[QUOTE]Countdown to proving M(30402457) is the 43rd Mersenne Prime: 14[/QUOTE]

Ever closer.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;365206]Would you be fine with me taking an exponent just below a known prime (via a manual assignment) and then reporting exactly 0.005% completion per week? That would hold up the proving a prime's position past the lifespan of everyone here today.[/QUOTE]It wouldn't annoy me, but would probably get you poached by someone else _if_ our assignment rules didn't handle this case.

Annoyance is not "waste". You still can't demonstrate any "waste" (except of your own time) that damages the project in general, can you?

[quote]Since it was a manual assignment, one could seek the number out and get it without the normal restrictions.[/quote]If our assignment rules didn't handle that case, then we need better assignment rules, not poaching.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;365207]Cheesehead, all we're trying to do here is trim the fat and speed up the process of finishing the lower end of assignments.[/QUOTE]Fine with me.

Perhaps [I]you could have a word with the folks who bring up the same old rationales (e.g., "waste") for poaching[/I], so I wouldn't always have to be the one to do it.

[quote]We're trying to clean things up without poaching.[/quote]Of course we are. To echo Chris: "Exactly!"

[QUOTE=chalsall;365258]Cheesehead... Will you agree that part of your position is based on you, personally, being targeted for poaching (and, thus, an emotion position)?[/QUOTE]Whether it is has no bearing on the soundness of reasoning in the rest of my position, so why do you bring that up?

[quote]Do you not think that it is reasonable that a slow system is given appropriate work from now on, and that the work will be recycled after a year or two if it isn't completed?[/quote]Of course that's reasonable.

[quote]Must we wait for the rest of our lives for a slow machine to complete its work?[/quote]No.

Why would you pose such an absurd question to me? It was Uncwilly, not me, who proposed that scenario above. Do you need to read the posts more carefully?

:pancakebunny:

Here- a rabbit with a pancake to calm things down. See- cute, eh?

On a unrelated note:

[QUOTE]Countdown to proving M(30402457) is the 43rd Mersenne Prime: 13[/QUOTE]

If one of us just agrees with you, will you stop saying it?

A computer reporting hellishly slow progress isn't being directly wasteful itself, per se, no. Nobody is trying to make the opposite claim, that I know of. I certainly am not.

Now Cheesehead, what exactly is the point you're trying to make? If it doesn't involve something other than poaching, I'll be done wasting my time on this topic, because that is NOT what we're talking about here.

[QUOTE]Countdown to proving M(30402457) is the 43rd Mersenne Prime: 12[/QUOTE]

This is an impressive level of progress!

Can we get the next 2 done before year end?
(All LL to M48 and All DC to M44)

I think if George has a change to implement some form of assignment / reassignment rules for LL and DC it could be quite likely.

[QUOTE=petrw1;365489]Can we get the next 2 done before year end?
(All LL to M48 and All DC to M44)

I think if George has a change to implement some form of assignment / reassignment rules for LL and DC it could be quite likely.[/QUOTE]

Would be great to see but I find it unlikely any changes will be implemented immediately. Get back to me after my next glass of Belgian beer and I may have a different opinion...

[QUOTE=TheMawn;365367]A computer reporting hellishly slow progress isn't being directly wasteful itself, per se, no. Nobody is trying to make the opposite claim, that I know of.[/QUOTE]Yes, there are folks making the opposite claim. They quiet down after I refute it, but later they or others keep bringing it up again.

[quote]I certainly am not.[/quote]Of course not, and I never said you were.

[quote]Now Cheesehead, what exactly is the point you're trying to make?[/quote]I made it. See earlier posts.

GIMPS now boasts 120,000 users!

[QUOTE=Primeinator;365494]Would be great to see but I find it unlikely any changes will be implemented immediately. Get back to me after my next glass of Belgian beer and I may have a different opinion...[/QUOTE]

A change to the assignment rules and/or the same proactive approach to 30-33M that we have seen to 28-30M would easily do the trick for M44.

As for M48, most of these exponents will become "preferred" over the next few months, even under the current assignment rules, so in theory, this milestone has a good chance of falling in 2014 as well.

[QUOTE=Prime95;364998]How to proceed? Do you want me to start separate threads for each strategy with an initial proposal?[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis"]Analysis paralysis[/URL]...

There has been a great deal of very valuable discussion on this issue. With many very good perspectives on how to move forward.

Perhaps it is now (or at least, soon) time to come to a communal decision, and then to actuate on same...?