On Jul 22[QUOTE=Uncwilly;267190]All exponents below 22,440,701 have been tested and double-checked.
All exponents below 38,051,551 have been tested at least once.

Countdown to testing all exponents below M(42643801) once: 420
Countdown to testing all exponents below M(43112609) once: 634

Countdown to proving M(24036583) is the 41st Mersenne Prime: 63
Countdown to proving M(25964951) is the 42nd Mersenne Prime: 6,788[/QUOTE]

Today:
All exponents below 22,545,883 have been tested and double-checked.
All exponents below 38,103,407 have been tested at least once.

Countdown to testing all exponents below M(42643801) once: 255
Countdown to testing all exponents below M(43112609) once: 364

Countdown to proving M(24036583) is the 41st Mersenne Prime: 20
Countdown to proving M(25964951) is the 42nd Mersenne Prime: 4,876

The gap between these two is exactly 10,000:

[SIZE=2]Countdown to proving M(42643801) is the 46th Mersenne Prime: 327,440[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Countdown to proving M(43112609) is the 47th Mersenne Prime: 337,440[/SIZE]

PrimeNet now has 70,000+ users, and 500,000+ CPUs. :tu:

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;271268]Using the exponentially decaying clearing pace since 2011-05-21, the dates will be 2012-04-05 and [B]2015-03-18 (!!)[/B], respectively.[/QUOTE]

I think the best suitable model is:
At first it follows the linear model, then it follows the exponential model when the numbers of the exponents decrease enough.

So I think 2015-3-18 is a bit too late.

Edit: In this model, all exponents less than 43112609 will be double checked at 2023.

Toward a minor milestone:

23 Jan 11: 304
28 Jan 11: 285
19 Mar 11: 183
30 Mar 11: 155 = 1 + 60 + 94
08 Apr 11: 147 = 1 + 58 + 88
13 Apr 11: 142 = 1 + 57 + 84
18 Apr 11: 136 = 1 + 56 + 79
21 Apr 11: 130 = 1 + 52 + 77
27 Apr 11: 124 = 51 + 73
03 May 11: 114 = 45 + 69
14 May 11: 100 = 39 + 61
16 Jun 11: 69 = 30 + 39
29 Jun 11: 55 = 21 + 34
11 Jul 11: 49 = 18 + 31
21 Jul 11: 42 = 16 + 26
30 Jul 11: 33 = 11 + 22
07 Aug 11: 24 = 7 + 17
16 Aug 11: 19 = 4 + 15
23 Aug 11: 15 = 2 + 13
7 Sep 11: 14 = 2 + 12
26 Sep 11; 7 = 1 + 6

As of today, GIMPS is 7 LL tests from proving
all mersenne prime exponents < 24000000 have been found,
and are 40 in number.

The recent slowdown (to approximately .37 per day)
leaves an estimated reach-date of Oct 16, 2011.

[SIZE=2]Countdown to proving M(24036583) is the 41st Mersenne Prime: 4[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=moebius;273388][SIZE=2]Countdown to proving M(24036583) is the 41st Mersenne Prime: 4[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
Which is incidentally the same number as exponents <24,000,000. Hopefully before the end of the month. [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_LL/?exp_lo=0&exp_hi=24036583&exp_date=&user_only=0&exdchk=1&exbad=1&exfactor=1&dispdate=1&B1=Get+LL+data"]List of tests[/URL]

Also, never having been around before, do completed double checks get an academic paper? Or just a page on the mersenne.org website?

Two of these exponents will be completed in the next day and a half. (2350xxxx and 2396xxxx). Maybe earlier if they are poached :(

The other two exponents have assignment ages of 10 and 16 months. Should anything be done about those? That is to say, how likely is it that those tests won't ever be completed by their current assignee?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;273517]The other two exponents have assignment ages of 10 and 16 months. Should anything be done about those? That is to say, how likely is it that those tests won't ever be completed by their current assignee?[/QUOTE]Channeling Cheesehead:
[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="2"][COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"][B]100.1 miles an hour is greater than 100 miles an hour. Just hold your horses and wait for the assignments to complete.[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE=Dubslow;273517]The other two exponents have assignment ages of 10 and 16 months. Should anything be done about those? That is to say, how likely is it that those tests won't ever be completed by their current assignee?[/QUOTE]

Not very...there's been a checkin every 60 days, and whoever has those exponents assigned has stuck with things, for a minimum of 10 and 16 months, respectively.

At a guess, they aren't doing them on a new computer, either, which makes it likely the person involved has been contributing for several years.