They have merged in the past. I remember vaguely when what is now the line up to 35'100,000 was divided.:smile:

[QUOTE=rudy235;465477]They have merged in the past. I remember vaguely when what is now the line up to 35'100,000 was divided.:smile:[/QUOTE]

Oh, hmm... looks like that's the case.

Okay, I merged it and made a few minor layout tweaks.

While you are busy with layout tweaks on that page, the column "TwoLL" needs to accommodate one digit more, it should have the same width as the column "Facored" or "Numbers".

Jacob

[QUOTE=S485122;465493]While you are busy with layout tweaks on that page, the column "TwoLL" needs to accommodate one digit more, it should have the same width as the column "Facored" or "Numbers".

Jacob[/QUOTE]

I see no reason why they can't fix [u]both[/u] issues simultaneously.:smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;465450]I'm not sure what the original thinking was of those breakpoints in the chart. I thought maybe it was based on the average FFT size used for those exponents or something like that (except for the large 0-35.1M section).[/QUOTE]

That is exactly how it was: one line for each FFT size, going back to the days of low seven-figure exponents. As each FFT size bracket was "eliminated" (i.e. all of the exponents requiring a given FFT size were double-checked), they were merged together into the larger line at the top of the report, and the FFT size for all of the merged exponents was recorded as "Many" or "Various".

Historically, the rationale likely was that each larger FFT size meant an increase in the number of P90 CPU years required to test a given group of exponents, and since this report gives the number of P90 CPU years left in each interval, it made sense to break the exponents down by FFT size.

Incidentally, imagine testing exponents near 79.3M on a P90! The fact that we are completing this table (though completing the double-check stage is still probably 10+ years off) is a testament to both the massive increases in computing power that we have witnessed in the last 20 years, and the amazing effort that both administrators and users bring to GIMPS day after day, year after year (and now, decade after decade!).

[QUOTE=Madpoo;465486]Oh, hmm... looks like that's the case.

Okay, I merged it and made a few minor layout tweaks.[/QUOTE]

The TwoLL column does not add up at the bottom; it looks as though the top cell in that column is not being added into the total.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;465614]The TwoLL column does not add up at the bottom; it looks as though the top cell in that column is not being added into the total.[/QUOTE]

Whoops, yeah. Fixed.

changes to milestone page
 

I was making some tweaks to the milestone page.

First off was removing the "ETA" since they're wildly inaccurate. I kept in the "unassigned" count but gave it a friendlier moniker: "available"

Next up was re-wording past milestones... I wanted to remove some ambiguity, especially around "proving" the past Mersenne primes in regards to the official order of them when all below have been double-checked.

And speaking of "double checking", that's also a misnomer because it may be more than double-checked... the proper term, to me, is "verified" so I've adjusted everything accordingly.

Plus, rather than talk about verifying all "exponents" below XYZ I opted for the phrase "verified all tests below XYZ" because that's really what's being verified/double-checked... the test, not the exponent.

Anyway, it probably matters to nobody here since we all know, but when primes are found or bigger milestones reached like those that "prove" the order of a known prime, we don't want to be confusing to anyone on the outside.

The wording changes can be found on the mockup page...they're not live yet since I thought it'd be good to get people's input:
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_milestones/default.mock.php"]Milestone page -
test[/URL]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;466133]...
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_milestones/default.mock.php"]Milestone page -
test[/URL][/QUOTE]There are still many place where the word "double" appears.

Plus, since you are making everything consistent then the three different discovered texts could be altered: "discovered!!", "discovered!" and "is discovered!"

Ugh! It is a mess ... of "exponents tested" and "tests verified". Never noticed how much of a mess it was.

While we're at it, why the two different notations, one using exponent and one using Mersenne number?
Countdown to verifying all tests below 41M
Countdown to verifying all tests below M(42643801)

[QUOTE=axn;466158]Ugh! It is a mess ... of "exponents tested" and "tests verified". Never noticed how much of a mess it was.

While we're at it, why the two different notations, one using exponent and one using Mersenne number?
Countdown to verifying all tests below 41M
Countdown to verifying all tests below M(42643801)[/QUOTE]

Because while 42643801 is an exponent of a proven Mersenne prime, the 41M only reflects "a round number" which it is only to represent a symbolic milestone.
AFAIK