[QUOTE=ET_;101663]Uncwilly tested all exponents below 3321999999 I think.[/QUOTE]I have just recently gotten the HD from the machine that did all of that back. I will send Luigi or whoever the files that I have.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;101673]I have just recently gotten the HD from the machine that did all of that back. I will send Luigi or whoever the files that I have.[/QUOTE]

Yes please, I lost the original file you sent me when you did the first pass.
Maybe William still has his copy.

Luigi

The following Mersenne numbers have no additional (unreported) factors between 2^68 and 2^69:
M3321928109
M3321928189
M3321928439
M3321928513
M3321928949
M3321929461
M3321930221
M3321931199
M3321931213
M3321931973

Now all billion digit Mersenne numbers with prime exponents below 3321933000 are factored up to 2^69 (since 2007 March 10, 18h07m UT).

Patrick

Here is the zip of spreadsheet of all of the numbers and thier lowest factor and the level that knocked the number out. I do have all of the factors that I found etc. in the mers format.

Looking back through the data:
I ran a pass up to 48, removed those with factors.
Ran a pass to 54, removed #'s
A pass at 56, 57, 58, 59, 60.

Here is the worktodo.ini for the remaining numbers, for the intravel 60->61.
I have some weak BASIC programs to strip the factors and make the next worktodo.ini, and to format the results into the mers format.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;102342]Here is the worktodo.ini for the remaining numbers, for the intravel 60->61.
I have some weak BASIC programs to strip the factors and make the next worktodo.ini, and to format the results into the mers format.[/QUOTE]

Thank you Uncwilly! :bow:

Now we have some questions...

You did a lot of work that has not been recorded in the stats page. I'll add it as we insert new factors into the running list.

Should we raise all exponents to 75 before adding new ones?
If not, how many should we add? Up to 3,321,934,000? All, to let slower computers work as well?

Mind that the actual batch format expects a fourth parameter as number of threads involved.
BTW, Factor5 has a small glitch that prevents the use of batch files unless you comment out the writing of the status file or raise the timeout between two file writes, but version 5.01 (in beta-test phase) works just fine. I'll keep you informed in this thread.

Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_;102345]
Should we raise all exponents to 75 before adding new ones?
If not, how many should we add? Up to 3,321,934,000? All, to let slower computers work as well?[/QUOTE]

IIRC, in the past we have opened new ranges at boundaries of 1000. 3,321,934,000 would be in keeping with that precedent.

I'd like to have some rule for when to open a new range. I'm thinking it should be some kind of measure of how extensive the work below the leading edge has been. Now, when we are stetching from 74 to 75 bits, I'm imagining a rule of the form "At least x at 73 or more bits, at least y at 72 or more bits, at least z at 71 or more bits, etc.

When we reach a point where the rule says "at least k exponents to n or more bits" and we have "everything is at n or more bits, but there are less than k open exponents, then we would add more exponents."


If we chose a doubling rule for the x,y,z, that would match the intuition that now is a the right time to add more. I see the doubling rule as meaning that while at level 8, we should have
8 or more at 74 bit or higher
16 or more at 73 bits or higher
32 or more at 72 bits or higher
64 or more at 71 bits or higher
128 or more at 70 bits or higher
...

I think we exceed these down to the 70 bit level, and we need to add exponents to meet that.

What do you think?

[QUOTE=wblipp;102355]
If we chose a doubling rule for the x,y,z, that would match the intuition that now is a the right time to add more. I see the doubling rule as meaning that while at level 8, we should have
8 or more at 74 bit or higher
16 or more at 73 bits or higher
32 or more at 72 bits or higher
64 or more at 71 bits or higher
128 or more at 70 bits or higher
...

I think we exceed these down to the 70 bit level, and we need to add exponents to meet that.

What do you think?[/QUOTE]

We have 81 exponents at 71 bits or more, 52 exponents at 72 bits or more, 25 exponents at 73 bits or more and so on...

I'm ready to add exponents up to 3,321,934,000!

When we'll reach level 9, we should have:

9 or more at 75 bit or higher
18 or more at 74 bits or higher
36 or more at 73 bits or higher
72 or more at 72 bits or higher
144 or more at 71 bits or higher

to open a new range.

Luigi

I will take all new exponents to 60 bits, granting to UncWilly his factors and CPU time.

Luigi

Three additional factors
 

[QUOTE=ET_;102371]I will take all new exponents to 60 bits, granting to UncWilly his factors and CPU time.

Luigi[/QUOTE]

I have already done some testing (using Factor5 on a Pentium 4) and found the following additional factors of the already known composite Mersenne numbers with prime exponents in the new range:

M3321933397 has a third factor: 974759534169131831 at 59.758 bits (18 digits) (found today at 10h08m UT)

M3321933697 has a second factor: 25865392960531463 at 54.522 bits (17 digits) (found today at 10h18m UT)

M3321933781 has a second factor: 97612971199608343 at 56.438 bits (17 digits) (found today at 10h26m UT)

All new exponents have been tested up to 61 bits (2^61).

Patrick

[QUOTE=PatrickSchmeer;102373]I have already done some testing (using Factor5 on a Pentium 4) and found the following additional factors of the already known composite Mersenne numbers with prime exponents in the new range:

M3321933397 has a third factor: 974759534169131831 at 59.758 bits (18 digits) (found today at 10h08m UT)

M3321933697 has a second factor: 25865392960531463 at 54.522 bits (17 digits) (found today at 10h18m UT)

M3321933781 has a second factor: 97612971199608343 at 56.438 bits (17 digits) (found today at 10h26m UT)

All new exponents have been tested up to 61 bits (2^61).

Patrick[/QUOTE]

Thank you Patrick. Next time try to reserve here your range before starting, to avoid duplicate work :wink:

I stopped mine.

Luigi