[QUOTE=gjmccrac;431506]How can you tell if the new Cat 0 is going to work if you circumvent it.[/QUOTE]

Who hath drawn the circuits for the lion?

[QUOTE=ixfd64;431507]Are we really that impatient?[/QUOTE]

That may have been rhetorical, but the answer is "YES"! :smile: Well, some of us anyway. I've had to sit on my hands to keep from running this one.

Truth be told though, there's another one that I *did* start a test on earlier today: [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=66957773"]M66957773[/URL]

It expires in a day, the assignee hasn't updated progress for 10 days anyway, and even then it wouldn't have been done for another 23 days (using my own analysis of the actual progress).

In a case like that I don't feel bad about checking in a result just before it expires and gets reassigned, so it isn't assigned to someone else and takes a while. Plus it's not "the last one in a range" so it's probably not as big a deal anyway.

Now I just hope my test actually finishes in time... It was kind of a spur of the moment thing and it'll take me another 30 hours... if it expires and reassigned before then, well, I guess I'll just save it and check it in later so the new assignee isn't getting poached. I should have started it a little sooner, I'm thinking, but I think I might have just shy of 2 days to get it done anyway.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;431524]Now I just hope my test actually finishes in time... It was kind of a spur of the moment thing and it'll take me another 30 hours... if it expires and reassigned before then, well, I guess I'll just save it and check it in later so the new assignee isn't getting poached. I should have started it a little sooner, I'm thinking, but I think I might have just shy of 2 days to get it done anyway.[/QUOTE]

For the love of Mersenne, please create an assignment for yourself before it gets reassigned as cat 0. In the future, I would suggest that you let these become cat 0, otherwise what's the point in having it.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;431524]Now I just hope my test actually finishes in time... It was kind of a spur of the moment thing and it'll take me another 30 hours... if it expires and reassigned before then, well, I guess I'll just save it and check it in later so the new assignee isn't getting poached. I should have started it a little sooner, I'm thinking, but I think I might have just shy of 2 days to get it done anyway.[/QUOTE]

It will expire at the latest tonight at midnight UTC which is 22 hours after your post saying you needed 30 hours.

[QUOTE=chalsall;431477]

My thinking is that you have the firepower to finish this in a couple of days or so, and it is currently holding up _three_ milestones (not that I personally care).
[/QUOTE]

I actually think there is a fourth milestone secretly lurking in the midst.
[B]
All Mersenne numbers up to 20 million digits tested at least one. All exponents ≤ 66,438,571 tested[/B]

[QUOTE=ATH;431534]It will expire at the latest tonight at midnight UTC which is 22 hours after your post saying you needed 30 hours.[/QUOTE]

It had longer before expiring, and my result just got turned in.

I think (I haven't checked) the expiration I have showing up on the assignment page will count down to zero before it expires. Well, that is true (that's what it was showing when I just turned mine in), but I think the reason is because the expiration task runs just before midnight UTC each day. I have a feeling if it ran after midnight, the date calculation would have tossed it into the expired category.

Well, I won't argue with success in this case. :smile:

And yeah, I guess I coulda shoulda let it expire and be reassigned to see how the new rules handled it. I didn't think about that until I'd already started my test and got 20% or so in, so by then I was committed.

[QUOTE=rudy235;431582]I actually think there is a fourth milestone secretly lurking in the midst.
[B]
All Mersenne numbers up to 20 million digits tested at least one. All exponents ≤ 66,438,571 tested[/B][/QUOTE]

I guess that would indeed be a milestone of sort.

I'm not sure if that's something worth memorializing on the milestone page... what do others thing? A year ago, we noted when all 10M digit Mersenne numbers had been double-checked (looks like we didn't note when they'd all been tested at least once).

Is that something worth doing for every multiple of 10M digit things as another way to tick off some progress? Thoughts?

[QUOTE=Madpoo;431601]Is that something worth doing for every multiple of 10M digit things as another way to tick off some progress? Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

These are rare enough that it is probably worth it to have it.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;431601]A year ago, we noted when all 10M digit Mersenne numbers had been double-checked (looks like we didn't note when they'd all been tested at least once).[/QUOTE]

It was on Dec 25th 2010:

2010-12-25 All exponents below M(37156667) tested at least once.
2010-12-25 All exponents below M(32582657) tested at least once.

If we consider the first Titanic Prime 2 [SUP]4253[/SUP]-1 as a good date to start measuring, we have that getting to the first 10 million digit number milestone took from November 3rd 1961 to December 25th 2010, 49+ years. Going from 10 million to 20 million will probably take about 5 years and 5 to 6 months.

[QUOTE=ATH;431626]It was on Dec 25th 2010:

2010-12-25 All exponents below M(37156667) tested at least once.
2010-12-25 All exponents below M(32582657) tested at least once.[/QUOTE]

I see what you're saying... the first 10M digit exponent (33219281) is between those two Mersenne primes, and since both of those had their "tested at least once" on the same day, that would necessarily include <33219281 as well.

Was it really the case where the milestones for 32M, 33M, 34M, 35M and 36M were all held up by some single test that *finally* finished? How horrid. :smile: The separate milestone dates for those 5 things are indeed the same date... geez.