[QUOTE=Jatheski;327020]I thought that "C" meant Composite... :blush:
I guess it means Checked ![/QUOTE]
It does, indeed, mean "composite", once a non-null residue is given. The problem is that when a prime is found, until is verified, both the "C" and the residue are fake, FUBAR.

[QUOTE=LaurV;327021]It does, indeed, mean "composite", once a non-null residue is given. The problem is that when a prime is found, until is verified, both the "C" and the residue are fake, FUBAR.[/QUOTE]

I DO hope the prime is not shown in the previous message... :sad:

Luigi

[QUOTE=chalsall;326909]You fail to understand humor....[/QUOTE]
@Chalsall: OK. I don't understand humor. Would you please explain (in small words, without humor, so I can understand) whether or not there is a gag order on predicting the new prime?

I notice you gagged axn ("[I]Last fiddled with by chalsall on 01 Feb 13 at 06:39 Reason: Obscured candidates.[/I]"). These candidates, along with a few others have been posted to this thread since January 26.

[QUOTE=Ono;327003]Hint: (2^p+1)/3 ... is composite.[/QUOTE]

Yes and so is 2[sup]p[/sup]-3 (so no twin prime pair) and so is the associated perfect number+1:
2[SUP]p-1[/SUP]*(2[SUP]p[/SUP] - 1) + 1.

Since they haven't confirmed that sleuthing is banned...
[QUOTE=Dubslow;327002]Perhaps Ernst could enumerate those posts which would give one a one percent range. :smile:[/QUOTE]
Ernst's slip of Batalov's FFT size gives one point of analysis.

I think we can assume that adding another core, when we are already at ~25 cores provides diminishing returns.

An FFT size of 3072K = 24 * 2^17 would feed 24 cores.
An FFT size of 3200K = 25 * 2^17 would feed 25 cores.
An FFT size of 3328K = 26 * 2^17 would feed 26 cores.

[SPOILER]Without much question, if an FFT size of 3072 could do the job, that would have been a better choice than either of the others. (Lots of extra factors of 2.) A number in the 57.2M range can generally be done with an FFT size of 3072K. Bigger numbers need a bigger FFT size.

I cannot say, with any certainty, whether an FFT size of 3200K on 25 cores or an FFT size of 3328K on 26 cores will be faster. (3328K has one more factor of 2 than 3200K.) So, the 3200K cutoff doesn't provide much extra information.

An FFT size of 3328K is generally sufficient to handle numbers beyond 60M.

Ernst said Serge is using an FFT size of 3328K to feed 26 cores. This suggests the number is above 57.2M.[/SPOILER]

[QUOTE=rcv;327035]Would you please explain (in small words, without humor, so I can understand) whether or not there is a gag order on predicting the new prime?[/QUOTE]

It is solely George's right to announce the new MP at the time and in the manner of his choosing.

IMHO, trying to "sleuth" the number is pointless. We'll all know soon enough.

[QUOTE=chalsall;327041]IMHO, trying to "sleuth" the number is pointless.[/QUOTE]This reminds me of another poster. :chalsall:

[QUOTE=ewmayer;326894]Speaking of slackerdom, I must say that the gerbils are a tad miffed that none of the guess-the-prime ferrets has nailed the new prime's exponent to within a very narrow range using the obvious clues littering this thread.[/QUOTE]
What's the point of posting the guesses if another supermod instantly mangles the post?

[QUOTE=J.F.;327014]I keep checking GIMPS to see a formal announcement. I hope it is released within the next few hours, otherwise the message might not be picked up properly by the media and it gets lost in the weekend :(... that would be a shame.[/QUOTE]

and now the bad news.....

Press coverage is always hit or miss. One of our least covered discoveries occurred when we sent the press release out on a Friday. Consequently, Scott is emailing our press contact list Tuesday at 6AM PST. We'll try to coordinate mersenne.org's web site, this forum, Chris Caldwell's site, and maybe wikipedia.

IIRC in previous threads following discovery and verification of a new prime, people encrypted their guesses and only revealed their key once the prime had been announced. There would be no problem with that, would there?

[QUOTE=chalsall;327041]IMHO, trying to "sleuth" the number is pointless.[/QUOTE]
IMHO, it's an interesting intellectual exercise. Back in the day, it used to be *relatively* easy to spot inconsistencies in the database. In most cases, those who actually knew how to do this didn't post the next prime. Today, George is much more sophisticated in his efforts to mask the number. Those of you who run bots to crawl the database probably know the next prime. As with the more responsible parties of yore, you haven't posted the next prime.

In any case, it's still an interesting intellectual exercise, IMHO. I provided one piece of analysis. I have several other clues, but I'm inclined to await Ernst's explanation.