All exponents below 63M have now been tested at least once.

Yeah, I have been continuing to "poach" them just a few hours before they are recycled. I do not consider it poaching but I'm sure some disagrees.

A month ago:
[CODE]All exponents below 34,969,871 have been tested and double-checked.
All exponents below 60,371,299 have been tested at least once.

Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 61M: 6 (Estimated completion : 2016-02-11)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 62M: 13 (Estimated completion : 2016-02-11)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 63M: 25 (Estimated completion : 2016-02-11)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 64M: 84 (Estimated completion : 2016-05-12)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 65M: 134 (Estimated completion : 2016-05-12)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 66M: 200 (Estimated completion : 2016-05-12)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 67M: 764 (2 still unassigned)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below M(74207281): 81,863

Countdown to double-checking all exponents below 35M: 7 (Estimated completion : 2016-02-02)
Countdown to double-checking all exponents below 36M: 5,932 (5,201 still unassigned)

Countdown to proving M(37156667) is the 45th Mersenne Prime: 16,191
Countdown to proving M(42643801) is the 46th Mersenne Prime: 99,202
Countdown to proving M(43112609) is the 47th Mersenne Prime: 108,391
Countdown to proving M(57885161) is the 48th Mersenne Prime: 400,202
Countdown to proving M(74207281) is the 49th Mersenne Prime: 636,148[/CODE]

Today:
[CODE]All exponents below 35,049,317 have been tested and double-checked.
All exponents below 63,012,913 have been tested at least once.

Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 64M: 19 (Estimated completion : 2016-05-31)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 65M: 27 (Estimated completion : 2016-05-31)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 66M: 38 (Estimated completion : 2016-05-31)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 67M: 160 (Estimated completion : 2016-05-31)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 68M: 5,316 (4,354 still unassigned)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below M(74207281): 75,758

Countdown to double-checking all exponents below 36M: 4,131 (3,486 still unassigned)

Countdown to proving M(37156667) is the 45th Mersenne Prime: 12,698
Countdown to proving M(42643801) is the 46th Mersenne Prime: 91,788
Countdown to proving M(43112609) is the 47th Mersenne Prime: 100,506
Countdown to proving M(57885161) is the 48th Mersenne Prime: 388,723
Countdown to proving M(74207281) is the 49th Mersenne Prime: 706,261[/CODE]

The countdown to proving that M74,207,281 is M#49 went up?

[QUOTE=ixfd64;426898]The countdown to proving that M74,207,281 is M#49 went up?[/QUOTE]

not sure if [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=425767&postcount=2230"]post 2230[/URL] influenced it or if they tried to do some prediction to a finite degree if Madpoo's 5% or whatever it is now holds up what would the predicted number of tests be or what though 5% at each round of testing failing would only bring it too 669629 by my math in PARI (using suminf(x=0,1/(20^x)) ).

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;426886]All exponents below 63M have now been tested at least once.[/QUOTE]

Milestone page updated.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;426906]not sure if [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=425767&postcount=2230"]post 2230[/URL] influenced it or if they tried to do some prediction to a finite degree if Madpoo's 5% or whatever it is now holds up what would the predicted number of tests be or what though 5% at each round of testing failing would only bring it too 669629 by my math in PARI (using suminf(x=0,1/(20^x)) ).[/QUOTE]

As far as I know it should be correct... it's simply a count of how many exponents below M49 (in this example) are still unverified.

The exponents below it could be checked once, perhaps twice+ with mismatches, but whatever the case, they remain unverified/unfactored.

I can look at the query again and see if I messed something up. I used the same query for M49 that existed for M45-M48 and hopefully I didn't screw it up in some unholy way.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;426911]As far as I know it should be correct... it's simply a count of how many exponents below M49 (in this example) are still unverified.

The exponents below it could be checked once, perhaps twice+ with mismatches, but whatever the case, they remain unverified/unfactored.

I can look at the query again and see if I messed something up. I used the same query for M49 that existed for M45-M48 and hopefully I didn't screw it up in some unholy way.[/QUOTE]

I don't know, it seems okay. I can only guess that something was weird with the result from a month ago that showed the lower value.

It's definitely the type of measurement that should always be going down, never up.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;425900]I'm wrapping my head around the "if then or that then this else if that then this but not that" expiration rules... it's got my brain in a knot but I think I'm making progress.

What I want to be able to do is spit out a simple "days to expire" rather than the ambiguous and ultimately meaningless "age" on the assignment report.[/QUOTE]

I think I've worked out a little "something something" to show expiration dates. On the assignments page for now, and it's showing that instead of the (mostly) useless "Age" column.

Here's an example showing the DC stuff in the 35M-36M range.
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/default.mock.php?exp_lo=35049317&exp_hi=36000000&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exfirst=1"]Beta DC assignment[/URL]

And another example with first-time tests in the 63M-67M range:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/default.mock.php?exp_lo=63128917&exp_hi=67000000&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1"]Beta LL assignments[/URL]

I haven't fully tested/debugged, but whatever, it's a start.

The way it seems to work out, it seems like cat 3/4 assignments that haven't started at all will expire once they reach their designated "you better at least start in XX days".

Cat 2 assignments don't have anything like that... they don't have to start in a certain time frame, they only expire once the exponent becomes cat 1.

Once any assignments become cat 1, they obey the rules of how many days they should have finished in, according to what category they were in at the time of assignment.

So anyway, I wrote a SQL function to try and take all of that into account and spit out a "Expires" value (in days).

You'll notice, if you try different ranges, that some exponents don't have a value, and that's because they're not cat 1 yet but they've started work, so they can take as long as they want until it becomes cat 1, and there's no way to predict when that would be.

If you see any issues on those "default.mock.php" versions of that page, let me know.

Oh, the "expires" color coding breaks down to anything with 10+ days until expiration are plain black-on-white. If it's between 4-9 days until it expires, it's black-on-yellowish, and <= 3 days, it's white-on-reddish. Just a little visual cue.

I also changed the color on the "ETA" and "Estimated Completion" so it's simply red-on-white if it's more than 3 days past when it said it'd be done instead of the multi-leveled coding the live page has. Nothing too fancy, just another visual cue that there's an assignment that's probably MIA.

If you enter 72M to 72.1M you'll get several undefined variables.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;426987]I think I've worked out a little "something something" to show expiration dates. On the assignments page for now, and it's showing that instead of the (mostly) useless "Age" column.[/QUOTE]

I would say it's the [b]Account Assignment Details[/b] page where changes such as this are really needed.