[QUOTE=Madpoo;402263]Wow, user "Ollum98" must be eating his Wheaties because the assignment for M54357769 is showing a big burst of speed. It had been poking along at something like 0.1% per week (per week!) and then just in the past 3 days it's shot up by 0.8%.

That obviously skews the 30-day trend of it's progress so I can't make a solid prediction. If it can keep up the latest rate of progress though, it *should* finish in just a couple more days since it's at 98.9% right now.[/QUOTE]

Now up to 99.0%. Perhaps this person has recently realized that it may expire soon, and has started giving it more runtime than usual.

[QUOTE=chalsall;401245]Please let us know who's residue you match with (presuming you do). I don't know why I'm listed as one of the attempts -- it didn't pass through the GPU72 proxy....[/QUOTE]

M79299719 is not prime.

[url=http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=79299719&full=1]Bad news[/url] for For Research.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;402303][url=http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=79299719&full=1]Bad news[/url] for For Research.[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm... Thanks for the update.

Must investigate....

I just poached 2 of the last 3 54M exponents
 

I just checked in my own results for:
M54674791
M54759797

They were down to the point where the original assignment had less than a week left to finish it up before it expired at the rate it was going.

My latest projection on those was a completion date of Nov/Dec 2018.

So, now they're done with a first time check. Those assignments are converted to a double-check and maybe, just maybe, they'll finish up before they get reassigned to someone else as a double-check.

That leaves just M54357769 as the lone 54M first-time check. It's at 99%, and with it's recent "growth spurt" it may just finish in time. It is funny though... it went through a spurt there where it went up a whole 1% in 10 days, but then hasn't moved at all for the past 3 days... stuck at 99%. It might be back to it's slow progress.

Whatever the case, it'll expire irregardless in 29-30 days at most even if it managed to jump up to 99.9% by then. Or 26 days if it's stuck at 99%. We'll know a little better as we get closer to that day... if it doesn't seem like it'll make it I'll check in my result for it as well so at least the original assignee will be converted to a double-check. I already know it's not prime (oops... "spoiler alert").

[QUOTE=Madpoo;402518] irregardless[/QUOTE]

:bob:

[QUOTE]...[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless"]irregardless[/URL]...[/QUOTE]

Don't you judge me! :smile: I've been known to let an "ain't" slip into my vocabulary... some folks would pass out.

The mere fact that you still knew what I meant means that usage is fine. And that's how the English language has become such a mess, thanks to sloppy native speakers like myself. LOL

[QUOTE=Madpoo;402520]Don't you judge me! :smile: I've been known to let an "ain't" slip into my vocabulary... some folks would pass out.[/QUOTE]Shirley for all intensive porpoises without further or due your gonna stay cool, calm and collective under pressure, rite?

[QUOTE=retina;402521]Shirley for all intensive porpoises without further or due your gonna stay cool, calm and collective under pressure, rite?[/QUOTE]

A'ight!

Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 57M: 4
 

The text is lying. Or the count is lying. Both can't be right.

Either: Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 57M: 8
Or: Countdown to first time checking all exponents between 56M and 57M: 4

[QUOTE=retina;402570]The text is lying. Or the count is lying. Both can't be right.

Either: Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 57M: 8
Or: Countdown to first time checking all exponents between 56M and 57M: 4[/QUOTE]

The countdown lies.

I cheated a little bit... in the countdown for < 57M it's *really* the countdown for stuff between 56M and 57M. That's because when the <56M is eventually done, then that will be correct.

Anyway, it's wrong, but deliberately so, based on the SQL query used. I could make the wording more clear, or just go with a total <57M that includes the remaining 54M/55M work, but those won't be there too much longer.

Ditto on the double-check milestones. Call me lazy. :) If you click on the links to see the assignment report, it only includes the stuff for that specific range.

All exponents below [B]33,776,779[/B] have been tested and double-checked.
All exponents below [B][COLOR="Blue"]54,357,769[/COLOR][/B] have been tested at least once.

Countdown to testing all exponents below M([B][COLOR="Blue"]57885161[/COLOR][/B]) once: 916
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 56M: [B][COLOR="Red"]4[/COLOR][/B] (Estimated completion : [COLOR="Green"]2015-07-05[/COLOR])
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 57M: [B][COLOR="Red"]4[/COLOR][/B] (Estimated completion : [COLOR="Green"]2015-06-04[/COLOR])
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 58M: [B][COLOR="Red"]908[/COLOR][/B] (140 still unassigned)

Countdown to double checking all exponents below 34M: [B][COLOR="Red"]5[/COLOR][/B] (Estimated completion : [COLOR="Green"]2015-05-28[/COLOR])
Countdown to double checking all exponents below 35M: [B][COLOR="Red"]9,380[/COLOR][/B] (8,630 still unassigned)

Countdown to proving M([COLOR="Green"]37156667[/COLOR]) is the [COLOR="green"]45[/COLOR]th Mersenne Prime: 40,175