[QUOTE=alpertron;402557]He submits factors for all Mersenne numbers. It does not matter if they have factors known or not. It is interesting to notice that he was able to "probably complete" the factorization for several Mersenne numbers because I found that the cofactors are probable primes in those cases.[/QUOTE]

Is this something that is "continually" checked? Or is there a clean way to look for co-factors and see if they are PRP or not?

[QUOTE=TheMawn;402667]Is this something that is "continually" checked? Or is there a clean way to look for co-factors and see if they are PRP or not?[/QUOTE]
You can get co-factor PRP work at mersenne.ca:
[URL]http://www.mersenne.ca/prp.php?assigned_distribution=1[/URL]

User TJAOI posted a number of first factors from 2^60-61 yesterday. Numbers are still on the recently cleared page.

[QUOTE=flagrantflowers;404956]User TJAOI posted a number of first factors from 2^60-61 yesterday. Numbers are still on the recently cleared page.[/QUOTE]

According to this log from [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=7024807&full=1"]M7024807[/URL]:

[CODE]2015-06-27 TJAOI F Factor: 1769498344154965727 / TF: 60-61
2014-02-12 lycorn NF no factor from 2^64 to 2^65
2014-02-06 Nesowa NF no factor from 2^63 to 2^64
2011-12-02 bcp19 NF-PM1 B1=85000, B2=1530000
2005-09-22 David Campeau NF no factor to 2^63
2002-02-17 ANONYMOUS C 5826212F92A0BD__
2002-02-03 ANONYMOUS NF-PM1 B1=35000, B2=297500
1999-07-12 ANONYMOUS C 5826212F92A0BD__
1999-04-13 ANONYMOUS C 4DC109AA44598F__
1998-06-01 ANONYMOUS NF no factor to 2^62
1998-05-16 ANONYMOUS NF no factor to 2^61[/CODE]

It appears that there were some errors in old versions of Prime95: see rows for 1998-05-16, 1998-06-01 and 2005-09-22.

[QUOTE=alpertron;404985]According to this log from [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=7024807&full=1"]M7024807[/URL]:
[]
It appears that there were some errors in old versions of Prime95: see rows for 1998-05-16, 1998-06-01 and 2005-09-22.[/QUOTE]
Or faulty hardware!

[QUOTE=VictordeHolland;404988]Or faulty hardware![/QUOTE]

According to that reasoning, three different computers were faulty.

[QUOTE=alpertron;404989]According to that reasoning, three different computers were faulty.[/QUOTE]

technically looking at the list you posted it doesn't have to be more than 1 because maybe those anonymous computer(s) became registered if both the anonymous are the same then it's up to two computers, and only if they are all separate is there three computers involved.

The result from 2005 is not anonymous.

[QUOTE=alpertron;404991]The result from 2005 is not anonymous.[/QUOTE]

has it been not anonymous since before the other results ? if not that becomes irrelevant.

[QUOTE=alpertron;404985]
It appears that there were some errors in old versions of Prime95: see rows for 1998-05-16, 1998-06-01 and 2005-09-22.[/QUOTE]

Quite possible. It did take a while to nail down several minor factoring bugs.

One other possibility: I don't remember if prime95 always reported the starting bit level. If not, the "no factor to 2^63" line may have factored only from 2^62 to 2^63.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;404992]has it been not anonymous since before the other results ? if not that becomes irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
How do you know that David Campeau was working with the same exponent seven years earlier?