[font=Times New Roman][size=+4]VIII[/size][/font]

Countdown to proving M(32582657) is the 44th Mersenne Prime: 8 (Estimated completion : 2014-11-17)

Double check of M(32207701) was finished.

And less than 100 to go to prove no more Mersenne Primes with less than 10 million digits.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;386765][font=Times New Roman][size=+4]VIII[/size][/font]

Countdown to proving M(32582657) is the 44th Mersenne Prime: 8 (Estimated completion : 2014-11-17.[/QUOTE]

Looks like 4-5 can/will be reassigned before they will finish

[url]http://www.mersenne.org/M32155297[/url] has currently had 3 LLs reported. 1 is suspect, the other 2 are unverified (unmatching). The assignment is 21 days overdue at the moment, and is almost a year old. The latest result is an attempted poach but the residues didn't match. If any of them should be poached, this is the one (in my opinion).

[QUOTE=legendarymudkip;386782]If any of them should be poached, this is the one (in my opinion).[/QUOTE]

If no one objects, I could "cook" this candidate in about 18 hours.

Edit: Actually, if no one objects, I could [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=32155297&exp_hi=32582657&execm=1&extf=1&B1=Get+Assignments"]cook[/URL] all four of these "bad boys" in about 18 hours (concurrently, on different CPUs).

Any objections? If I don't hear a sane objection by my EOD, they'll be put in the queue.

I'm currently running [url]http://www.mersenne.org/M32155297[/url] anyway, so I object to that one :razz:

Besides that, I'd stick to ones that are overdue a long way just in case they do actually finish it - at the moment that's just the ones that are overdue in general. 32155301, 31148503 and 31517393.

ETA on 32155297 ~5h30.

[QUOTE=legendarymudkip;386789]I'm currently running [url]http://www.mersenne.org/M32155297[/url] anyway, so I object to that one :razz:[/QUOTE]

OK. I certainly don't wan't to "step on toes". But then, equally, I don't like those who "take the piss" either.

Does anyone object to me DC'ing 32155301, 32273279 and 32544607 in the next 24 hours?

[QUOTE=chalsall;386793]OK. I certainly don't wan't to "step on toes". But then, equally, I don't like those who "take the piss" either.

Does anyone object to me DC'ing 32155301, 32273279 and 32544607 in the next 24 hours?[/QUOTE]

Imho.. aren't the last 2 showing recent progress and likely to finish soon?

[QUOTE=petrw1;386796]Imho.. aren't the last 2 showing recent progress and likely to finish soon?[/QUOTE]

OK, I don't disagree.

Let's not "poach" a candidate at least until George's promise of legacy assignments being given a year's "grandfathering", even if "Cat-1".

(Although I have to put on the record that Kankabar's 32,273,279 is going to be "poached" by me personally once it is 365.01 days old.)

[QUOTE=legendarymudkip;386789]I'm currently running [url]http://www.mersenne.org/M32155297[/url] anyway, so I object to that one :razz:

Besides that, I'd stick to ones that are overdue a long way just in case they do actually finish it - at the moment that's just the ones that are overdue in general. 32155301, 31148503 and 31517393.

ETA on 32155297 ~5h30.[/QUOTE]

This got me wondering how long it would take on one of my large multi-core boxes... It has 2 x 10-core E5-2690 V2 processors (3 GHz), so 20 cores (plus 20 hyperthreads, but I won't count those).

1 worker thread using 20 cores, it tells me it'll take 12.5 hours or so.

Well heck, I'll just let it run as a manual test, but I won't check it in, I'll just use it to verify residues. That's unusual to see a quadruple check. Now I have it in my brain to do a database query and see how often that happens... what's the most # of times a check had to be done before 2 matched?

Hmm... I'll puzzle over that query. There are certainly a good # of exponents where people ran the LL test many times, but with the same residue. 21934219 has been done 656 times with the same residue, for instance. Umm... good job! 6522911 has been done 305 times with the same result, 8893783 got checked 244 times.

Maybe those 3 were used as tests for different code bases or something to verify the process. There are another 80 exponents that were done 10-79 times each with the same residue, then thousands of single digit instances of the same exponent/same result.

Now I need to break it down into multiple attempts where we got 3 or more different residues... I'll get back on that. :)

[QUOTE=Madpoo;386801]...
Now I need to break it down into multiple attempts where we got 3 or more different residues... I'll get back on that. :)[/QUOTE]

Interesting. Now, the exponent report on the website isn't always going to show all of these. For example:
2397103 has been LL checked many times, resulting in no less than *13* different residues.

The exponent report doesn't list the full details though, because that number got factored by ECM. The historical data on the exponent report is also pulling from a different source and it's not going to include suspect/bad results if an exponent is later verified by a matching double-check, or if it's factored.

To see an example of an unverified triple-mismatch, try this:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M62059441"]http://www.mersenne.org/M62059441[/URL]

So that one will be needing a quadruple check at some point.

Here's the weird breakdown for the number crunching crowd. I didn't bother narrowing it down to how many checks have been run altogether, so some of those "only one unique residue" are probably because it's only been checked once so far. Don't read too much into that one.
[CODE]
# of residues frequency
13 1
9 1
8 1
7 1
6 4
5 6
4 148
3 4840
2 86557
1 1326570
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=chalsall;386800]OK, I don't disagree.

Let's not "poach" a candidate at least until George's promise of legacy assignments being given a year's "grandfathering", even if "Cat-1".

(Although I have to put on the record that Kankabar's 32,273,279 is going to be "poached" by me personally once it is 365.01 days old.)[/QUOTE]

On the topic of poaching...

I was just remembering a LONG time back when I wasn't so popular with some GIMPS participants because I was poaching exponents that I reckoned had been abandoned. I was just digging back through some old Mersenne mail list archives about those. It's always fascinating to read things you wrote 15 years ago, FYI. For good humor, go back and read some of those archived threads from June 1999. I was snarky back then, apparently. :smile:

I suppose all of my history with poaching controversies should tell me to stay out of it, although to be fair to myself, much of the criteria I used way back when are actually part of the recycling policy now, even if not specifically... Maybe I shouldn't feel so guilty about stirring the pot back then?