
I never intentionally muddy the waters:smile:

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;292233]No Probs.
I never intentionally muddy the waters:smile:

David[/QUOTE]

Now you're just asking for trouble :razz:

Have I come to the right place?
 

[QUOTE=Dubslow;292235]Now you're just asking for trouble :razz:[/QUOTE]
:smile:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oalGu81z0-Y]David[/url]

Why should we need a M48 ?!?!
We already know too many mersenne primes, 47 of them, and we only know 46 primes with over a million digits. So, we first must find a prime with more then a million digits...
To equate the score... :ick:

[QUOTE=LaurV;292898]Why should we need a M48 ?!?!
We already know too many mersenne primes, 47 of them, and we only know 46 primes with over a million digits. So, we first must find a prime with more then a million digits...
To equate the score... :ick:[/QUOTE]

Any more of this numerology and I'll report you to the dreaded Silverperson.

[QUOTE=LaurV;292898]Why should we need a M48 ?!?!
We already know too many mersenne primes, 47 of them, and we only know 46 primes with over a million digits. So, we first must find a prime with more then a million digits...
To equate the score... :ick:[/QUOTE]
Don't you worry for a second. The collective "we" will definitely do [I]that[/I] first.
(I have a logarithmic ruler in my hand and I am no afraid to use it! Stay back!)

[QUOTE=Batalov;292965]
(I have a logarithmic ruler in my hand and I am no afraid to use it! Stay back!)[/QUOTE]

Mine is 6 inches, but I don't use it as a rule.

[QUOTE=aketilander;287855]So Expected new primes < 79.3M

2012-01-31 1.131[/QUOTE]
2012-03-21 1.107
decrease = .024
days = 50 (Yep. Remembered the leap year:smile:)

Expected days to next prime = 50/.024 = 2083.

David

Expected new primes < 79.3M
 

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]A summary of Davieddy's and others post above:[/FONT][/COLOR]

[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2001-04 we expected 1.64 (found 2)[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2004-07 we expected 1.28 (found 4)[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2007-10 we expected 0.69 (found 3)[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2008-10-25 1.747 [/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2008-12-03 1.719 Expected time to next prime was (39/0.028) 1393 days[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2009-10-25 1.528 Expected time to next prime was (326/0.191) 1707 days[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2010-05-11 1.420 Expected time to next prime was (198/0.108) 1833 days[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2010-10-25 1.342 Expected time to next prime was (167/0.078) 2141 days[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2010-11-22 1.328 Expected time to next prime was (28/0.014) 2000 days[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2010-12-25 1.314 Expected time to next prime was (33/0.014) 2357 days[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2011-01-11 1.306 Expected time to next prime was (17/0.008) 2125 days[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2011-02-05 1.295 Expected time to next prime was (25/0.011) 2273 days[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2011-03-07 1.281 Expected time to next prime was (30/0.014) 2143 days[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2011-05-26 1.244 Expected time to next prime was (80/0.037) 2162 days[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2011-06-22 1.231 Expected time to next prime was (27/0.013) 2077 days[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2011-07-15 1.221 Expected time to next prime was (23/0.010) 2300 days[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2011-09-10 1.195 Expected time to next prime was (57/0.026) 2192 days[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2011-10-16 1.177 Expected time to next prime was (36/0.018) 2000 days[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]2011-12-20 1.149 Expected time to next prime was (65/0.028) 2321 days[/COLOR][/FONT]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]2012-01-31 1.131 Expected time to next prime was (42/0.018) 2333 days[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]2012-03-21 1.107 Expected time to next prime is (50/0.024) 2083 days[/FONT][/COLOR]

or if we look at the whole period from 2008-10-15 -- 2012-03-21 the expected time to next prime is (1243/0.640) 1942 days.

Many thanks for this summary.
I'm sure the blessed Chalsall could display this graphically.
In case of confusing young Dubslow anymore,
I shall wait till I'm sober* before deliberating further.

David

*It may be some time.

[QUOTE=davieddy;293737]
At the risk of confusing young Dubslow any further,[/QUOTE]
Well, you've succeeded in confusing me as to when I was previously confused.
:surrender::geek::truck::lol: