[QUOTE=Dobri;583445]Manual testing is concerned with Category 4 assignments and they take much longer to test indeed (years per exponent).[/QUOTE]Nope. The bottom of Cat 4 is 112840494. Let's round that up to 114000000. That is an assignment of about 500 GHz-days. On a multi core machine running at 3 to 4 GHz that is not months, much less years. Even an exponent in the 332000000 range can be tested in under 4 months on an of the shelf desk top.
The lowest exponent that hasn't had a completed first time check is 103580003. That is a 412 GHz-days assignment. It does have a lower FFT size and thus will run faster. But there is not the amount of difference that you imply.

[QUOTE=charybdis;583450]
In the words of Joe Biden, "C'mon, man!"
[/QUOTE]
I understand your point of view and actually appreciate all of your responses as I learned a few things in the process.
What I am hesitant to accept is the intention to close the thread (even if assuming that there is a fallacy in my reasoning).
I myself follow in life the saying of Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
There is no urgency to stop discussions in my opinion. But if the forum works this way, let it be. No harm done anyway.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;583452]Even an exponent in the 332000000 range can be tested in under 4 months on an of the shelf desk top.
[/QUOTE]
That is correct if using the new generation i7-i9 Intel CPUs.
However, an assignment in the 330000000 range was completed last month after a 5-year period of continuous testing.
The new rules for new assignments limit the period of testing to only one year though.

[QUOTE=Dobri;583454]What I am hesitant to accept is the intention to close the thread (even if assuming that there is a fallacy in my reasoning).
...
There is no urgency to stop discussions in my opinion.[/QUOTE]You were intentionally drawing things out (by your own declarative statement). That is what trolls do. Thus that thread was closed. And that is why the other thread was merged into the closed one. Moderators have noticed that this thread is turning back into the same discussion of your idea and not what you posted as the subject of the thread. This attempt to continue droning on on the same topic is being looked upon with very jaundiced eyes. Tread lightly, the ice is thin here.

Do what ever assignments you like. That is a guiding principle here.

I would suggest you look for patterns in your next bowl of rice, plate of pasta, serving of beans, etc. that indicate which numbers to test.

Manual testing? Are you people talking about paper and pencil? If so, I will need to stock some erasers, they will be high demand soon, I may make some money...

[QUOTE=Dobri;583455]However, an assignment in the 330000000 range was completed last month after a 5-year period of continuous testing.[/QUOTE]That is one exponent. That is over 2x the value for the bottom of the Cat 4 range. Even a then current PC from 5 years ago would have taken less than "years" to complete the test. Unless you count 0.7 years as "years". You are taking a single datum and applying it to an entire category. :cmd::groan:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;583457]
Do what ever assignments you like. That is a guiding principle here.

I would suggest you look for patterns in your next bowl of rice, plate of pasta, serving of beans, etc. that indicate which numbers to test.[/QUOTE]
Certainly, I am not going to annoy the viewers in this thread with technicalities as it is about policies.

Concerning where to look for patterns, I sense a fallacy of reasoning in your suggestion.
But I wouldn't close the thread if it was yours and I was a mod.

[QUOTE=LaurV;583459]Manual testing? Are you people talking about paper and pencil? If so, I will need to stock some erasers, they will be high demand soon, I may make some money...[/QUOTE]
My bad, it is manual selection, to be precise.
Hope you are vaccinated and doing well, be safe.

OP's ideas were debunked as numerology in original thread. After ignoring the math provided and repeatedly claiming his idea was sound, the thread was locked.

OP starts a second thread to continue blabbing about the same idea, adding no new ideas or info. Surprise, second thread locked.
Most people at this time would interpret moderators' actions as a warning.

But our OP starts a third thread to argue for his right to argue useless pseudomath on a math forum, which (surprise!) quickly devolves into more discussion of OP's original idea (there is still no evidence he has more ideas or more to contribute).

Dobri, this is not how people contribute to a forum. You are much closer to a timeout from forum posting than you are to changing anyone's mind. Threads are locked for a reason, and trying to circumvent that is not how one should Fight The Power.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;583464]OP's ideas were debunked as numerology in original thread. After ignoring the math provided and repeatedly claiming his idea was sound, the thread was locked.

OP starts a second thread to continue blabbing about the same idea, adding no new ideas or info. Surprise, second thread locked.
Most people at this time would interpret moderators' actions as a warning.

But our OP starts a third thread to argue for his right to argue useless pseudomath on a math forum, which (surprise!) quickly devolves into more discussion of OP's original idea (there is still no evidence he has more ideas or more to contribute).

Dobri, this is not how people contribute to a forum. You are much closer to a timeout from forum posting than you are to changing anyone's mind. Threads are locked for a reason, and trying to circumvent that is not how one should Fight The Power.[/QUOTE]
I do not know if the empirical observations are sound.
If I knew and could also provide contributions on a daily basis, I would publish a paper and not bother opening a thread for discussion.
GIMPS is one of my hobbies and I am not a devoted pure mathematician. If the forum expects from me to contribute immediately after being asked a specific question in a gray zone of inquiry, I would prefer not to fall in the trap but rather take time and reflect on it, use computer tools, and have a verified response in the future.

[QUOTE=Dobri;583454]...
I myself follow in life the saying of Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
...[/QUOTE]Like so many you confuse "I will defend your right to say it", with "I am under obligation to help you say it and publish it". Most forumites will defend your right to see patterns without any rational ground. But that doesn't mean we are under an obligation to support numerological rants. I suppose there are forums where you will get away with numerology. Why not post there.

Just post some unacceptable content (according to the rules you accepted when getting a forum ID and posting here) and see what will happen to your login ...

Jacob