Let's make it a goal to finish by Chinese New Year. Eid might be possible.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;377231]Not all countries celebrate their "birthday" on July 4. Petrw1 and I, among a number of others I would imagine, are from Canada, one of those little countries that are sort of hard to find. "Fireworks Day" would likely have referred to yesterday.[/QUOTE]

This is very true. I apologize for my lapse of exclusionary 'Americentrism.' No slight was intended.

[QUOTE=retina;377238]Oh, so there are only two countries in the world?

[size=1][color=grey]And you didn't even mention the two countries with the highest population.[/color][/size][/QUOTE]

No offence intended. There are only two countries which I knew did fireworks in July to celebrate their birthday. That being my predicted completion date.

[QUOTE=Primeinator;377285]This is very true. I apologize for my lapse of exclusionary 'Americentrism.' No slight was intended.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=petrw1;377290]No offence intended. There are only two countries which I knew did fireworks in July to celebrate their birthday. That being my predicted completion date.[/QUOTE]

We're all just poking fun here :razz:

You know, instead of posting milestones. Oh wait, here's one. Countdown to 1300 posts in Newer Milestone Thread: 35.

And here I thought Fireworks Day was meaning [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_Night"]Guy Fawkes Night[/URL], which is very doable, so your prediction can still be right!

I don´t believe this milestone will be cleared before February 2015. The exponents already assigned by Feb 2014 will be given a full year to complete, as stated in the Assignment Rules primenet page. There will probably be a bunch of them dragging their feet until they´re kicked out and reassigned (to hopefully reliable testers) by Feb 2015.

under 2,000
 

Feb 23, 2015. Anniversary of last DC proven...

Classic report Total P-90 CPU Years is now below 10,000,000.

[QUOTE=retina;367710]I guess it will have to do until the number drops below 1000 and a single query can return the entire range.[/QUOTE]Using this query on the temporary new server:
[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_LL/default.php?exp_lo=30000000&exp_hi=33219278&exp_date=&user_only=0&user_id=&exdchk=1&exbad=1&exfactor=1&txt=1&dispdate=1[/url]
And removing duplicates I show 2204 remaining exponents to finish all numbers below 10M decimal digits.

Less than 250 exponents left for proving M(32582657) is the 44th Mersenne Prime.

There are 249 remaining. Of these, there are 208 exponents for which the DC assignment was made before the new rules went into effect.

That means all of them should be completed or recycled within the next 6 (probably less) months.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;382001]Less than 250 exponents left for proving M(32582657) is the 44th Mersenne Prime.[/QUOTE]

All exponents below [B][COLOR="DimGray"]30,852,383[/COLOR][/B] have been tested and double-checked.
All exponents below [B][COLOR="Olive"]51,261,649[/COLOR][/B] have been tested at least once.

Countdown to testing all exponents below M([B][COLOR="Blue"]57885161[/COLOR][/B]) once: 7,071

Countdown to proving M([COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]32582657[/COLOR]) is the [COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]44[/COLOR]rd Mersenne Prime: 141
Countdown to proving M([COLOR="Green"]37156667[/COLOR]) is the [COLOR="green"]45[/COLOR]th Mersenne Prime: 69,291

The count down number for proving M44 went through 200 in the last week and has been dropping quickly.

44rd Mersenne Prime almost proved! :max:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;382927][COLOR=MediumTurquoise]44[/COLOR][U]rd[/U][/QUOTE]
:rofl:

[QUOTE=TheMawn;382974]44rd Mersenne Prime almost proved! :max:[/QUOTE]

Again with the 40 Ford, one simply cannot drive more than 1 Ford at a time :smile:

[QUOTE]
Countdown to testing all exponents below M([B][COLOR="Blue"]57885161[/COLOR][/B]) once: 7,071

C[/QUOTE]

Hopefully there is a Christmas present hiding in that range...

Of topic but somehow not. :smile:
Did it two days ago.

Oliver

Congrats on 500 Mm!

What is the vehicle?

Hi,

I hope my translation is correct

VW Golf IV (built 1999)
Baseline configuration
50kW diesel engine (without turbo charger)

My first own car, I drove virtually the whole distance alone (no other drives except a few hundred km).

Oliver

Under 100 DC to go

[QUOTE=petrw1;383673]Under 100 DC to go[/QUOTE]

Yes, only 96 left. Of these 91 were assigned under the old rules, and only 5 under the new rules. So I believe the rate at which the remaining assignments get completed will slow down. Fortunately, this should be the last of these milestones that will be held up by assignments made under the old rules.

I note that one of these five current assignments made under the new rules looks to be headed for recycling soon, although in general it looks like most of the assignments under the new rules are being completed in time, many in much less than the time allowed.

Why is [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=51261649&exp_hi=57885161&execm=1&exdchk=1&exp1=1&extf=1&B1=Get+Assignments"]this[/URL] page showing only 808 exponents, while the milestones page says "[SIZE=2]Countdown to testing all exponents below M(57885161) once: 6,833"?[/SIZE]

Because the rest is not assigned to LL for anyone yet. The page you are referring to doesn't show unassigned exponents and not even TF assignments on how you set the checkboxes.

Fair enough. Still – though unassigned, exponents in that range seem to be unavailable through the Manual Assignment page. (But maybe it's just me.)

I believe manual will only give you the last group from here. [url]http://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/[/url]

Manual assignment gives category 3 exponents.

Thank you, I missed that page.

Currently assigned [SIZE=2]prior to March 1:
32582657 milestone [/SIZE]– 83 assignments (total assignments and countdown: 85).
[SIZE=2]57885161 milestone [/SIZE]– 235 assignments (total assignments: 810; countdown: [SIZE=2]6,807[/SIZE]).

October 1, 2014. All exponents below 31 million have been double-checked.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;384139]October 1, 2014. All exponents below 31 million have been double-checked.[/QUOTE]

It looks like Electrino was a few hours too late for completing that last exponent for that milestone. Well, it looks like he still got approximately 32 GHz-days credit for the triple check.

[QUOTE=TheJudger;383609]Of topic but somehow not. :smile:
Did it two days ago.[/QUOTE]

Careful... That image proves you were using a device (or had someone doing it for you) to photograph your car's panel while you were doing something like 100 Km/h.

(Just in case it isn't clear, :smile:.)

[QUOTE=chalsall;384175]Careful... That image proves you were using a device (or had someone doing it for you) to photograph your car's panel while you were doing something like 100 Km/h.

(Just in case it isn't clear, :smile:.)[/QUOTE]

He's from Germany IIRC. 100 km/h is nothing on the Autobahn. 100 km/h in Bim on the other hand...well, that would catapult you clear across the country in a few seconds, eh? (Just kidding...it would take at least a minute...:smile:)

It's not about the speed, it's about using a phone/device and driving at the same time. In the Netherlands that can get you a fine of €227 (handsfree car-kits are allowed though). And they are quite strict in enforcing that law I've heard. With the busy traffic here, I for once think that is a good idea.

I've had my fair share of traffic tickets for "Traject-controles" (not sure if there is a good translation, but they measure average speed between two checkpoints on fixed places), they were practically invented here. Cruising between these point with an average >5 km/h above speedlimit, will get you a ticket, guaranteed. It's all automatic, the ticket will be in your mailbox a few days later. You can appeal all you like, but since it's an average, the excuse you were overtaking a truck/bus/etc won't work. You'll want to pay an extra cent more than the traffic ticket, the law enforcement is legally obliged to pay it back to you. And that is done by humans, just to give them a little payback (although I know I was wrong in the first place).

DC range @69bits
 

The DC range is now TFed to 69bits.

Countdown to proving M(32582657) is the 44th Mersenne Prime is now less than 50.

[QUOTE=legendarymudkip;384660]Countdown to proving M(32582657) is the 44th Mersenne Prime is now less than 50.[/QUOTE]


A lot of progress must have happened quickly:

Countdown to proving M(32582657) is the 44th Mersenne Prime: 30

Side note- the new website is shiny. Many kudos to whomever put in the time/effort!

[QUOTE=retina;381855]Using this query on the temporary new server:
[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_LL/default.php?exp_lo=30000000&exp_hi=33219278&exp_date=&user_only=0&user_id=&exdchk=1&exbad=1&exfactor=1&txt=1&dispdate=1[/url]
And removing duplicates I show 2204 remaining exponents to finish all numbers below 10M decimal digits.[/QUOTE]As of now there appears to be 2[sup]8[/sup] remaining till there's no more.

[QUOTE] 58000000 55978 | 35934 359 17066 67 2552 | 2449 183 4 | 17049 |
59000000 55801 | 35892 80 18173 19 1637 | 1416 215 5 | 41 18152 |

60000000 55930 | 36129 109 17898 17 1777 | 2 238 5 | 1554 17893 |
61000000 55555 | 35810 138 18931 12 664 | 400 11 | 275 18921 |
62000000 55706 | 36157 119 18963 9 458 | 385 17 | 80 18948 |
63000000 55780 | 36007 131 18039 34 1569 | 2 1451 8 | 147 18034 |
64000000 55468 | 35903 47 9313 60 10145 | 1 7052 21 | 3152 9292 |
65000000 55569 | 36058 11 5403 64 14033 | 1254 3 407 5 | 12436 5395 |
66000000 55644 | 35981 2 3387 29 16245 | 1685 68 1255 12 | 13284 3357 |
67000000 55575 | 35962 5 3160 41 16407 | 212 699 5247 33 | 10296 3121 |
68000000 55332 | 35356 7 1895 27 18047 | 2798 193 14171 10 | 7 908 1882 |
69000000 55390 | 35792 4 3256 23 16315 | 18 333 15986 22 | 3234 |

70000000 55309 | 34630 3 301 5 20370 | 11681 310 8353 1 | 30 1 300 |
71000000 55285 | 34314 6 350 1 20614 | 15408 1293 3913 2 | 348 |
72000000 55431 | 34621 459 4 20347 | 15894 249 4313 3 | 351 |
73000000 55165 | 33869 1 365 2 20928 | 18669 358 2119 2 | 147 |
74000000 55050 | 33934 40 21076 | 17947 305 2836 | 1 27 |
75000000 55307 | 34032 51 21224 | 20013 4 1207 | 50 |
76000000 54924 | 34030 15 20879 | 20100 4 775 | 15 |
77000000 55009 | 33998 6 15 2 20988 | 18486 892 1605 1 | 14 |
78000000 54900 | 34091 21 20788 | 14374 358 6056 | 20 |
79000000 54938 | 33909 2 6 21021 | 20158 159 703 | 6 |[/QUOTE]

Am I reading this wrong or is virtually every exponent in the 70M to 80M range currently assigned?

Most exponents are reversed by GPU72 for trial factoring. Those exponents are released as they reach 2^74 or as first LL test demand requires. Almost all of those exponents are inactive and are simply held so that assignments are not released before they are ideally TF'd.

Assignments at 80-81M are starting to go out for TFing and P-1.

[QUOTE=flagrantflowers;385442]Most exponents are reversed by GPU72 for trial factoring. Those exponents are released as they reach 2^74 or as first LL test demand requires. Almost all of those exponents are inactive and are simply held so that assignments are not released before they are ideally TF'd.

Assignments at 80-81M are starting to go out for TFing and P-1.[/QUOTE]

Ahh, okay. That makes sense. Thank you for clearing that up for me!

[QUOTE=flagrantflowers;385442]Most exponents are reversed[/QUOTE]
No, that is wrong, they are only reserved...
We, at GPU72, do not reverse exponents. We would like to, but we don't know how... I would like to reverse all exponents to make them give prime mersenne numbers... :razz:

The rest is as you said, we fully agree there.

[QUOTE=LaurV;385466]No, that is wrong, they are only reserved[/QUOTE]

:missingteeth:

Now less than 25 to go...

Countdown to proving M(32582657) is the 44th Mersenne Prime: 22

[QUOTE=LaurV;385466]No, that is wrong, they are only reserved...
We, at GPU72, do not reverse exponents. We would like to, but we don't know how... I would like to reverse all exponents to make them give prime mersenne numbers... :razz:

The rest is as you said, we fully agree there.[/QUOTE]

Lysdexics of teh wrold untie!

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;385481]Now less than 25 to go...

Countdown to proving M(32582657) is the 44th Mersenne Prime: 22[/QUOTE]

Dropping quickly!

Countdown to proving M(32582657) is the 44th Mersenne Prime: 20

[QUOTE=kladner;385485]Lysdexics of teh wrold untie![/QUOTE]

Dyslexia is frustrating, and hilarious at times. You proofread something five times and still miss obvious errors. I cannot for the life of me spell anything with two sets of double consonants.

What do you get when you cross a dyslexic, an insomniac and an athiest?

Ugh evangelical atheists are almost as bad as evangelical christians.

[QUOTE=petrw1;385492]What do you get when you cross a dyslexic, an insomniac and an athiest?[/QUOTE]

Sigh... An old (but good) joke...

Someone who stays awake wondering if there really is a dog.

[QUOTE=flagrantflowers;385494]Ugh evangelical atheists are almost as bad as evangelical christians.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=chalsall;385496]Sigh... An old (but good) joke...

Someone who stays awake wondering if there really is a dog.[/QUOTE]Eh? But an atheist wouldn't be wondering about such things. They already know for sure.

[size=1][color=grey]Pedants: ruining jokes since the dawn of history.[/color][/size]

[QUOTE=retina;385500]Eh? But an atheist wouldn't be wondering about such things. They already know for sure.

[size=1][color=grey]Pedants: ruining jokes since the dawn of history.[/color][/size][/QUOTE]

He misquoted the joke, which should say the person is an agnostic, not atheist.

[size=1][color=grey]Because one joke-ruining post isn't enough.[/color][/size]

[QUOTE=chalsall;385496]Sigh... An old (but good) joke...

Someone who stays awake wondering if there really is a dog.[/QUOTE]

:razz:

[QUOTE=Primeinator;385490]Dropping quickly!

Countdown to proving M(32582657) is the 44th Mersenne Prime: 20[/QUOTE]

It's 19 now, and I want to apologize in advance because I accidentally poached an exponent in progress.

31486109 ... and my apologies to "tysydenham" (you will still get credit when this is done, I'll make sure of that and remove my own credit). I'll remove the credit I got for it. I was testing what happens after a manual check in and I needed to run a test that would complete quick to use for that, and I just picked the lowest # needing a triple check. I totally spaced out the fact that, obviously, this would be assigned to someone else.

Very sorry about that.

Meanwhile, I'm hoping the rest of y'all who haven't been following the server redesign thread are enjoying the new look.

Once we've reached that new milestone on M44, I'm going to try and set something up so we'll have some fun stats on the other milestones... special reports where we can track the comings and goings of them and try to get some excitement around them.

If you have any ideas, let me know. Sounds like this thread is a good place to talk about the milestones so if there's anything I can do to make it easier to track some things, holler.

