September 09, 2018 All tests below 45 million verified. :smile:

It looks like we will have cleared up to 81M by the end of October. This will be a fine year of milestones. The "new" assignment rules and class system seems to be helping out. Poaching has all but disappeared.
:thread:

16,000 to go under 1Million
 

That is, not yet factored. Just a little over 20% left.

Milestones this year:
2018-01 None
2018-02-22 All tests below M(42 643 801) are verified, officially making it the 46th Mersenne prime.
2018-02-27 All exponents below 77 million tested at least once.
2018-03-02 All exponents below M(77 232 917) tested at least once. (All first times are now WR).
2018-04-08 All tests below 43 million verified.
2018-04-08 All tests below M(43 112 609) are verified, officially making it the 47th Mersenne prime.
2018-04-18 All exponents below 78 million tested at least once.
2018-05 None
2018-06-13 All tests below 44 million verified.
2018-06-20 All exponents below 79 million tested at least once.
2018-07 None
2018-08-14 All exponents below 79.3 million tested at least once. This was the original upper limit for early versions of Prime95.
2018-08-16 All exponents below 80 million tested at least once.
2018-09-09 All tests below 45 million verified.
2018-10-21 All exponents below 81 million tested at least once.
2018-11 ?
2018-12 ?

Looking at projected completion dates on PrimeNet, all of the DC's [below the next milestone] -should be- done by the end of Nov. and all of the first time [below the next milestone] by the end of Dec.

If that happens it would be most favourable.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;498732]Looking at projected completion dates on PrimeNet, all of the DC's -should be- done by the end of Nov. and all of the first time by the end of Dec.

If that happens it would be most favourable.[/QUOTE]

I assume you mean "all of the DC's" below 46M ? and not ALL of the DCs. Then we would need many super computers.

I fixed it.

[QUOTE]August 14, 2018 All exponents below 79.3 million tested at least once. This was the original upper limit for early versions of Prime95.[/QUOTE]

I believe the correct number should be [SIZE="3"]79.[U]2[/U][/SIZE] million

[QUOTE=rudy235;501793]I believe the correct number should be [SIZE="3"]79.[U]2[/U][/SIZE] million[/QUOTE]

See [url]https://www.mersenne.org/report_classic/[/url]

[QUOTE=Prime95;501797]See [url]https://www.mersenne.org/report_classic/[/url][/QUOTE]

I messed up!
By the way, this is probably the last milestone of 2018


Countdown to verifying all tests below 46 million: 0

All exponents below 46 000 517 have been tested and verified

[QUOTE=rudy235;502020]I messed up!
By the way, this is probably the last milestone of 2018[/QUOTE]Aren't you aware of the history of the Mersenne Christmas Miracles of yore?
Milestones often happen in the last 10 days of the year.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;502024]Aren't you aware of the history of the Mersenne Christmas Miracles of yore? Milestones often happen in the last 10 days of the year.[/QUOTE]

Would you accept a Miracle a little before? I'm about to go on a 10-day vacation.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;502024]Aren't you aware of the history of the Mersenne Christmas Miracles of yore?
Milestones often happen in the last 10 days of the year.[/QUOTE]

I did say "probably" (which is a lot less assertive than "surely" or "certainly").

I can see a miracle coming if the Grinch that stole Christmas comes in and poaches 4 or 5 exponents of those remaining before 82 million on Christmas Eve.

[QUOTE=rudy235;502044]I can see a miracle coming if the Grinch that stole Christmas comes in and poaches 4 or 5 exponents of those remaining before 82 million on Christmas Eve.[/QUOTE]

There are other possible miracles

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;502024]Aren't you aware of the history of the Mersenne Christmas Miracles of yore?
Milestones often happen in the last 10 days of the year.[/QUOTE]

I'm keeping an eye on the first-time checks below 82M. Currently just 13 of them to go. The ones still progressing will finish soon, I think, with the exception of one assigned to Kriesel. There are some that stopped checking in though, and they don't expire until January, so unless they get poached, I guess we shouldn't hold out hopes for 2018.

[QUOTE=Prime95;502046]There are other possible miracles[/QUOTE]

I had to search my memory banks - the last prime was found on Dec 26... a Boxing Day miracle. :smile: The two before that were both found (or "revealed") in a January, so there's definitely a trend towards winter discoveries. LOL

Come to think of it, of the 16 discovered by GIMPS, half (8) were found in just the 3 months of Nov-Jan. I guess if you want to improve your odds of finding a prime, you should do more tests in the late autumn and winter. Statistics don't lie.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;502086]I'm keeping an eye on the first-time checks below 82M. Currently just 13 of them to go. The ones still progressing will finish soon, I think, with the exception of one assigned to Kriesel. There are some that stopped checking in though, and they don't expire until January, so unless they get poached, I guess we shouldn't hold out hopes for 2018.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I concur. Unless there is some poaching there is only a slim chance that the range gets finished by 12/31/18

[QUOTE=Madpoo;502087]I had to search my memory banks - the last prime was found on Dec 26... a Boxing Day miracle. :smile: The two before that were both found (or "revealed") in a January, so there's definitely a trend towards winter discoveries. LOL

Come to think of it, of the 16 discovered by GIMPS, half (8) were found in just the 3 months of Nov-Jan. I guess if you want to improve your odds of finding a prime, you should do more tests in the late autumn and winter. Statistics don't lie.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps it's because of the cooler weather. It's true in my case because summers here have gotten so blisteringly hot. One can justify running more machines if they act as a heater.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;502087]... so there's definitely a trend towards winter discoveries. LOL

... late autumn and winter.[/QUOTE]Waaah, other places exist. Winter/Autumn doesn't happen at the same time everywhere.

[QUOTE=retina;502113]Waaah, other places exist. Winter/Autumn doesn't happen at the same time everywhere.[/QUOTE]

Majority rules. 67.3% of the Earth's landmass is north of the equator. :smile: We win!

EDIT: Even more important, ~90% of humans live north of the equator. I'd say that's even better for my case. LOL

[QUOTE=Madpoo;502124]Majority rules. 67.3% of the Earth's landmass is north of the equator. :smile: We win!

EDIT: Even more important, ~90% of humans live north of the equator. I'd say that's even better for my case. LOL[/QUOTE]
that means that a minimum of 74 7/9 % of the global land mass has humans.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;502131]that means that a minimum of 74 7/9 % of the global land mass has humans.[/QUOTE]
No it doesn't.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/02/the-entire-world-fits-in-new-york-city/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.44c72592f129[/url]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;502124]Majority rules. 67.3% of the Earth's landmass is north of the equator. :smile: We win!

EDIT: Even more important, ~90% of humans live north of the equator. I'd say that's even better for my case. LOL[/QUOTE]
Even so, winter/summer won't fall the same (pun intended, hehe).
Here where I live, for example, summer is April.

[QUOTE=c10ck3r;502141]No it doesn't.
[URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/02/the-entire-world-fits-in-new-york-city/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.44c72592f129[/URL][/QUOTE]
Well, the idea is not new... in 2010 we were all [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_on_Zanzibar"]standing on Zanzibar[/URL] (highly recommended, one of the best SF books we were ever reading)

[QUOTE=Madpoo;502124]Majority rules. 67.3% of the Earth's landmass is north of the equator. :smile: We win![/QUOTE]

[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondwana#/media/File:Gondwana_420_Ma.png"]Once upon a time, things were different.[/URL]

[QUOTE=c10ck3r;502141]No it doesn't.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/02/the-entire-world-fits-in-new-york-city/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.44c72592f129[/url][/QUOTE]
I did not say they could not fit in less. I simply said thay at 67.3% of the land having 90% of the people implies 74 7/9 % of the land mass is required at equal population density to the denser populated hemisphere.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;502156]I did not say they could not fit in less. I simply said thay at 67.3% of the land having 90% of the people implies 74 7/9 % of the land mass is required at equal population density to the denser populated hemisphere.[/QUOTE]

It's funny the things you can do that make sense statistically but have no bearing on reality. Things like "the average American has 2.4 kids" which would be terrifying if true. That's a lot of mutant kids.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;502087]
Come to think of it, of the 16 discovered by GIMPS, half (8) were found in just the 3 months of Nov-Jan. I guess if you want to improve your odds of finding a prime, you should do more tests in the late autumn and winter. Statistics don't lie.[/QUOTE]
Care to put up a frequency table or list by calendar month? Here in Wisconsin, the 3 months you give are all solidly in the heating season.

Oh, and I've been thinking about moving the Jan 10 straggler, or twinning it. (GTX1080Ti? Dec 12.)
My other <82M assignment should finish tomorrow undisturbed.


But the 3 in [URL]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=81716699&exp_hi=82000000&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1[/URL] with the earliest estimated completion dates, haven't reported in status for weeks, and won't expire for weeks. (One expires in January. Art Lieberman, call your office.)

[QUOTE=Madpoo;502197]It's funny the things you can do that make sense statistically but have no bearing on reality. Things like "the average American has 2.4 kids" which would be terrifying if true. That's a lot of mutant kids.[/QUOTE]

Mutant, or mutilated? Ugh.

Month of year for GIMPS primes found:
Jan 3
Feb 1
Mar 0
Apr 0
May 1
Jun 2
Jul 0
Aug 2
Sep 2
Oct 0
Nov 3
Dec 2
[URL]https://www.mersenne.org/various/history.php[/URL]

Day of month
01 1
02 0
03 0
04 2
05 0
06 1
07 1
08 0
09 0
10 0
11 0
12 0
13 1
14 1
15 2
16 0
17 1
18 1
19 0
20 0
21 0
22 0
23 1
24 1
25 1
26 1
27 1
28 0
29 0
30 0
31 0

Day of week
Mon 2
Tue 3
Wed 2
Thu 2
Fri 2
Sat 4
Sun 1

So statistically, having an exponent complete on the last Saturday of a fall or winter month looks good, and means nothing.

[QUOTE=Prime95;502046]There are other possible miracles[/QUOTE]
Is that a hint Mp#51 has been found and is in verification?
Or of prime95 v29.5 being released for production use?

[QUOTE=kriesel;502227]Is that a hint Mp#51 has been found and is in verification?
Or of prime95 v29.5 being released for production use?[/QUOTE]

Get v29.5 [URL="https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=502225#post502225"]here[/URL].

[QUOTE=Madpoo;502197]It's funny the things you can do that make sense statistically but have no bearing on reality. Things like "the average American has 2.4 kids" which would be terrifying if true. That's a lot of mutant kids.[/QUOTE]

I could go into the details about how you chop the third child into fifths (twice), but that might be just a little dark for this audience...

A little more relevant might be the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem"]Birthday problem[/URL]....

[QUOTE=chalsall;502230]
A little more relevant might be the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem"]Birthday problem[/URL]....[/QUOTE]"These conclusions are based on the assumption that each day of the year (excluding February 29) is equally probable for a birthday." I believe the assumption is flawed. In my immediate family of 6 individuals, 3 members' birthdays land in a span of 4 consecutive calendar days, consistent with a _very_ Merry Christmas or Happy New Year. Another is consistent with celebrating one of those birthdays well.

In southern Wisconsin, there was an ice storm with resultant power outages in the late 1970s. There was a distinct rise in maternity ward occupancy ~40 weeks later, corresponding to what people did to keep warm and keep from being bored during the days of cold and dark homes.

[QUOTE=kriesel;502227]Is that a hint Mp#51 has been found and is in verification?
Or of prime95 v29.5 being released for production use?[/QUOTE]
Looks like the first is the case. (It could be both.)

[url]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=502204&postcount=39[/url]

[QUOTE=kriesel;502233]Looks like the first is the case.[/QUOTE]

Check out the [URL="https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=23877"]"Lucky 13" thread[/URL].

[QUOTE=Madpoo;502197]It's funny the things you can do that make sense statistically but have no bearing on reality. Things like "the average American has 2.4 kids" which would be terrifying if true. That's a lot of mutant kids.[/QUOTE]
HA! One friend of mine who is statistician has an even better one, he use to say that "the average human has only half of a penis"....

[QUOTE=Madpoo;502197]It's funny the things you can do that make sense statistically but have no bearing on reality. Things like "the average American has 2.4 kids" which would be terrifying if true. That's a lot of mutant kids.[/QUOTE]There's the joke about the guy who has his head in the fridge and his feet in the oven (or is it [i]vice versa[/i]?), and "on average" feels fine.

One misformulation of statistical info that makes me [i]cringe[/i] is of the type, "On average, ... each ((and) every) ..." like

"On average, x number of babies are born in the US [i]each second[/i]."

"On average, x number of people die (of such and such a cause ) [i]each and every day[/i]."

"On average, there are x number of mass shootings [i]every week.[/i]"

Just imagine: "On average, [i]each and every[/i] American family has 2.4 kids..."

Talk about a lot of mutant kids!

updated for mp51 calendar frequency tables
 

Updated per George's post yesterday re Mp51 [URL]https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=502167&postcount=1[/URL][QUOTE=kriesel;502226]
Month of year for GIMPS primes found:
Jan 3
Feb 1
Mar 0
Apr 0
May 1
Jun 2
Jul 0
Aug 2
Sep 2
Oct 0
Nov 3
Dec 3
[URL]https://www.mersenne.org/various/history.php[/URL]

Day of month
01 1
02 0
03 0
04 2
05 0
06 1
07 2
08 0
09 0
10 0
11 0
12 0
13 1
14 1
15 2
16 0
17 1
18 1
19 0
20 0
21 0
22 0
23 1
24 1
25 1
26 1
27 1
28 0
29 0
30 0
31 0

Day of week
Mon 2
Tue 3
Wed 2
Thu 2
Fri 3
Sat 4
Sun 1

So statistically, having an exponent complete on the last Saturday of a fall or winter month looks good, and means nothing.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=LaurV;502259]HA! One friend of mine who is statistician has an even better one, he use to say that "the average human has only half of a penis"....[/QUOTE]

I think more than 99% of all people have more legs than the average. That average is 1.99 legs. /JeppeSN

well.. actually if you go to decimals, my score is 54%, because there are more men than women... and yes, the joke makes more sense in languages where "man" and "human" use the same word (we could not translate it properly in English).

[QUOTE=LaurV;502369]well.. actually if you go to decimals, my score is 54%, because there are more men than women... and yes, the joke makes more sense in languages where "man" and "human" use the same word (we could not translate it properly in English).[/QUOTE]The score goes down if you use "person", since corporations are considered persons with legal rights, at least in the US. And down further if you use it in jurisdictions such as Washington DC containing more female humans than male humans.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;502267]One misformulation of statistical info that makes me [i]cringe[/i] is of the type, "On average, ... each ((and) every) ..." like

"On average, x number of babies are born in the US [i]each second[/i]."

"On average, x number of people die (of such and such a cause ) [i]each and every day[/i]."

"On average, there are x number of mass shootings [i]every week.[/i]"

Just imagine: "On average, [i]each and every[/i] American family has 2.4 kids..."

Talk about a lot of mutant kids![/QUOTE]So how would you prefer those to be phrased so that they don't make you cringe?

[QUOTE=Madpoo;502124]Majority rules. 67.3% of the Earth's landmass is north of the equator. :smile: We win![/QUOTE]Well if winning is that important to you then so be it, winter is when you say it is winter.

[QUOTE=JeppeSN;502337]I think more than 99% of all people have more legs than the average. That average is 1.99 legs. /JeppeSN[/QUOTE]

I've also observed that there are more horses @$$es in the world than there are horses.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;502086]I'm keeping an eye on the first-time checks below 82M. Currently just 13 of them to go. The ones still progressing will finish soon, I think, with the exception of one assigned to Kriesel. There are some that stopped checking in though, and they don't expire until January, so unless they get poached, I guess we shouldn't hold out hopes for 2018.[/QUOTE]
Now down to 8. Mine's reported, from a gpu-self-poach parallel run so cleared.

I had thought to send a polite alert PM to the relevant users (5) whose 81.x LL assignments have stopped updating. Something along the lines of [CODE]Hi,

Please check on your remaining GIMPS LL test assignment listed in [URL]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=81759773&exp_hi=82000000&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1[/URL]
It seems to have stalled days or weeks ago.
Completing it, or alternately if you prefer, unreserving it so it can be assigned to someone else, will help GIMPS reach the milestone of all exponents tested once below 82 million sooner, perhaps this year yet.


Thanks![/CODE]None of the 5 user IDs are valid forum IDs for a PM. Maybe there are valid emails stored as part of their GIMPS signups.
Does the GIMPS administration have a way of contacting them? It could help. Two of the 5 assignments won't expire until several days into January. The 5 stalled assignments represent a lot of work done already, at 42.8%, 50.2, 78.0, 91.6, and 96.4%. The 96.4% is a day's progress away from estimated completion but expires in January. The 78% expires in January and is less than a week's progress from estimated completion. (If a hard drive crash without backup took them out, oh well, but it would be good to get them restarted, or reassigned soon if the user quit.)

patience, grasshopper.

We'll get there when we get there.

I have 2 under 82M they should both be done in 5-6 days now that my computer is back up.

[QUOTE=masser;502646]patience, grasshopper.

We'll get there when we get there.[/QUOTE]
Are we there yet? Nope, 5 left, one in ATH's capable hands, other 4 still stalled, 2 of which don't expire until January 2019.

I've made a tabulation of how the minor milestones have advanced over the years of GIMPS operation, and posted it at [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=502995&postcount=11[/URL] as part of a GIMPS progress thread [URL="https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=23845"]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=23845 [/URL]in the reference material collection [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=154[/URL]

Are we there yet? Nope, 3 left, two of which expire in the next 3 days, the other doesn't expire until ~"December 37th".

[QUOTE=kriesel;503440]Are we there yet? Nope, 3 left, two of which expire in the next 3 days, the other doesn't expire until ~"December 37th".[/QUOTE]

or September 2[sup]7[/sup]th.

[QUOTE=kriesel;503001]Are we there yet?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=kriesel;503440]Are we there yet?[/QUOTE]
Hehe, you have the same patience like my grandchildren... How old did you say you are? :razz:

If anybody want to poach it, under the provision that if it turns out to be prime, the glory and money goes to the assignee*, be my guest.

(* this is supposed to discourage the poacher, but it won't always work, hehe, anyhow, I don't want to be accused that I encouraged it).

[QUOTE=ATH;503443]or September 2[sup]7[/sup]th.[/QUOTE]
I recall reading, quite long ago, about a government aerospace contract, with set milestones to be accomplished by the end of specific months. An important one was missed, but by mere days, so the government rewrote the calendar to provide a loophole for feigned compliance. Something like, in that country, that year's July 2 was also known as June 32.

[QUOTE=LaurV;503483]Hehe, you have the same patience like my grandchildren... How old did you say you are? :razz:

If anybody want to poach it, under the provision that if it turns out to be prime, the glory and money goes to the assignee*, be my guest.

(* this is supposed to discourage the poacher, but it won't always work, hehe, anyhow, I don't want to be accused that I encouraged it).[/QUOTE]
It started with Masser posting "Patience grasshopper." I recalled [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8k1eTEw4rQ[/URL] for some reason.

As far as I recall, I didn't specify my age. And we are too complex to be reduced to a single number.
Glad you got the joke. At least the "Are we there yet" iterations are a few days apart.

The latest milestone to be added to the list is crazy. Has it ever been this low in the GIMPS era?
[attach]19477[/attach]

This will give us a milestone for January or February. December is the discovery of a new MP.
Our run of new milestones accomplished [URL="https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=498523&postcount=2914"]about every month[/URL] should go on for a bit more.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;503609]The latest milestone to be added to the list is crazy. Has it ever been this low in the GIMPS era?
[attach]19477[/attach][/QUOTE]

Plus [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=503481&postcount=150]these two[/url]:

[CODE]Exponent Residue Status
[M]81860447[/M] FFFFFFFF80000000 Unverified
[M]81860479[/M] FFFFFFFF80000000 Unverified[/CODE]

I'll have them DC'ed within a couple of weeks.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;503612]Plus [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=503481&postcount=150]these two[/url]:[/QUOTE]

Well, besides those two there are a number of cases where some computers' track records are so unfavorable that double checks are likely tantamount to first-time checks.

[URL="https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=500088&postcount=1774"]Madpoo posted some of them a while back[/URL], but there weren't that many takers so far.

So the first-time testing milestones always have to be taken with a grain of salt.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;503609]The latest milestone to be added to the list is crazy. Has it ever been this low in the GIMPS era?
[attach]19477[/attach]

This will give us a milestone for January or February. December is the discovery of a new MP.
Our run of new milestones accomplished [URL="https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=498523&postcount=2914"]about every month[/URL] should go on for a bit more.[/QUOTE]

The milestone was almost as low last time, but maybe not quite as low. The milestone was reached March 2nd, 66 days after the discovery 2017-12-26:
December 26, 2017 Prime M(77 232 917) discovered!
2018-03-02 All exponents below M(77 232 917) tested at least once.

[QUOTE=kriesel;503440]Are we there yet? Nope, 3 left, two of which expire in the next 3 days, the other doesn't expire until ~"December 37th".[/QUOTE]


[code]There are 2 assignments

81835723 LL 6 5 2018-12-22 2018-12-22 2018-12-23 2018-12-28 ATH
81885841 LL LL, 96.40% 14 -2 2018-10-08 2018-12-20 2018-12-21 2018-12-21 Waki[/code]


Apparently, the one expiring on December 37th has been poached! So we will have completed the milestone before the end of the year.

[QUOTE=rudy235;503726][code]There are 2 assignments

81835723 LL 6 5 2018-12-22 2018-12-22 2018-12-23 2018-12-28 ATH
81885841 LL LL, 96.40% 14 -2 2018-10-08 2018-12-20 2018-12-21 2018-12-21 Waki[/code]Apparently, the one expiring on December 37th has been poached! So we will have completed the milestone before the end of the year.[/QUOTE]Two weeks from when Mark Rose said 12/21 he'd have them done within two weeks is "December 35". If Mark was inclined to yield one of those assignments, I could knock one out in 3 or 4 days.

That still leaves: [URL]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=81835723&exp_hi=82000000&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1[/URL]
[CODE]There are 2 assignments
Exponent Work Type Stage, % Expires (d) ETA (d) Assigned Last Update Next Update Estimated Completion Userid
81835723 LL PRP, 12.20% 29 3 2018-12-22 2018-12-23 2018-12-24 2018-12-26 ATH
81885841 LL LL, 96.40% 14 -2 2018-10-08 2018-12-20 2018-12-21 2018-12-21 Waki
[/CODE]ATH is no worry. What's up with Waki's assignment that updates with no progress at nearly complete? Waki's is scheduled to expire on Jan 6.


Are we th...? NO!

I'll move the second to another system.

Edit: M81860447 should be done on the 29th and M81860479 should be done on the 27th.

So now we have only one to go.

[code]
There is 1 assignment

[SIZE="1"]81885841 LL LL, 96.40% 11 -5 2018-10-08 2018-12-20 2018-12-21 2018-12-21 Waki[/SIZE][/code]

Unfortunately, it's been stuck at 96.40% since at least the first week of December.

It would only require 1 day to complete but unless Waki notices it it won't.

I think 5 days is a lot of time and many things can happen.

Mile Milestone
 

Speaking of [B][SIZE=3]mile[/SIZE][/B]stones, the number of unfactored Mersenne numbers below the classic 79.3M limit is currently 1,609,344, which is exactly equal to the number of millimeters in a mile. Of those numbers,

1,036,235 are composites with two LL tests
573,059 are composites with one LL test
50 are prime

To visualize how rare these primes are, if each unfactored Mersenne number were represented by 1mm, the total length of them below 79.3M would be 1 mile. However, the total length of the primes would be just under two inches, with most of them concentrated in the very beginning of the mile.

[QUOTE=rudy235;504033]
[code]
There is 1 assignment

[SIZE="1"]81885841 LL LL, 96.40% 11 -5 2018-10-08 2018-12-20 2018-12-21 2018-12-21 Waki[/SIZE][/code]

Unfortunately, it's been stuck at 96.40% since at least the first week of December.
It would only require 1 day to complete but unless Waki notices it it won't.
I think 5 days is a lot of time and many things can happen.[/QUOTE]

I will bet that someone has already completed this assignment and will report it before the end of the year if it isn't otherwise completed.

[QUOTE=rudy235;504033]So now we have only one to go.
...
Unfortunately, it's been stuck at 96.40% since at least the first week of December.

It would only require 1 day to complete but unless Waki notices it it won't.

I think 5 days is a lot of time and many things can happen.[/QUOTE]

I looked at the historical progress of it and that user has had bursts of activity followed by long droughts of inactivity.

I really don't know what happens with some of these machines where it will start out gangbusters, doing 10% per day and then suddenly plummet to doing zero % per day (while still reporting in), or sometimes not checking in at all for weeks, and then finishing in a short, frenzied burst.

My guess is these are systems that run Prime95 manually and maybe they forget to restart after a reboot ... the ones that I can't explain are the ones that check in every day like good little workers, but have nothing to show for it. Either the worker is stopped but the program is still running, or the system is so busy doing other things that Prime95 doesn't have any idle cycles to use, or... who knows.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;504178]I looked at the historical progress of it and that user has had bursts of activity followed by long droughts of inactivity.

I really don't know what happens with some of these machines where it will start out gangbusters, doing 10% per day and then suddenly plummet to doing zero % per day (while still reporting in), or sometimes not checking in at all for weeks, and then finishing in a short, frenzied burst.

My guess is these are systems that run Prime95 manually and maybe they forget to restart after a reboot ... the ones that I can't explain are the ones that check in every day like good little workers, but have nothing to show for it. Either the worker is stopped but the program is still running, or the system is so busy doing other things that Prime95 doesn't have any idle cycles to use, or... who knows.[/QUOTE]
There definitely are things that will unexpectedly begin to take up a whole core or more, taking it away from prime95, which stalls an entire worker. (A version of Windows that is no longer supported for automatic updates can spin a core uselessly seeking updates indefinitely for days until manually stopped. That's a "feature" in Vista for example. In early 2020 the unavailability of updates will spread to Windows 7. [URL]https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-update/windows-7-official-support-end-date/c7fba52e-a273-4235-a000-030d956bb1a0[/URL])

CUDAPm1's gcd is performed on a cpu core, and that can stall an entire multi-core prime95 worker for however long that takes. gpuOwL's PRP-1 does the same as I recall. This type stall should be of order an hour or less per gcd, not the days or weeks that would show up as stalled primality tests in primenet server reports.

Another possibility is the assignment gets moved behind some other assignment(s). It would make no progress while an assignment "in front of it" makes progress. When it gets to the front of that worker's queue suddenly it starts making progress again. This can happen either with significant manual intervention to reorder entries in the worktodo file, or simply by reducing the number of workers. It could also be that someone paused the work, "just for a minute", then forgot to click continue, as you say.

Another possibility is a prime95 or mprime instance on a seldom used lab computer with an aggressive power save setting. The system could go into deep hibernation, where what might take two minutes normally, could take 100 times longer or more.

[QUOTE=The Carnivore;504152]Speaking of [B][SIZE=3]mile[/SIZE][/B]stones...[/QUOTE]
Beautiful post, and very well spotted!

:goodposting:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;504178]I looked at the historical progress of it and that user has had bursts of activity followed by long droughts of inactivity.

I really don't know what happens with some of these machines where it will start out gangbusters, doing 10% per day and then suddenly plummet to doing zero % per day (while still reporting in), or sometimes not checking in at all for weeks, and then finishing in a short, frenzied burst.

My guess is these are systems that run Prime95 manually and maybe they forget to restart after a reboot ... the ones that I can't explain are the ones that check in every day like good little workers, but have nothing to show for it. Either the worker is stopped but the program is still running, or the system is so busy doing other things that Prime95 doesn't have any idle cycles to use, or... who knows.[/QUOTE]

I am working on different projects. Sometimes I stop mprime or prime95 to run LLR, pfgw or a siever, but keep the prime95 window open: this behaviour reminds me that I have work queued up, avoids to lose the exponent due to expiration (the program still checks in to the server daily) and prevents poachers from stealing it.

I must admit that I very seldom request type 0, 1 or 2 exponents, so I am not guilty to procrastinate milestones... :razz:

[QUOTE=Chuck;504175]I will bet that someone has already completed this assignment and will report it before the end of the year if it isn't otherwise completed.[/QUOTE]

YES. And it is not a prime.

[QUOTE=rudy235;504222]YES. And it is not a prime.[/QUOTE]

It's too bad Kreisel did it as a PRP, because the assignment will probably finish, eventually, and now we'll have one PRP and one LL, and we'll need yet a 3rd one of either to verify. If we're going to poach, let's at least do it the same as the assignee so we're not creating extra work in case that assignment actually does finish.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;504444]It's too bad Kreisel did it as a PRP, [B]because the assignment will probably finish, eventually,[/B] and now we'll have one PRP and one LL, and we'll need yet a 3rd one of either to verify. If we're going to poach, let's at least do it the same as the assignee so we're not creating extra work in case that assignment actually does finish.[/QUOTE]


Clarify this for me.

When does an assignment end definitely?

Apparently, it does not end when it expires. So what has to happen for the assignment to not finish at all?

When an exponent expire on the server, it does not send a message to the users client to delete the exponent.
The user can continue work on it for as long as he/she wants and his client will turn it in when it is done, it could be in a year.

[QUOTE=ATH;504515]When an exponent expire on the server, it does not send a message to the users client to delete the exponent.
The user can continue work on it for as long as he/she wants and his client will turn it in when it is done, it could be in a year.[/QUOTE]

There are a few interesting cases of machines that keep plugging away on expired assignments for a LOOONG time.

Consider these two (which I think are the same anonymous user). Keeps plugging away at some double-checks that are no longer necessary. They were assigned 8 years ago, expired about 5 years ago, and it's been over 6.5 years since the DC has been needed... yet it continues to report in on a near daily basis:
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/M25413779"]M25413779[/URL]
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/M25413671"]M25413671[/URL]

It helps that neither of those have actually made any progress... still at 0.0% after 8 years.

Then of course there are assignments that have had some progress made and are also pretty old (not like those two, but still ancient):
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/M56487203"]M56487203[/URL]

That anon user has a handful like that. It was assigned as a first-time check over 6 years ago, expired and done by someone else nearly 4 years ago, yet it still checks in with its 26.4% done. I have no idea if it's stuck on that progress or if it's actually moving slowly... don't care. :smile:

In terms of assignments that have *not* expired and are also pretty old but still going, the winner there is:
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/M332198957"]M332198957[/URL]

It'll be coming up on 8 years old, and since it's a 100M digit exponent it won't be expiring anytime soon. Although by the time this thing gets close to finishing, we may be expiring exponents in that range by then. Considering it took nearly 8 years to get about 1/3 of the way through, can we expect another ~16 years before it finishes? :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;504444]It's too bad Kreisel did it as a PRP, because the assignment will probably finish, eventually, and now we'll have one PRP and one LL, and we'll need yet a 3rd one of either to verify. If we're going to poach, let's at least do it the same as the assignee so we're not creating extra work in case that assignment actually does finish.[/QUOTE]

Someone did an LL test so now we won't have that problem (hopefully Waki will finish before 2019-12-31)
[code][SIZE="1"]-Anonymous- Manual testing [COLOR="RoyalBlue"][B]81885841[/B][/COLOR] C 2019-01-01 02:34 0.0 255.5236 1FF0A07990679D__[/SIZE]
[/code]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;504529]There are a few interesting cases of machines that keep plugging away on expired assignments for a LOOONG time.
...
In terms of assignments that have *not* expired and are also pretty old but still going, the winner there is:
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/M332198957"]M332198957[/URL]

It'll be coming up on 8 years old, and since it's a 100M digit exponent it won't be expiring anytime soon. Although by the time this thing gets close to finishing, we may be expiring exponents in that range by then. Considering it took nearly 8 years to get about 1/3 of the way through, can we expect another ~16 years before it finishes? :smile:[/QUOTE]Machine lifetime of ~24 years would be pretty remarkable. Eight years is getting long in the tooth.
It's unlikely that double checking or the first test wavefront will reach high enough to make a strong case for expiring it in 16 years.
The first-test milestones are advancing at 6 million/year lately (down from 8 million annually); double check milestones have been advancing at about 3-4 million/year. Using the more rapid figures, first test milestone would be at about 82+16*8=210M, double check milestone about 46+16*4=110M at the beginning of 2035.

[URL]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=82038613&exp_hi=82589933&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1[/URL]
Matthew Millar has two exponents expiring today, that are among the 30 exponents to go, in primality testing up to M51. They are each over 95% complete in LL test and stopped updating Dec 13. It would be a sad waste if they're not completed. The 97.7% completed one was also previously 87% by curtisc.
Latest current completion estimate for the remaining 30 is Feb 2 (but does not include expiration/reassign/complete times).

[QUOTE=kriesel;505709][URL]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=82038613&exp_hi=82589933&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1[/URL]
Matthew Millar has two exponents expiring today, that are among the 30 exponents to go, in primality testing up to M51. They are each over 95% complete in LL test and stopped updating Dec 13. It would be a sad waste if they're not completed. The 97.7% completed one was also previously 87% by curtisc.
Latest current completion estimate for the remaining 30 is Feb 2 (but does not include expiration/reassign/complete times).[/QUOTE]

Don't worry... I'm sure there is someone among us that has already completed them, and is quietly waiting the expiration to send them to the server... :smile:

and then there were 20...
 

Twenty to go on first-time primality tests up to M51, and two of them expire today, also with a high percentage completion before they stopped updating status.

[url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=82038613&exp_hi=82589933&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1[/url]

[QUOTE=kriesel;506422]Twenty to go on first-time primality tests up to M51, and two of them expire today, also with a high percentage completion before they stopped updating status.

[url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=82038613&exp_hi=82589933&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1[/url][/QUOTE]

How come an exponent has a[B] -1 day[/B] expiration expectation? Shouldn't they expire before that?

[Code][SIZE="1"]82545713 LL LL, 32.30% [COLOR="Red"][SIZE="3"][B][B]-1[/B][/B][/SIZE][/COLOR] -25 2018-11-18 2018-12-20 2018-12-21 2018-12-26 ANONYMOUS[/SIZE]
[/Code]

That column is Aaron's estimate of when they expire, not the actual variable that causes them to expire, and rarely that estimate is 1 day off for some reason.

[QUOTE=rudy235;506456]How come an exponent has a[B] -1 day[/B] expiration expectation? Shouldn't they expire before that?

[Code][SIZE="1"]82545713 LL LL, 32.30% [COLOR="Red"][SIZE="3"][B][B]-1[/B][/B][/SIZE][/COLOR] -25 2018-11-18 2018-12-20 2018-12-21 2018-12-26 ANONYMOUS[/SIZE]
[/Code][/QUOTE]

I don't know why that happened either. When I saw it, I thought maybe the daily expiration job had failed, but nope.

My best guess is that the expiration job runs at 23:25 UTC each night, not right at midnight. So there's still a chance that an assignment originally made between 23:25 and 00:00 might get an extra day reprieve. Not sure if that's what happened here but I re-ran the daily job which freed up that one as well as a couple others that would have expired later today.

and then there were 9
 

but three of them are going to take a while to get verified.

[code][SIZE="1"]There are 9 assignments

82154753 LL LL, 83.50% 1 5 2018-10-27 2019-01-23 2019-01-24 2019-01-29 -Anonymous-
82295879 LL LL, 17.40% 26 3 2019-01-20 2019-01-24 2019-01-25 2019-01-27 ATH
82342367 LL LL, 66.80% 14 11 2018-11-09 2019-01-24 2019-01-25 2019-02-04 David_Moral
82345519 LL LL, 13.90% 14 15 2018-11-09 2019-01-24 2019-01-25 2019-02-08 hsl
82375379 LL LL, 61.00% 12 4 2019-01-06 2019-01-24 2019-01-25 2019-01-28 ATH
[COLOR="Red"]82399433 LL LL, 79.40% 18 -8 2018-11-13 2019-01-13 2019-01-14 2019-01-16 phoniclynx
82541887 LL LL, 93.40% 24 2 2018-11-19 2019-01-24 2019-01-25 2019-01-26 lozcs
82547519 LL LL, 75.30% 24 8 2018-11-19 2019-01-24 2019-01-25 2019-02-01 -Anonymous-[/COLOR]
82574567 LL LL, 55.40% 19 3 2019-01-13 2019-01-22 2019-01-23 2019-01-27 Rich A
[/SIZE][/code]

Unless, of course, someone poaches them (improbable)

This is going much better than expected. 82375379 should start moving again soon.[code]There are 7 assignments
[SIZE="1"]
82154753 LL 6 5 2019-01-25 2019-01-26 2019-01-27 2019-01-31 ATH
82295879 LL LL, 72.60% 24 1 2019-01-20 2019-01-26 2019-01-27 2019-01-27 ATH
82342367 LL LL, 88.60% 12 4 2018-11-09 2019-01-26 2019-01-27 2019-01-30 David_Moral
82345519 LL LL, 14.30% 12 15 2018-11-09 2019-01-26 2019-01-27 2019-02-10 hsl[COLOR="red"]
82375379 LL LL, 61.00% 10 2 2019-01-06 2019-01-26 2019-01-27 2019-01-28 ATH
82399433 LL LL, 79.40% 16 -10 2018-11-13 2019-01-13 2019-01-14 2019-01-16 phoniclynx][/COLOR]
82547519 LL LL, 79.30% 22 6 2018-11-19 2019-01-25 2019-01-26 2019-02-01 -Anonymous-[/SIZE][/code]

[QUOTE=rudy235;506877]This is going much better than expected. 82375379 should start moving again soon.[code]There are 7 assignments
[SIZE=1]
82154753 LL 6 5 2019-01-25 2019-01-26 2019-01-27 2019-01-31 ATH
82295879 LL LL, 72.60% 24 1 2019-01-20 2019-01-26 2019-01-27 2019-01-27 ATH
82342367 LL LL, 88.60% 12 4 2018-11-09 2019-01-26 2019-01-27 2019-01-30 David_Moral
82345519 LL LL, 14.30% 12 15 2018-11-09 2019-01-26 2019-01-27 2019-02-10 hsl[COLOR=red]
82375379 LL LL, 61.00% 10 2 2019-01-06 2019-01-26 2019-01-27 2019-01-28 ATH
82399433 LL LL, 79.40% 16 -10 2018-11-13 2019-01-13 2019-01-14 2019-01-16 phoniclynx][/COLOR]
82547519 LL LL, 79.30% 22 6 2018-11-19 2019-01-25 2019-01-26 2019-02-01 -Anonymous-[/SIZE][/code][/QUOTE]
Yes. Once an exponent is in ATH's court, concerns about its completion cease. Look for a Feb milestone.

