[QUOTE=ckdo;175502]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 1,000[/QUOTE]
Current:
Countdown to testing all exponents below M(30402457) once: 148
Countdown to testing all exponents below M(32582657) once: 701
Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 946

Is it just me or do we seem to be covering these milestones much quicker than we have in the past?

I think that George's optimization of the way that assignments are handed out has to do with this. More slow machines are being given the higher end of the DC's. The DC machines that are known good and faster are being given the tail end.

[COLOR="SeaGreen"][SIZE="4"][B]IIRC[/B][/SIZE][/COLOR]

Unfortunately my preference is to search for world record first time LLs just for the 1 in 200,000 chance that I get bragging rights and a reason to buy a poster that looks like a solid mass of gray ink.

Why unfortunately? George's optimization doesn't force people to do a work type different from what they want. He just assigns exponents within a worktype differently.

I was being facetious. "Unfortunately" because world record size LLs take longer to test. However, I am enthralled by the prospect of actually finding one however slim my chances are. This is the type of work that I want to do.

[quote=lycorn;148831]Yep. It is hard to understand why the server is handing out exps in the 50M range, when there are thousands of other ones listed as available for LL, in the 40M and 30M ranges (and even quite a few in the 20M).
I think priority should be given to consolidate the results obtained for the ranges partially scanned, instead of continuing to go higher and higher, leaving so many gaps behind.[/quote]

It's probably manual assigned ...

[quote=ckdo;175502][SIZE=2]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 1,000
[/SIZE][/quote]

[SIZE=2]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 900

That's 9 days for the last 100 exponents... :spot:
[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=joblack;176899]It's probably manual assigned ...[/QUOTE]Although the post you quoted was only 7 months ago, it's history now. Read the [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=148849#post148849"]post after that one[/URL] for a brief explanation of the situation way back then. :smile:

[QUOTE]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 900

That's 9 days for the last 100 exponents... [/QUOTE]

You think? Last time I checked there are still 140 exponents awaiting first time check below M(20996011)

[quote=Primeinator;176919]You think? Last time I checked there are still 140 exponents awaiting first time check below M(20996011)[/quote]

You obviously are looking at wrong sources of information.

[QUOTE]You obviously are looking at wrong sources of information. [/QUOTE]

No, I was just suffering from a momentary lapse in memory. It is M(30402457) that has 137 exponents awaiting a first time check. Sorry!

On a slightly more positive note... it is now 898 left to prove M40 is actually M40.

[QUOTE=Primeinator;176919]You think? Last time I checked there are still 140 exponents awaiting first time check below M(20996011)[/QUOTE]

The way I read the chart at [url]http://www.mersenne.org/primenet/[/url] :

"Status Unproven": The number of exponents that HAVE NOT submitted a valid LL or DC test. As of today the lowest EXP requiring an LL test is in the 26M range. I am quite sure it is these columns that are OFFICAL and that feed the milestones reports.

"Assigned": Current active(?) assignments in a given range. There are several reasons why there might be assignments in completed ranges and you could ask why they are allowed to remain so (but that is another topic of lesser interest to me). Personally I have had several first time LL assignments in the 25-29M range that once completed reported as completing the Double Check. So apparently someone else assigned AFTER me completed BEFORE me. No big deal the assignmed got tested twice and I got credit for one.

[QUOTE=petrw1;176927]Personally I have had several first time LL assignments in the 25-29M range that once completed reported as completing the Double Check. So apparently someone else assigned AFTER me completed BEFORE me. No big deal the assignmed got tested twice and I got credit for one.[/QUOTE]

You can be assigned as a first time test an exponent that had a suspicious error code on the first test. If the test you ran matches the suspicious test you will get the message that you completed the double-check. In other words, poaching is not the most likely cause of this message.

when is prime95 going to finish the lowest two exponents needing doublechecks and move that boundary up a bit?

[QUOTE=henryzz;177475]when is prime95 going to finish the lowest two exponents needing doublechecks and move that boundary up a bit?[/QUOTE]

# Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 853
# Countdown to proving M(24036583) is the 41st Mersenne Prime: 46,351

# All exponents below 18,000,949 have been tested and double-checked.
# All exponents below 26,181,803 have been tested at least once.
# Countdown to testing all exponents below M(30402457) once: 130
# Countdown to testing all exponents below M(32582657) once: 621

[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_milestones/[/url]

[QUOTE=henryzz;177475]when is prime95 going to finish the lowest two exponents needing doublechecks and move that boundary up a bit?[/QUOTE]Looking at the rate of progress of those that have most of the exponents between 18M and 19M assigned, that range should be finished at the end of August 2009...

Jacob

[quote=henryzz;177475]when is prime95 going to finish the lowest two exponents needing doublechecks and move that boundary up a bit?[/quote]To what boundary do you refer?

[quote=cheesehead;177547]To what boundary do you refer?[/quote]
All exponents below 18,000,949 have been tested and double-checked.
i have just realized my stupid mistake(always making these:smile:) i looked at the LL test results and saw that George had first time checked the lowest two exponents left
i misread this as he was assigned them for doublechecking

i was wondering why 18000949 and 18000989 hadnt been finished since they have been assigned ages
i now discovered that they were both assigned to starrynte on 2008-12-05 and so was 18001339
how come these three have taken 6 months?
a month might be sufficient

then again 18065809 has been assigned a month more than that

surely a system for quickly processing low exponents would be good
the preferred exponent thing is good but it allows people to hoard a load of exponents and take ages to do the lowest ones

I think starrynyte has forgot about those three exponents. Anyone care to send him a PM? I took a look at exponents in the 18-19M range. There are 42 exponents that remain. I have 5 that should be finished in about 10 days. 99.94 has about a dozen that are being crunched offline and should all
be complete in 10-12 days. starrynyte has 3. Carsten Kossenday has
about 5-6 assigned since Feb. markr just got 3 assigned a few days ago
so should be finishing them soon. shaneamy has a few assigned since
October last which he/she seems to have forgotten about.

Am I missing anyone else?

[QUOTE=garo;177562]I think starrynyte has forgot about those three exponents.
...
shaneamy has a few assigned since October last which he/she seems to have forgotten about.[/QUOTE]I don't think those exponents are forgotten : when I said they would be finished about the end of August it is because I looked at the exponents returned by those to whom those last exponents are assigned. They have all been returning results for other exponents in that range regularly...

If the exponents have not been reassigned it is because the computers crunching them have communicated once a month at least.

There is no reason to be impatient : there are still a few other exponents to be tested, no shortage at the moment ;-)

Jacob

Perhaps they are just OCD like me and want to guarantee that there are no hiding primes in those ranges on the off chance that the first LL made an error that was not reported. Although to be honest, if there are any hiding primes I think they are around the 28M and 35M areas.

For the traditionalists:
[attach]3784[/attach]

It will be nice to see a few of the milestones fly by.

[quote=ckdo;176903][SIZE=2]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 900

That's 9 days for the last 100 exponents...
[/SIZE][/quote]
[SIZE=2]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 800

That's another 9 days for another 100 exponents... :spot:[/SIZE]

Countdown to testing all exponents below M(30402457) once: 111

What do you think...is there a hiding Mersenne in there somewhere?

[quote=Primeinator;178842]Countdown to testing all exponents below M(30402457) once: 111

What do you think...is there a hiding Mersenne in there somewhere?[/quote]
Seriously doubt it. (duh!) A prime hiding in this one seems more likely, but still quite a longshot:
[QUOTE]Countdown to proving M(30402457) is the 43rd Mersenne Prime: 180,214[/QUOTE][SIZE=2]
[/SIZE](I'm just guessing, someone can work the math if they want to check the real odds of each)

[quote=ckdo;178153][SIZE=2]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 800

That's another 9 days for another 100 exponents... [/SIZE][/quote]

Earlier today:

[SIZE=2]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 700

[/SIZE][SIZE=2]Once again, 9 days for 100 exponents...:spot:[/SIZE]

[quote=ckdo;179169]Earlier today:

[SIZE=2]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 700

[/SIZE][SIZE=2]Once again, 9 days for 100 exponents...:spot:[/SIZE][/quote]
[SIZE=2]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 600

11 days for 100 exponents this time.
[/SIZE]

[quote=Mini-Geek;180354][SIZE=2]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 600

11 days for 100 exponents this time.
[/SIZE][/quote]

[SIZE=2]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 500
[/SIZE]
14 days for the last 100 exponents. :down:

A wee Scottie dog canna be expected to run so fast always.

[quote=Mini-Geek;178848]Seriously doubt it. (duh!) A prime hiding in this one seems more likely, but still quite a longshot:

(I'm just guessing, someone can work the math if they want to check the real odds of each)[/quote]

We expect(ed!) one Mprime between 20M and 30M.
About 200,000 exponents are not factored.
So the probability of a specified first time LLtest yielding a
prime is 1/200,000.

40,000 have been doublechecked, leaving 160,000
to be doublechecked. Assuming the error rate of tests
is 2%, we get a probability of 1.6% for doublechecking
yielding a prime with exponent<30M.

This agrees with the "expected new primes" shown here:
[URL]http://v5www.mersenne.org/report_classic/[/URL]

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;182509]We expect(ed!) one Mprime between 20M and 30M.
About 200,000 exponents are not factored.
So the probability of a specified first time LLtest yielding a
prime is 1/200,000.

40,000 have been doublechecked, leaving 160,000
to be doublechecked. Assuming the error rate of tests
is 2%, we get a probability of 1.6% for doublechecking
yielding a prime with exponent<30M.

This agrees with the "expected new primes" shown here:
[URL]http://v5www.mersenne.org/report_classic/[/URL]

David[/QUOTE]

We can also consider the fact that we have found an inordinately large number of Mersenne primes close together, inordinately meaning "more than expected." Whether this is an anomaly that is erased by the average in the long run or whether this is a new norm (or anomaly that will continue for at least awhile) remains to be seen.

[quote=Primeinator;182638]We can also consider the fact that we have found an inordinately large number of Mersenne primes close together, inordinately meaning "more than expected." Whether this is an anomaly that is erased by the average in the long run or whether this is a new norm (or anomaly that will continue for at least awhile) remains to be seen.[/quote]
The "freakishness" of 8 Mersenne primes in an exponent interval
was discussed in the "Success?..." thread. This is post #346:

[quote=R. Gerbicz;177080]I think it is better to do simulation, using [URL="http://primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/NextMersenne.html"][COLOR=#800080]http://primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/NextMersenne.html[/COLOR][/URL] conjecture for the probability that Mp is prime. 2000 simulations for the [2,5*10^7] interval, gives:
[code]
The most number of Mersenne primes in a [x,2.06*x] interval (for the exponent),
what we have after the verification for M40-M47 are 8 primes.
3 Mersenne primes in 'small' interval: 5
4 Mersenne primes in 'small' interval: 110
5 Mersenne primes in 'small' interval: 536
6 Mersenne primes in 'small' interval: 710
7 Mersenne primes in 'small' interval: 432
8 Mersenne primes in 'small' interval: 162
9 Mersenne primes in 'small' interval: 40
10 Mersenne primes in 'small' interval: 5
[/code]

So it isn't very rare 8 or more primes, the probability is 10.35%, close to the easy Poission estimation.
.....
[/quote]

Note that the ratio of 2.06 was carefully chosen to be
just greater than log(M47)/log(M40).
Had he chosen a ratio just less than log(M47)/log(M39)
the frequency would be considerably larger.
Ditto if he chose a ratio just less than log(M47)/log(M40)
and looked at the frequency of 7 or more primes, which from
his data is 30%.

Considering that this is the most anomalous feature we can
find, I don't think there is any need to suggest that the
Wagstaff conjecture has come to grief.

David

[quote=ckdo;182358][SIZE=2]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 500[/SIZE]

14 days for the last 100 exponents. :down:[/quote]

While I was out ...

Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 400

20 days for 100 exponents this time... :cry:

[quote=ckdo;185206]While I was out ...

Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 400

20 days for 100 exponents this time... :cry:[/quote]
i wouldnt be surprised if it doesnt reach 0 before the end of the year(140 days away)

[quote="ckdo"]While I was out ...

Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 400

20 days for 100 exponents this time... [/quote]

I've been looking at this tread a while now. I must admit that I do not know what you're doing here. Isn't M40 going back a ways? M44 was in 2006.

[quote=storm5510;185419]I've been looking at this tread a while now. I must admit that I do not know what you're doing here. Isn't M40 going back a ways? M44 was in 2006.[/quote]
We know that M(20996011)=2^20996011-1 is prime, but we aren't 100% certain that it's the 40th Mersenne prime (M40). Once every Mersenne number smaller than M20996011 has been double checked, then we'll know for sure. This is what we're counting down. Once that hits 0, we'll know with an extremely high certainty (barring two tests randomly producing the same incorrect residue on a prime, the odds of which are astronomical) that M20996011 is the 40th Mersenne prime, M40.

Let me add just a bit to Mini-Geek's explanation:

GIMPS assignments are not completed and reported in monotonic increasing order of exponent. Thus, there are always "gaps" among the GIMPS LL/DC results where an exponent's test has not yet completed even though larger exponents' tests are finished.

When this forum (or the milestones page) refers to "Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime", that's the count of exponents less than 20996011 whose double-check assignments have not yet been successfully completed. The same goes for [SIZE=3]"[/SIZE][SIZE=3]Countdown to proving M(24036583) is the 41st Mersenne Prime"[/SIZE], ...

Until that count reaches 0, there is some uncertainty as to whether there are any Mersenne primes with exponents between 13466917 (which we "know" to be M39 because we've done successful double-checks on all exponents below it) and 20996011.

[QUOTE=storm5510;185419]I've been looking at this tread a while now. I must admit that I do not know what you're doing here. Isn't M40 going back a ways? M44 was in 2006.[/QUOTE]It is good that you asked that question. This is one that will be helpful for others looking at the thread.

Okay, I get it. You're checking the gaps between tested exponents. That needs to be done without a doubt.

I started using P95 about five years ago, but didn't stay with it. I was running it on an 800 MHz P3. Trial factoring was taking weeks to do, so I returned everything and dropped out, but I knew I would be back when I had hardware that could handle the task.

:smile:

BTW, how many exponents out of all the ones GIMPS has doublechecked would be expected to have an incorrect residue on both tests?

[quote=10metreh;185648]BTW, how many exponents out of all the ones GIMPS has doublechecked would be expected to have an incorrect residue on both tests?[/quote]
Let's limit this to tests where no serious errors were reported
The chance of an incorrect residue on each is about 1.5%, (from [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/various/math.php"]The Math[/URL]) so the chance of both being incorrect is .015*.015=0.000225=0.0225%, or one in 4,444.44... From [URL]http://www.mersenne.org/primenet/[/URL], GIMPS has DCd about 518010 candidates. 518010/4444=~[B]116.56
[/B]Edit: this is for two incorrect residues, whether identical or not. I'm not fully sure which 10metreh was implying[B]. [/B]The expected number of two incorrect tests having the same wrong residue should be about 116.56/2^64 =~ 6.31873*10^-18

The chance that both checks have the [B]same[/B] wrong residue when the doublecheck run is with a shift value is astronomically small, almost nonexistent.

[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/various/math.php"]http://www.mersenne.org/various/math.php[/URL]
[QUOTE]GIMPS double-checking goes a bit further to guard against programming errors. Prior to starting the Lucas-Lehmer test, the S0 value is left-shifted by a random amount. Each squaring just doubles how much we have shifted the S value. Note that the mod 2P-1 step merely rotates the p-th bits and above to the least significant bits, so there is no loss of information. Why do we go to this trouble? If there were a bug in the FFT code, then the shifting of the S values ensures that the FFTs in the first primality test are dealing with completely different data than the FFTs in the second primality test. It would be near impossible for a programming bug to produce the same final 64 bit residues.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=science_man_88;185834]wonder if they can prove my challenge if so I whipped them see Challenge for more info[/QUOTE]This is the wrong thread for your post.

[quote=ckdo;185206]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 400

20 days for 100 exponents this time... :cry:[/quote]

Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 300

Again, 20 days for 100 exponents... :coffee:

[quote=ckdo;188452]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 300

Again, 20 days for 100 exponents... :coffee:[/quote]

Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 200

34 days for 100 exponents... :surrender

[quote=ckdo;192134]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 200

34 days for 100 exponents... :surrender[/quote]
Beat me to it again, and I been watching for it all day.
I hope this isn't exponential decay, i.e. rate of decrease
proportional to number remaining.

I am kinda fond of these:
[quote=Primenet]
Countdown to testing all exponents below M(30402457) once: 26
Countdown to testing all exponents below M(32582657) once: 136[/quote]
Looking good.

[QUOTE=davieddy;192154]
I hope this isn't exponential decay, i.e. rate of decrease
proportional to number remaining.[/QUOTE]

Be at least prepared for the last 100 taking [U]significantly[/U] longer than 34 days... even with a little help from poaching, as usual (not guilty!).
I don´t expect this milestone to be completed before end of February 2010.

[quote=lycorn;192175]Be at least prepared for the last 100 taking [U]significantly[/U] longer than 34 days... even with a little help from poaching, as usual (not guilty!).
I don´t expect this milestone to be completed before end of February 2010.[/quote]
There might be a "slow bicycle race" going on:
The last one to complete the DC clinches the proof

Just got an exponent in the 31M range assigned to a core, first time test because the test already done is suspect. I bumped it up in the work queue of that core. (Stopped Prime95, reordered worktodo.txt and restarted Prime95...)

Jacob

[quote=S485122;192243]Just got an exponent in the 31M range assigned to a core, first time test because the test already done is suspect. I bumped it up in the work queue of that core. (Stopped Prime95, reordered worktodo.txt and restarted Prime95...)

Jacob[/quote]
There ought to be a big prize for finding another Mersenne prime
with less than 10M digits:smile:

I just got one of the last 4 double checks below 19,000,000. It should be done in another couple days. It looks like all previous attempts at a double check on this number must have timed out without a result since there is no report of conflicting residues or anything.

[QUOTE=lfm;192277]I just got one of the last 4 double checks below 19,000,000. It should be done in another couple days. It looks like all previous attempts at a double check on this number must have timed out without a result since there is no report of conflicting residues or anything.[/QUOTE]Indeed both the 18M exponents assigned to Team Bundu expired and where reassigned. I suppose they were lost somehow because Team Bundu regularly turned out first time and double checks for other exponents. I almost PM'ed them some time ago to incite them to bump those stragglers up in their work queue.

Jacob

these are the last 4 assignments under 19000000

[code]
18297089 No factors below 2^66
P-1 B1=100000, B2=1850000
Unverified LL C0A7AC2B03D678__ by "Trent Taufer"
Unverified LL F090592DAA1CEA__ by "ANONYMOUS" on 2009-05-07
Assigned Double-checking to "bayanne" on 2009-05-07
History F090592DAA1CEA__ by "ANONYMOUS" on 2009-05-07

18455461 No factors below 2^67
P-1 B1=220000, B2=5225000
Unverified LL A825B2D95E57D4__ by "Chris Marble"
Unverified LL 32E8E3078A7C58__ by "Paul Rispens" on 2008-05-22
Assigned Double-checking to "JohanSeland" on 2009-02-22

