[QUOTE=retina;505984]What about it? It won't trigger any prize disbursement. You need to get to the next digit length; 100,000,000 digits.[/QUOTE]
Glad you answered!
I can lay out the "exponent" larger than ...
But, should we wait to check the previous result?

[QUOTE=PhilF;505921]If this were a real discussion about a real, new, Mersenne prime, would this really be your advice? It seems like if I wanted to protect my discovery, it would be safer to simply PM George with it. No one can be trusted more than him.[/QUOTE]
Sorry! Who is PM George?

[QUOTE=Zakedonsky;505987]Glad you answered!
I can lay out the "exponent" larger than ...
But, should we wait to check the previous result?[/QUOTE]It is up to you what you want to do.

Go ahead and start testing 100M digit numbers if you want. Depending upon your hardware it can take anywhere from [url=https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=13185]~40 days to ~37 years[/url] to test a single exponent on a single system.

[QUOTE=Zakedonsky;505988]Sorry! Who is PM George?[/QUOTE]




[B][I]PM [/I][/B][I]means send a private message[/I]

[QUOTE=pepi37;505994][B][I]PM [/I][/B][I]means send a private message[/I][/QUOTE]
TO WHOM ???

[QUOTE=retina;505993]It is up to you what you want to do.

Go ahead and start testing 100M digit numbers if you want. Depending upon your hardware it can take anywhere from [url=https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=13185]~40 days to ~37 years[/url] to test a single exponent on a single system.[/QUOTE]
The result (a prime number, more than 344587487, verified by the LL test) is ready!
By the way! The speed of the calculations is not only the power of the computer, but also the quality of the logic!

[QUOTE=Zakedonsky;505997]The result (a prime number, more than 344587487, verified by the LL test) is ready![/QUOTE]I don't believe you.

:crank:

[QUOTE=Zakedonsky;505976]3. The program selects the primes from the table, starting with a [COLOR=DarkRed]prime number larger than the starting one, and checks it with a Lucas-Lehmer test[/COLOR].
4. If the LL test is positive, WE GOT A NEW NUMBER OF MERSENNE!
5. If the test LL is negative, [COLOR=darkred]the program selects the following prime number from the tab[/COLOR].
[/QUOTE]
This scheme is ineffective. (let alone that what you call "LL test" is probably not working correctly)
Approximately 60% of the candidates have a small identifiable factor, much faster to find than a real LL test (not a defective one).

The reason that you (quote) "found M90000089", is that you started from 90000000? Didn't you?

What do you find if you set your starting number at 110000000? What do you find if you set your starting number at 120000000? Let's have a look at those finds and we will be able to tell you more about you scheme.

[QUOTE=retina;505998]I don't believe you.

:crank:[/QUOTE]
Why? Is it difficult to make a "prime numbers table", a volume of 20,000,000 prime numbers?

[QUOTE=Zakedonsky;505997]The result (a prime number, more than 344587487, verified by the LL test) is ready!
By the way! The speed of the calculations is not only the power of the computer, but also the quality of the logic![/QUOTE]

Is that the potatoe logic?

[QUOTE=Batalov;505999]This scheme is ineffective. (let alone that what you call "LL test" is probably not working correctly)
Approximately 60% of the candidates have a small identifiable factor, much faster to find than a real LL test (not a defective one).

The reason that you (quote) "found M90000089", is that you started from 90000000? Didn't you?

What do you find if you set your starting number at 110000000? What do you find if you set your starting number at 120000000? Let's have a look at those finds and we will be able to tell you more about you scheme.[/QUOTE]
Good! I'll be back soon.