[QUOTE=Madpoo;387997]I guess if one of these happened to be the next Mersenne Prime there could be some discussion there... whoever tested it first would get the credit, but [B]the original assignee might be upset[/B]. But hey, it is what it is, the rules are what they are.[/QUOTE]
About upsetting I'm the one who will never unreserve an exponent, manually. :smile:


What's the probability that there is a Mersenne prime between 2^(51,907,363)-1 and 2^(57,885,161)-2 (I'm excluding the current M48)? Looking at [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/primes/"]the known Mersenne prime distribution[/URL] it doesn't seem impossible at all.
Poaching would reward 3000$ this time. :rolleyes:

The distribution through time is kind of silly. The discovery date is irrelevant and almost even detrimental to any (futile as it may be) insight into the likelihood of finding another.

[QUOTE=Luis;388011]What's the probability that there is a Mersenne prime between 2^(51,907,363)-1 and 2^(57,885,161)-[COLOR=Red]2[/COLOR] (I'm excluding the current M48)?
[/QUOTE]
Huh?? :shock: how did you get that, by excluding some number in the middle of the ocean?

[QUOTE]
Poaching would reward 3000$ this time. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
You may be shocked to learn that in this case the money may still go to the original (legal) assignee, or not go anywhere at all.. This is first to discourage poaching. Read the former discussions here around, and Gimps' disclaimer about the money (also, no money until EFF pays its slice, which may take 10 years or so, till a 100M decimal digits prime is found). If you are here to make money you will be very disappointed. :smile:

I'm not a poacher and I've a respectable position in Top Producers. I think being the discoverer is priceless too. :wink:

About my question there is no mathematical evidence. Just imagining that 'hole' in the distribution and many first time LL tests to go could hide a Mersenne prime. Anyway: not impossible != probable.

November 19, 2014. All exponents below [B]52[/B] million have been tested at least once.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;388052]November 19, 2014. All exponents below [B]52[/B] million have been tested at least once.[/QUOTE]

Cool, we'll have to update that page now. All under 53M have been checked in fact (those last 3 stragglers).

Umm... it bears mentioning that all 3 of those were poached.

One of them, 51907363, was making steady progress and being updated daily with an ETA of Dec 1. The other 2 in the 52M range had last checked in 6 days ago, and were 81% done, with ETAs of Dec 10 and 11, so they weren't really abandoned either.

None were prime, and when the original assignees check in their results, hopefully the residues match and they'll be good double-checks, but anyway... there it is. :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;388063]Cool, we'll have to update that page now. All under 53M have been checked in fact (those last 3 stragglers).[/QUOTE]

Yup.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;388063]Umm... it bears mentioning that all 3 of those were poached.[/QUOTE]

Yup. By me. Personally. As previously announced and then (sorta) generally agreed apon.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;388063]One of them, 51907363, was making steady progress and being updated daily with an ETA of Dec 1. The other 2 in the 52M range had last checked in 6 days ago, and were 81% done, with ETAs of Dec 10 and 11, so they weren't really abandoned either.[/QUOTE]

Cool.

Then they'll get the appropriate credit for the DC (or, maybe, the TC) residue they finally submit in a few years (unless, of course, a factor is found).

Although I´ve never been affected by poaching (nor have I ever done it), it´s something that really kind of bugs me.
I appreciate that the rules had to be changed, because as they stood, many exponents were just "begging to be poached".
Seeing the progress of milestones systematically blocked by stragglers, many of which should have been released a long time ago, was more than many of us could stand.
But now that the new rules are in place, I don´t see anymore an "excuse" for poaching. What can we gain from clearing a milestone a couple of days/weeks earlier, knowing that it will be cleared sooner than later, due to the new rules? Gone are the times when we could not say if/when they would be eventually cleared.
I was quite displeased by the poaching of these 3 exponents, that were making a steady progress and approaching completion at a regular pace. I really don´t understand the motivation for doing this in such circumstances, apart from an unjustified impatience, or some desire of being noticed.
That´s due to this kind of things that I still advocate that poached results should be simply refused by the server.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;388016]The distribution through time is kind of silly. The discovery date is irrelevant and almost even detrimental to any (futile as it may be) insight into the likelihood of finding another.[/QUOTE]
Noooo! I didn't mean distribution through time. I meant the exponents' distance, if I could call so. Between M38 and M39 it's 6,494,324, between M39 and M40 it's 7,529,094, then 8 Mersenne primes with avg distance 3,159,514 and so between M47 and M48 it's 14,772,552! Suspect, but nothing more than an (not mathematical) observation, maybe stupid, but just curious.

[QUOTE=lycorn;388070]But now that the new rules are in place, I don´t see anymore an "excuse" for poaching. What can we gain from clearing a milestone a couple of days/weeks earlier, knowing that it will be cleared sooner than later, due to the new rules? Gone are the times when we could not say if/when they would be eventually cleared.

I was quite displeased by the poaching of these 3 exponents, that were making a steady progress and approaching completion at a regular pace. I really don´t understand the motivation for doing this in such circumstances, apart from an unjustified impatience, or some desire of being noticed.[/QUOTE]

As the "poacher", please let me defend myself...

1. From the "instantainious" view from Primenet, these three cadidates /appeared/ to be making progress.

2. From a more temporally spread view of the same report (which I have access to because of my spiders), it was clear that these three candidates would take /much/ more time to actually complete than allowed under the current (implemented) Primenet recycling rules.

3. So, then, I gave notice of my intent to poach, waited for a strong objection, and then loaded them up.

[QUOTE=lycorn;388070]That´s due to this kind of things that I still advocate that poached results should be simply refused by the server.[/QUOTE]

Personally, I'd be very happy with that. I said before that if the straggler turns out to be a MP, the "poached" should be credited.

Edit: Sorry, I misread you. I wouldn't be happy with the result being rejected. I'd be happy with the "poached" being given the credit for the work, even if a MP.

[QUOTE=chalsall;388064]
Then they'll get the appropriate credit for the DC (or, maybe, the TC) residue they finally submit in a few years (unless, of course, a factor is found).[/QUOTE]

I don't really care, personally.

If you like, you could check the other 324 exponents that are below 56M for single-checks. :) Well, except 6 of those which, by some odd luck, are assigned to me. And yes, they're being worked on at a good pace. :smile: