Let me offer both my belated and early congratulations. :grenade:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;327600][url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_milestones/[/url]

Countdown to testing all exponents below M(xxxxxxxx) once: 52,242
Countdown to proving M(xxxxxxxx) is the 48th Mersenne Prime: 566,187[/QUOTE]

That's a massive hint. If chalsall (or maybe James) didn't already know, they should now.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;327600][url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_milestones/[/url]

Countdown to testing all exponents below M(xxxxxxxx) once: 52,242
Countdown to proving M(xxxxxxxx) is the 48th Mersenne Prime: 566,187[/QUOTE]Mmm, okay, now I know what the new prime is.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;327604]That's a massive hint. If chalsall (or maybe James) didn't already know, they should now.[/QUOTE]This is what I looked like when I saw it: :shock:
:huh2:

Noooo... I was too late!!! :cry:


:lol:

I put the exponent at very close to 57 million. That's a gap of about 14 million from the currently published largest exponent

If my interpretation of Chris' website is correct, then the exponent would be in the 57.83M range.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;327604]That's a massive hint. If chalsall (or maybe James) didn't already know, they should now.[/QUOTE]

without looking into things I get:

LL 45,169,889<xxxxxxxx
DCLL 35,848,403<xxxxxxxx

using the rest of the data I could get closer

edit:for example

[LIST][*][SIZE=2]Countdown to proving M(42643801) is the 46th Mersenne Prime: 255,711[/SIZE][*][SIZE=2]Countdown to proving M(43112609) is the 47th Mersenne Prime: 265,670[/SIZE][/LIST][SIZE=2]can be shown to [SIZE=2]tell how many have had DC done in this range I believe. and so [SIZE=2]pushing the new exponents value upwards.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[QUOTE=science_man_88;327635]without looking into things I get...[/QUOTE]

"Thank you for renewing your ignore list subscription for calendar year 2013. Your continued patronage is important to us."

[QUOTE=ewmayer;327636]"Thank you for renewing your ignore list subscription for calendar year 2013. Your continued patronage is important to us."[/QUOTE]
why because some math was required to figure this out ? also there could be an error in the calculation I made by making it seem like it could be true you could in theory be saying it's right. if nobody higher up wanted to have it figured out by people like me they shouldn't have publicized it, so guesses are the only thing allowed here ? no partial work ?

My new guess: M57881749.