[QUOTE=kriesel;506921]Yes. Once an exponent is in ATH's court, concerns about its completion cease. Look for a Feb milestone.[/QUOTE]

I was taking that into account. Also 82342367 is progressing steadily.:smile:

and then there were 4...
 

[url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=82154753&exp_hi=82589933&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1[/url]
phoniclynx at 79% and stalled for weeks, with weeks to go before expiration, looks like the limiting case.

[QUOTE=kriesel;507024][url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=82154753&exp_hi=82589933&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1[/url]
phoniclynx at 79% and stalled for weeks, with weeks to go before expiration, looks like the limiting case.[/QUOTE]

There are 4 assignments
[code]
[SIZE="1"]82154753 LL LL, 0.60% 27 3 2019-01-25 2019-01-28 2019-01-29 2019-01-31 ATH
[COLOR="Red"]82345519 LL LL, 14.30% 10 15 2018-11-09 2019-01-28 2019-01-29 2019-02-12 hsl
82399433 LL LL, 79.40% 14 -12 2018-11-13 2019-01-13 2019-01-14 2019-01-16 phoniclynx[/COLOR]
82547519 LL LL, 79.30% 20 4 2018-11-19 2019-01-25 2019-01-26 2019-02-01 -Anonymous-[/SIZE][/code]

Yes, the two in the middle will probably have to expire before they can be concluded. Unless —of course— somone takes matters in to their own hands.

countdown to 83M: 108
 

good news and not-so-good news
over two dozen are scheduled to complete in the next two days;
over two dozen are at least a week overdue, and take up to 6 weeks to expire.

WOW! a whole whopping 0.1% advance in 18 days for this exponent. At this pace it will be finished in around 10 years more!

[code][SIZE="1"]


[COLOR="Red"]82399433 LL LL, 79.40% 18 -8 2018-11-13 2019-01-13 2019-01-14 2019-01-16 phoniclynx[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Blue"]82399433 LL LL, 79.50% 11 2 2018-11-13 2019-01-31 2019-02-01 2019-02-02 phoniclynx[/COLOR][/size][/code]

[QUOTE=rudy235;507036]Unless —of course— somone takes matters in to their own hands.[/QUOTE]

Patience, young grasshopper...

This milestone doesn't really matter all that much. And advocating poaching is ill advised.

Let Primenet's assignment rules do its job. Like Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand", it tends to work in the long term if not interfered with....

[QUOTE=chalsall;507279]Patience, young grasshopper...

This milestone doesn't really matter all that much. And advocating poaching is ill advised.

Let Primenet's assignment rules do its job. Like Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand", it tends to work in the long term if not interfered with....[/QUOTE]

I am not advocating poaching. I am merely saying it is a possibility. (And past experience tells us it is.)

In the long run poaching only hastens the immediate milestone. The next ones are probably equally delayed as resources are diverted.

[QUOTE=rudy235;507281]In the long run poaching only hastens the immediate milestone. The next ones are probably equally delayed as resources are diverted.[/QUOTE]

:thumbs-up:

It is so much better now with the assignment rules, there is no need for poaching as milestones will only be delayed a few weeks at most. I don't even remember how exponents expired before this system.



But it might need some tweaking, I'm not sure it is working 100% correctly:
In the last 30-40 exponent up to M51 at least 10-15 of them expired, which is weird.

Looking at the last 3 remaining as examples they were all Cat 1 when they were assigned, but looking at the requirement for Cat 1:
[CODE]Computer must have enough LL and DC GHz-days over the last 120 days to indicate the assignment will be completed in 30 days.
Computer must have no expired assignments or bad or suspect results in the last 120 days.
Computer must have returned at least 5 results in the last 120 days.
Setting for "days of work to queue" <= 5.
Not available for manual testing.
Must be completed in 90 days[/CODE]

It is hard to believe that so many computers meeting those requirements with 5 results in 120 days would suddenly not finish 1 exponent in 90 days! Are these checks of requirements for categories working?

Maybe Cat 0 should be larger than 200 exponents?

[QUOTE=ATH;507285]I don't even remember how exponents expired before this system.[/QUOTE]

They were, generally, poached.

[QUOTE=ATH;507285]But it might need some tweaking, I'm not sure it is working 100% correctly.[/QUOTE]

Hopefully the coders at Primenet are using the heuristics correctly, and don't assign low candidates to those who have not demonstrated their ability to perform.

Still, a few assignments will slip through... A disparate workforce is not a trivial thing to manage....

Where can I find a list of the Cat requirements?

[QUOTE=PhilF;507305]Where can I find a list of the Cat requirements?[/QUOTE]

[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/"]PrimeNet Assignment Rules[/URL].

You can add a date to see what the threshold was at a specific date when an exponent was assigned, which is the category that counts for that exponent:

[url]http://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/?dt=2018-11-09[/url]

[QUOTE=ATH;507321]You can add a date to see what the threshold was at a specific date when an exponent was assigned, which is the category that counts for that exponent:

[URL]http://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/?dt=2018-11-09[/URL][/QUOTE]

Are you saying the thresholds as of assignment date are what applies for assignment only, or for both assignment and subsequent expiration? I see exponents change Cat # during the course of the assignment lifetime, which seems consistent with the former, and not consistent with the latter.