[QUOTE=Dubslow;424182]My 4 DC assignments that expired last year were in that category.[/QUOTE]

Just to be clear (and this is meant to be friendly and playful)...

Did you not enter a contract for timely completion of the low candidates you were given?

[QUOTE=Madpoo;424179]...

So if I look at this mersenne.ca data:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/20160125/20160124/1/0"]http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/20160125/20160124/1/0[/URL]

It's *really* off.

Again, there could just be a lag in when mersenne.ca slurps the data from Primenet.[/QUOTE]

The factors of TJAOI are (almost) all for candidates with already known factors, so the report should be alright, since it only puts previously unfactored candidates in that list.

[QUOTE=chalsall;424185]Just to be clear (and this is meant to be friendly and playful)...

Did you not enter a contract for timely completion of the low candidates you were given?[/QUOTE]

No I understand. :smile: Just pointing out one of the exceptions to the rule of thumb.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;424192]No I understand. :smile: Just pointing out one of the exceptions to the rule of thumb.[/QUOTE]

Except in your case it sounds like they went more than a month without contact. :smile: (more like 60 days if they were cat 1 double-checks that expired?)

Still, I know what you meant: that no-contact for a month doesn't necessarily mean the machine/user gave up.

I could narrow it down a bit more and add that if they haven't been in touch for a month *and* they haven't checked in at all since the work was assigned, it's even more likely that it was a "walk away" assignment. Add on to that if it was assigned to "anonymous" it's even more likely.

I mean, no hard feelings, it happens, and it's nice that someone at least gave Prime95 a try. :)

[QUOTE=Madpoo;424202]Except in your case it sounds like they went more than a month without contact. :smile: (more like 60 days if they were cat 1 double-checks that expired?)
[/QUOTE]

Well my usual turn around time is 10-15 days, so the period without contact must have been at least 45-50 days.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;424153]I'd say nearly all of the factors found recently are in the 60-61 bit range so I'm guessing they're only going up to 2^61, but the exponents being tested are all over the place. From M860143 on Jan 5 to M999958027 on Jan 22.

Maybe George can contact this person (or persons?) and see if they can provide a history of all the factoring they did where no factor was found. It really should be added to the DB.[/QUOTE]

They go "by k", and not "by p" as we do our TF. When they are starting reporting 61 bits factors, you can be sure there is no factor left under 61 bits, for all the range. This was discussed here many times. Accidentally, my very first post on this forum, when I joined years ago, described a (not very efficient) method to do so. You can try something like that in Pari to get the idea what they are doing (but with their own faster tools):
[CODE]
/* trial factoring by k, specify a starting point and the outfput file */
ratf(q=2,fis="mf_by_k.out")=
{
while(1,
until(q%8==1 || q%8==7,q=nextprime(q+1)); /*not efficient*/
c=factorint(q-1)[,1]~; /*not efficient*/
for(i=1,#c,
if(c[i]<1000000000 && Mod(2,q)^c[i]==1, print(q" divides M"c[i]); write(fis,q","c[i]))
)
);
}
[/CODE]You can try call it with "ratf(100)" or "ratf(2^36)" or "ratf(2^40)" to see the speed. You can try with a random start like 2^85+rnd(2^84) and you may be lucky to step on a factor of some mersenne numbers (your luck would have to be higher than finding a bitcoin block - valued $11000 at the current price - from the first hash that you try, i.e. in the first millisecond when you start mining, hehe) - that is why it was called "[B][U]ra[/U][/B]tf"


They (TJAOI) are pretty close to their limit, in spite of the much faster tools they have.

Edit: the real question her is: Are they sending in any [U]missed[/U] factors? (i.e. factors for exponents where no factor was known?) Otherwise they are only filling the gaps, but not helping the project at all.

TJAIO has sent in factors that should have been found by TF. We found one user with a lot of bad TF shown by TJAIO's factors and found many more factors that were missed when reprocessing that user's work.

[QUOTE=LaurV;424253]Edit: the real question her is: Are they sending in any [U]missed[/U] factors? (i.e. factors for exponents where no factor was known?) Otherwise they are only filling the gaps, but not helping the project at all.[/QUOTE]Not everyone defines "the project" the same way. If one's "project" is to record all prime divisors (for whatever reason) then TJAIO is doing just fine, and is doing more for the "project" than those silly wasteful LL/DC testers. :razz:

User fireredd finished his/her expired assignment for [url=http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=34969871&exp_hi=&full=1]M34969871[/url], so that one is now successfully triple-checked.

This leads me to believe fireredd will likely complete a similar expired assignment on [url=http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=34973683&exp_hi=&full=1]M34973683[/url] within the next 24 hours. If so, this will then leave only [url=http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=34980299&exp_hi=&full=1]M34980299[/url] remaining for the sub-35M DC milestone.

[QUOTE=LaurV;424253]...
Edit: the real question her is: Are they sending in any [U]missed[/U] factors? (i.e. factors for exponents where no factor was known?) Otherwise they are only filling the gaps, but not helping the project at all.[/QUOTE]

I was wondering that myself, and whether the factoring graphs would be more useful to show only newly factored exponents rather than just any old factor for any exponent, previously factored or not.

That way we'd have a better sense of how the candidates for LL tests are being chipped away by TF.

Maybe I can work that data in there...

Countdown to double-checking all exponents below 35M: [color=red][size=5][b]1[/b][/size][/color]

User fireredd finished his/her expired assignment for M34973683, as I predicted.

We now wait for Greg.