Some of my ideas are to link to some special assignments page that only includes the assignments to reach some milestone. You may have noticed that by default, the /assignments/ page includes the ones to reach the M44 milestone, so something like that.

The next ones are larger... 6380 to first-time LL check all the stuff up to M(57885161) which is too much for one report, but I've already whipped up something that will look at all the assignments and spit out an ETA on when the last one is expected to complete. I don't know if that's useful? I'm open for ideas though.

EDIT: just confirming I've removed 37.2586 GHz-Days from my total. :)

[QUOTE=Madpoo;385508]The next ones are larger... 6380 to first-time LL check all the stuff up to M(57885161) which is too much for one report, but I've already whipped up something that will look at all the assignments and spit out an ETA on when the last one is expected to complete. I don't know if that's useful? I'm open for ideas though.[/QUOTE]All exponents below 10,000,000 digits. i.e M33219280

And eventually all exponents below 100,000,000 digits etc.

Personal
 

I just now sneaked past the GPU72 Overall progress for the departed Pete (BCP19). Much has happened since, but it seems to me that he was once in the Top 5 on GPU72. It says something to me about the his contribution that it has taken this long, even with 2 GPUs a lot of the time, for me to equal his high water mark.

[QUOTE=retina;385515]All exponents below 10,000,000 digits. i.e M33219280

And eventually all exponents below 100,000,000 digits etc.[/QUOTE]

All exponents below 79,300,000 (the upper limit of classical GIMPS).

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;385528]All exponents below 79,300,000 (the upper limit of classical GIMPS).[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=retina;385515]All exponents below 10,000,000 digits. i.e M33219280

And eventually all exponents below 100,000,000 digits etc.[/QUOTE]

I like both of these ideas.

It might also be interesting to see how many exponents have been eliminated by trial factoring or P-1 in these given ranges. "Total LL-time saved = ....."

All under 10M digits have soon been double checked so that will be a short lived countdown.

So maybe 20M digits (M66438557)?

Or maybe the 5,000,000th prime exponent: 86,028,121 (or 3rd or 4th millionth if you want a shorter countdown: 49,979,687 / 67,867,967)

We are almost done with the first 2 million exponents btw, last one: M32452843

Here's some examples
 

Based on the comments thus far:

Countdown to double-checking all exponents below 10M digits (33219280): 209
Countdown to first time check all exponents below 20M digits (66438557): 46,496
Countdown to first time check all exponents below 79.3M (old client limit): 299,600
Countdown to single-checking all exponents below 100M digits (332192831): 6,031,014

Total # of exponents with a known factor: 28,345,717
Total # of factors found: 35,849,478 (yup, several have more than one factor found for it, some have a lot, most just one).

Total # of exponents checked at least once: 1,414,363
- double-checked = 749,044
- single checked = 617,725
- factor found later = 47,076
- bad/suspect unverified = 10,218
(there's some overlapping in the breakdowns, if you're double-checking the math)

If any of those #'s look wonky, then it's my fault. In my math classes I was always taught to verify any result based on at least a rule of thumb like "does it seem like you're in the ballpark with that answer?". In these cases, I don't really know... I don't have any estimates in mind of how much total work GIMPS has done over the years, and I'm also making some assumptions when pulling data from the database. :)

If those seem like they're reasonable, I could look at adding/updating the milestones page with whatever.

It does go to show, finding factors is a pretty big assist. 28.3MM exponents cleared from doing LL tests thanks to factoring work.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;385557]

Total # of exponents with a known factor: 28,345,717
[/QUOTE]

That´s a good one.
This number is available from GIMPS Visualization, but the count is currently wrong, and chalsall has already hinted he´s not going to do anything about it. Actually, several ranges (e.g. <1M, 400M, 500M), have the count of factored exponents wrong. As GIMPS Visualization used to be an interesting tool to track project progress, I´m wondering, if it´s not too much of a cheeky request, whether it woul be possible to integrate at least part of the info provided by GV in the info provided by the new server - basically the tabular data for "Exponent Status" and "Trial Factored Depth".

And btw, I´m really impressed by the look and specially the performance of the new server. Many congrats, Madpoo, and thanks a lot for your work!

[QUOTE=Madpoo;385557]Total # of exponents with a known factor: 28,345,717
Total # of factors found: 35,849,478 (yup, several have more than one factor found for it, some have a lot, most just one).
[/QUOTE]

Total # of Tested-Once exponents with no known factors?
Total # of Double-checked exponents with no known factors?

Ideas for the main page or work distribution page:

Factors found today/yesterday/daily chart.
DCs today/yesterday/daily chart.
First LLs today/yesterday/daily chart.

Days since last Mersenne prime found

[QUOTE=TheMawn;385690]Total # of Tested-Once exponents with no known factors?
Total # of Double-checked exponents with no known factors?[/QUOTE]

Maybe a link to a list of them, too? I can imagine there are some purists who would like all composites proven with a factor.

How about Davieddy's favorite stat: expected days until next prime?

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;385731]How about Davieddy's favorite stat: expected days until next prime?[/QUOTE]Remove the word "expected" and you're on to a winner there.

How about the estimated milestone completion dates based on the rate of LL/DC completion within each milestone bracket over the last 30 days?

[QUOTE=retina;385737]Remove the word "expected" and you're on to a winner there.[/QUOTE]

In case I was unclear, this value is computed by calculating the expected number of primes (per Poisson) over "the" interval (either the GIMPS classical interval <79.3M or the modern GIMPS interval <1B) at two points in time, say 30 days apart, and then dividing the number of days between the estimates by the change in the expected number of primes. This gives an estimate of the expected number of days it will take to (per Poisson) find >= 1 Mersenne prime. Davieddy loved to compute this ratio on a daily basis and keep waving it around in his anti-GPU72 arguments.

I love all of the meta-data that this project generates. The more of it we can show off, the better, I say!

[QUOTE=Madpoo;385508]It's 19 now, and I want to apologize in advance because I accidentally poached an exponent in progress.

31486109 ... and my apologies to "tysydenham" (you will still get credit when this is done, I'll make sure of that and remove my own credit). I'll remove the credit I got for it. I was testing what happens after a manual check in and I needed to run a test that would complete quick to use for that, and I just picked the lowest # needing a triple check. I totally spaced out the fact that, obviously, this would be assigned to someone else.

Very sorry about that.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that user has finished one of his other assignments, putting the countdown now at 18.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;385759]Well, that user has finished one of his other assignments, putting the countdown now at 18.[/QUOTE]

And now one less:

[QUOTE] Countdown to proving M(32582657) is the 44th Mersenne Prime: 17 [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=TheMawn;385727]Maybe a link to a list of them, too? I can imagine there are some purists who would like all composites proven with a factor.[/QUOTE]

M1277 kind of bugs me, being the smallest C with no known factor. Lots of ECM curves run on it though, that's for sure. Wherever that factor is, it'll be interesting if/when it's found. How many digits will there be in that bad boy? I even ran a few curves on it here and there for fun.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;385741]How about the estimated milestone completion dates based on the rate of LL/DC completion within each milestone bracket over the last 30 days?[/QUOTE]

I worked that up for proving M44 is actually M44. It all relies on whatever the last estimated completion is for all the assignments.

When I first looked, the ETA was February 2015 but someone's machine must have sped up or something got reassigned because it's now "ETA : 2014-11-14" :smile:

I even mocked up the query necessary and had it showing the ETA right next to the countdown, but it's so close to being done... Maybe I can add that back in for now. I better try it out again though.

The problem with some of the other milestones is that not all exponents needed to reach it are assigned, so the ETA is basically unknown.

I guess I could check and see if they're all assigned or not... if so, then show whatever the last ETA is. If they're not all assigned, well, no harm no foul, don't show anything.

EDIT: And... done. Added the ETA for that M44 entry, and also made the countdown # clickable to take you to the assignments page and shows the exponents remaining.

A few are overdue... hopefully they check in soon and don't leave us all hanging until it's expired later on.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;385814]M1277 kind of bugs me, being the smallest C with no known factor. Lots of ECM curves run on it though, that's for sure. Wherever that factor is, it'll be interesting if/when it's found. How many digits will there be in that bad boy? I even ran a few curves on it here and there for fun.[/QUOTE]

Well, M1277 itself has 385 digits, and ECM appears to have made a factor with 60 or fewer digits unlikely. On such a large number, one might reasonably want to do ECM up to 85 digits or so before attacking with SNFS, so more ECM definitely makes more sense. Keep running those curves and tell yourself you feel lucky! The next larger Mersenne number without known factors, M1619, seems well beyond current SNFS capability, so ECM and P-1 would be the only possible search methods with any reasonable probability of success. I think those would be interesting statistics to put somewhere on the web-page: currently smallest known Mersenne number not completely factored (M991), and currently smallest known Mersenne number with no known factor (M1277).

[QUOTE=philmoore;385819]Well, M1277 itself has 385 digits, and ECM appears to have made a factor with 60 or fewer digits unlikely. On such a large number, one might reasonably want to do ECM up to 85 digits or so before attacking with SNFS, so more ECM definitely makes more sense. Keep running those curves and tell yourself you feel lucky! The next larger Mersenne number without known factors, M1619, seems well beyond current SNFS capability, so ECM and P-1 would be the only possible search methods with any reasonable probability of success. I think those would be interesting statistics to put somewhere on the web-page: currently smallest known Mersenne number not completely factored (M991), and currently smallest known Mersenne number with no known factor (M1277).[/QUOTE]

Indeed interesting statistics!

Also:

[QUOTE]Countdown to proving M(32582657) is the 44th Mersenne Prime: 16(Estimated completion : 2014-11-14)[/QUOTE]

Not to beat a dead horse but down yet one more! :deadhorse:

I like the expected completion on the milestones page as well!

[QUOTE=philmoore;385819]Well, M1277 itself has 385 digits, and ECM appears to have made a factor with 60 or fewer digits unlikely. On such a large number, one might reasonably want to do ECM up to 85 digits or so before attacking with SNFS, so more ECM definitely makes more sense. Keep running those curves and tell yourself you feel lucky! The next larger Mersenne number without known factors, M1619, seems well beyond current SNFS capability, so ECM and P-1 would be the only possible search methods with any reasonable probability of success. I think those would be interesting statistics to put somewhere on the web-page: currently smallest known Mersenne number not completely factored (M991), and currently smallest known Mersenne number with no known factor (M1277).[/QUOTE]
IIRC, the current record for SNFS is the c355 of 2^1193-1 that was recently factored by Kleinjung et al. Factoring the M1277 (c385) with SNFS might just be possible before the end of this decade. M1619 with 488 digits is an entirely different story.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;385815]
When I first looked, the ETA was February 2015 but someone's machine must have sped up or something got reassigned because it's now "ETA : 2014-11-14" :smile:[/QUOTE]
So my prior guesses of July 4, Oct 31 and Feb 23,2015 have it surrounded. Looks like a sure win for me. Haha

[QUOTE=petrw1;385884]... Oct 31 ...[/QUOTE]So you mean Dec 25? Or Hex 19?

[QUOTE=retina;385885]So you mean Dec 25? Or Hex 19?[/QUOTE]

Hextober 19 sounds like a good day for your birthday. Very evil seeming.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;385893]Hextober 19 sounds like a good day for your birthday. Very evil seeming.[/QUOTE]I wish one of the months had 666 days. Is there a planet that has a 666 day year?

[QUOTE=retina;385902]I wish one of the months had 666 days. Is there a planet that has a 666 day year?[/QUOTE]

I could not find one... the closest is Mars at 687 Earth solar days.

A Google search of 666 day year turns up all sorts of "interesting" results

[QUOTE][url]https://www.google.com/search?q=planet+with+666+day+year&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb[/url][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=retina;385902]I wish one of the months had 666 days. Is there a planet that has a 666 day year?[/QUOTE]

If we define "month" by the usual definition, I bet there is some bizarre planet-and-moon system with a 666-day month.

Which makes me ponder: How might a "month" be (well) defined on a planet with multiple moons each with their own lunar cycle? What would the calendar look like on Jupiter, for instance? You can easily define a Jovian year and day, but I wonder what intermediate unit of time would be best adopted.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;385893]Hextober 19 sounds like a good day for your birthday. Very evil seeming.[/QUOTE]

If not for Augustus Caesar's ego, August might still be known as "Sextus" which could have easily morphed into "Sextember" which Pope Gregory would have changed to "Hextember" or "Hexember" when he reformed the calendar. Because witchcraft is always preferable to bedroom naughtiness, in the eyes of the Church. Never mind the kinds of things that would go on sale every Sextember!

Now the expected completion date for M44 is November 13th. This seems a very appropriate date, 263 days after the completion of M43. By coincidence, the discovery of M44 was also 263 days after M43.

Currently, the next milestone with the smallest # of checks to reach it would be the # of first time checks up to M(57885161), with 6273 checks to go.

I'd love to give an ETA on that but there are 5470 exponents in there that haven't been assigned (or were assigned but have expired).

Of the 803 that are assigned, the last one to come in is 56309053 due @ 2016-07-02 06:53:39.230. But hey, it's already 0.6% done after being assigned 10 months ago, so... yeah, we'll get there. :smile:

(some of those exponent counts could be off a bit, I rushed through the queries to figure out what was assigned, how many are left, etc)

Methinks lots of folks are getting record breaking assignments, or whatever.

Now this would be interesting to see... some kind of distribution of 1st time LL assignments. What are folks up to?

A graphical distribution of assigned LL / DC tests would be cool. Different curves depending on rate of progress?

Now November 12th

Countdown to proving M(32582657) is the 44th Mersenne Prime: 15 (Estimated completion : 2014-11-12)

Madpoo keeps referring to estimated completion dates as "due" dates. I think of due dates as being when assignments must be completed to avoid getting recycled.

These estimated completion dates are simply dates that Prime95/mprime (or other software) calculates and reports to the server. These estimates can be highly inaccurate in some cases. When a user has had an assignment for over 250 days, is less than 70% done, has progressed less than 1 percentage point in the past two weeks, and estimates completing the assignment in only 17 more days, I have to be highly skeptical.

While I suppose it may be of some interest to know what completion date for a milestone will be based upon such estimated completion dates, I think such an estimated value has to be taken with a lot of grain of salt. Especially when we are dealing with a milestone being held up by these old assignments that are grandfathered from the new assignment/recycling rules. These grandfathered assignments should be history by the time we get close to the M45 milestone, fortunately.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;385945]...
Methinks lots of folks are getting record breaking assignments, or whatever.

Now this would be interesting to see... some kind of distribution of 1st time LL assignments. What are folks up to?[/QUOTE]

I ran a little breakdown. Sorry of the formatting is out of whack in the list. These are first time LL assignments that haven't expired (i.e. they *should* be currently assigned, but not all have actually started yet):

[CODE]
exponent range assignments
50M-60M 1194
60M-70M 45897
70M-80M 32951
80M-90M 128
90M-100M 2
100M-110M 29
110M-120M 1
130M-140M 24
150M-160M 1
160M-170M 12
170M-180M 1
200M-300M 105
300M-400M 4461
400M-500M 27
500M-600M 91
600M-700M 25
700M-800M 3
800M-900M 1
900M-1000M 16
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;386008]Madpoo keeps referring to estimated completion dates as "due" dates. I think of due dates as being when assignments must be completed to avoid getting recycled....[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's true, they're just the self-reported estimates for completion, but it's all we have to go on. I've been calling it the "ETA" informally which is a little more accurate... or ETC (estimated time of completion) but that's an uncommon abbreviation and ambiguous. :smile:

I could call it the "estimated completion date" like the column name in the database infers, but my fingers would get tired of typing that. :)

I did stick with "estimated completion" on that milestone page for M44 though since I new "due date" wouldn't quite be right. Even the estimated completion is likely going to be wrong since at least one of those in the list may have been abondoned by it's assignee "barbedwireisgood". It's only 22 days overdue though, so it's too soon to tell... but it has been a month since it checked in at all. I guess we'll see. Some eager beaver is likely to poach it if nothing else.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;386013]Even the estimated completion is likely going to be wrong since at least one of those in the list may have been abondoned by it's assignee "barbedwireisgood". [/QUOTE]

On this exponent it says the next [I]update[/I] is 9-26-2014; however, this has clearly already passed. Does this column denote when the computer was supposed to check in to the server?

[QUOTE=Primeinator;386033]On this exponent it says the next [I]update[/I] is 9-26-2014; however, this has clearly already passed. Does this column denote when the computer was supposed to check in to the server?[/QUOTE]

Yup, that's it exactly. I don't remember if it's the client that tells the server how often it'll be checking in, based on the config setting for that. I think that's how it works, so the server knows when to expect the client to check in again.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;386013]Yeah, it's true, they're just the self-reported estimates for completion, but it's all we have to go on.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it's NOT all we have to go on.

But, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter all that much. History will present itself in its own time.

(I hope that's interpreted as being positive; it's meant to be.)

[QUOTE=chalsall;386086]Actually, it's NOT all we have to go on.

But, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter all that much. History will present itself in its own time.

(I hope that's interpreted as being positive; it's meant to be.)[/QUOTE]

Once a computer starts work, as it does it's regular check-ins it gives it's current % done, and also updates it's "due date". I guess someone/something else could look at the % done and, along with the rolling average, make an educated guess as to whether the estimate is any good, but that's actually what Prime95 itself is doing to come up with the estimate.

Now, when it comes to assignments that haven't started yet, or maybe an LL test that's still doing some pre-TF work or something, the estimates are probably not that good since it's basing it on when all prior work finishes up, which may or may not be any good.

I guess if you have a better idea how to get a more accurate "estimated completion" using available data, we can try to make some of the reports better. I was figuring that using the self-reported dates were probably the best thing to start from even if it turns out to be way off in the end. After all, there's no way to predict if a computer gets turned off over a weekend when it's normally up 24/7, or a computer gets used during the day for something particularly CPU heavy so Prime95 doesn't get as much CPU time as usual for a few hours, throwing off the estimates.

But generally I'd assume that over time the ETA will self-adjust and it's "good enough for government work" as the saying goes.

:bounce:

And the list shrinks...

[QUOTE] Countdown to proving M(32582657) is the 44th Mersenne Prime: 14 [/QUOTE]

I will be curious to see how many of these are abandoned by the users (if any). Some of them did not check in at their last expected date but there are a hundred reasons for this.

[QUOTE=Primeinator;386172]I will be curious to see how many of these are abandoned by the users (if any). Some of them did not check in at their last expected date but there are a hundred reasons for this.[/QUOTE]

This most recently completed double check (toward the milestone) was completed in "only" 427.5 days. Good job, ANONYMOUS, for sticking with it and completing it! :smile:

Some of the recently completed long-held assignments (exponents below 32582657) are:
[CODE]
Name Exponent Result When received Days GHz-days Residue

john_s 31518659 C 10/22/14 17:10 324.5 35.8087 0B5B59FC94E5BF__
tysydenham 32057407 C 10/22/14 13:37 295.4 37.9346 295D9542927A1C__
RMAC9.5 32412767 C 10/23/14 5:42 295.9 36.8245 99881640A41F00__
ANONYMOUS 32444567 C 10/24/14 17:41 350.8 35.7116 586D5BE48336D3__
ANONYMOUS 31242383 C 10/26/14 18:28 427.5 36.9702 BA41052A2E8B1A__
[/CODE]

I think the remaining 14 exponents can be completed by the current assignment holders assuming they make an effort to do so, and report progress often enough (and people continue to hold off from poaching). I'm considering five of them to be rather questionable at this point. If the assignment holders show consistent progress, they should be less likely to be poached upon when the countdown winds down.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;386105]But generally I'd assume that over time the ETA will self-adjust and it's "good enough for government work" as the saying goes.[/QUOTE]

Let me please expand on my statement, and thinking...

1. The "self-reported" estimates can be wildly off.

1.1. This is less of an issue for current Cat1 and Cat2 qualified workers.

2. For those candidates not yet assigned to a milestone, a very rough estimate can be derived based on historical performance meta-data.

2.1. This is what I do on GPU72 for the [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/estimated_completion/primenet/"]Estimated Completion[/URL] reports, for example.

2.1.1. Note that I only have to take into account the overall LL to TF performance to (try to) keep a balance for the TF'ing.

3. Estimating particular milestones with more accuracy would need to take into consideration particular Category performance and rules, and the range of each Category at the time of assignment.

Clearly, a non-trivial problem space. But doable.

Yes we're approaching this point where the poaching becomes tempting. I could finish them all off in a week by myself if I wanted.

Considering the rate of progress though, I don't think it will be very long.


Really, we should be looking at the next significant milestone after this one, because the new rules will be kicking in by the time we're there and the progress should be almost constant in terms of # of results per week.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;386198]Yes we're approaching this point where the poaching becomes tempting. I could finish them all off in a week by myself if I wanted.

Considering the rate of progress though, I don't think it will be very long.


Really, we should be looking at the next significant milestone after this one, because the new rules will be kicking in by the time we're there and the progress should be almost constant in terms of # of results per week.[/QUOTE]

It looks like several are definitely on track to finish in the next couple of days:

31938679 D LL, 98.50% 269 1 2014-01-31 2014-10-26 2014-10-27 2014-10-28 ANONYMOUS
31989091 D LL, 98.60% 269 1 2014-01-31 2014-10-26 2014-10-27 2014-10-28 ANONYMOUS
32273279 D LL, 96.60% 324 1 2013-12-07 2014-10-26 2014-10-27 2014-10-28 Kankabar

Or... at least they have checked in recently and aren't overdue despite their age.

[QUOTE=Primeinator;386203]Or... at least they have checked in recently and aren't overdue despite their age.[/QUOTE]

Thank you. At least one of your examples demonstrates the issue wonderfully (didn't bother to drill down on the other two):

[CODE]32273279 D L, 61.70% 42 7 2014-01-25 2014-01-18 2014-01-17 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 61.70% 43 7 2014-01-26 2014-01-19 2014-01-18 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 82.70% 57 3 2014-02-05 2014-02-03 2014-02-02 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 82.80% 69 3 2014-02-17 2014-02-14 2014-02-13 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 83.20% 71 3 2014-02-19 2014-02-17 2014-02-16 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 83.20% 78 3 2014-02-26 2014-02-24 2014-02-23 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 83.20% 85 3 2014-03-05 2014-03-03 2014-03-02 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 83.30% 94 3 2014-03-14 2014-03-12 2014-03-11 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 83.40% 98 2 2014-03-17 2014-03-15 2014-03-14 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 85.70% 101 2 2014-03-20 2014-03-18 2014-03-17 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 85.70% 104 2014-03-21 2014-03-19 2014-03-18 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 85.70% 108 2 2014-03-27 2014-03-25 2014-03-24 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 85.70% 115 2 2014-04-03 2014-04-01 2014-03-31 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 85.70% 119 2 2014-04-07 2014-04-05 2014-04-04 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 90.00% 126 1 2014-04-13 2014-04-12 2014-04-11 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 90.00% 130 1 2014-04-17 2014-04-16 2014-04-15 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 90.00% 134 -1 2014-04-19 2014-04-18 2014-04-17 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 92.50% 141 2 2014-04-29 2014-04-28 2014-04-27 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 92.50% 144 1 2014-05-01 2014-04-30 2014-04-29 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 92.60% 146 2 2014-05-04 2014-05-03 2014-05-02 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 92.60% 150 9 2014-05-15 2014-05-07 2014-05-06 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 92.60% 155 9 2014-05-20 2014-05-12 2014-05-11 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 93.50% 161 8 2014-05-25 2014-05-18 2014-05-17 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 93.50% 169 8 2014-06-02 2014-05-26 2014-05-25 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 93.50% 179 7 2014-06-11 2014-06-04 2014-06-03 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 94.20% 188 7 2014-06-20 2014-06-14 2014-06-13 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 94.20% 198 4 2014-06-27 2014-06-23 2014-06-22 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 94.20% 207 5 2014-07-07 2014-07-03 2014-07-02 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 94.40% 222 5 2014-07-22 2014-07-17 2014-07-16 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 94.40% 240 5 2014-08-09 2014-08-04 2014-08-03 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 95.00% 249 6 2014-08-19 2014-08-13 2014-08-12 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 95.90% 264 3 2014-08-31 2014-08-29 2014-08-28 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 96.30% 291 1 2014-09-25 2014-09-25 2014-09-24 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2[/CODE]

Kankabar's Goldi2 machine has been promising to have this candidate done within a week since the beginning of this year (probably longer).

Read: serious analysis cannot be based on the "estimated completion date" from the client.