18517333 No factors below 2^67
P-1 B1=220000, B2=5390000
Unverified LL 0661AF5F081332__ by "Ars Technica Team Prime Rib"
Unverified LL 189ABBCFBC341D__ by "Heinz Ulrich Stille"
Assigned Double-checking to "Team_Bundu" on 2009-02-27 ;dropped
Assigned Double-checking to "jccotham" on 2009-10-03

18566731 No factors below 2^66
P-1 B1=220000, B2=5390000
Unverified LL 600BAABAB09358__ by "Tom Womack"
Assigned Double-checking to "Team_Bundu" on 2009-02-18 ;dropped
Assigned Double-checking to "S04803" on 2009-10-03

[/code]

both Team Bundu and Bayanne haven´t returned any results since June 2009 in any LL tests maybe they are doing really big ones (100M digit) instead. "JohanSeland" is still quite active and I don´t know what might have happened there.

They might have wished you had contacted them now.

18517333 and 18566731 should be done soon. I´d be happy to do the other two would take about <5 days for both of them. Apparently the server has finally caught up with them and doing a fine job. In the meantime most DC assignments are in the 22M range.

I wonder why the last one was only factored to 2^66?

nelson

[QUOTE=Nelson;192428]these are the last 4 assignments under 19000000

[code]
18297089 No factors below 2^66
P-1 B1=100000, B2=1850000
Unverified LL C0A7AC2B03D678__ by "Trent Taufer"
Unverified LL F090592DAA1CEA__ by "ANONYMOUS" on 2009-05-07
Assigned Double-checking to "bayanne" on 2009-05-07
History F090592DAA1CEA__ by "ANONYMOUS" on 2009-05-07

18455461 No factors below 2^67
P-1 B1=220000, B2=5225000
Unverified LL A825B2D95E57D4__ by "Chris Marble"
Unverified LL 32E8E3078A7C58__ by "Paul Rispens" on 2008-05-22
Assigned Double-checking to "JohanSeland" on 2009-02-22

18517333 No factors below 2^67
P-1 B1=220000, B2=5390000
Unverified LL 0661AF5F081332__ by "Ars Technica Team Prime Rib"
Unverified LL 189ABBCFBC341D__ by "Heinz Ulrich Stille"
Assigned Double-checking to "Team_Bundu" on 2009-02-27 ;dropped
Assigned Double-checking to "jccotham" on 2009-10-03

18566731 No factors below 2^66
P-1 B1=220000, B2=5390000
Unverified LL 600BAABAB09358__ by "Tom Womack"
Assigned Double-checking to "Team_Bundu" on 2009-02-18 ;dropped
Assigned Double-checking to "S04803" on 2009-10-03

[/code]

both Team Bundu and Bayanne haven´t returned any results since June 2009 in any LL tests maybe they are doing really big ones (100M digit) instead. "JohanSeland" is still quite active and I don´t know what might have happened there.

They might have wished you had contacted them now.

18517333 and 18566731 should be done soon. I´d be happy to do the other two would take about <5 days for both of them. Apparently the server has finally caught up with them and doing a fine job. In the meantime most DC assignments are in the 22M range.

I wonder why the last one was only factored to 2^66?

nelson[/QUOTE]


How'd you get that report?

Don't snipe, let the server figure it out. There is no emergency to get it done or anything.

[quote=lfm;192429]How'd you get that report?

Don't snipe, let the server figure it out. There is no emergency to get it done or anything.[/quote]

Of course not. Just giving the benefit of the doubt here. Thats why I didn´t give the list of about 50 exponents and what went on with them. I certainly have no intention of poaching or they would have been done by now.

I´ve been keeping the exponent status on the last 50 or so assignments for several months. The server only displays the most recent assignments. If a factor is found only the factor is shown, not even who found the factor is displayed then. I leave it at that because not everyone should know how to find out when a user last reported results.

I just think the assignments would get done in a more orderly fashion if very large queues weren´t so common. It is too easy to lose track of your assignments if you have large queues on a given machine unless that´s all you have to do. And the risk of lost assignments also increases. That was what happened while the these jobs were hanging around undone until something went haywire and exponents finally timed out. These four assignments are only a drop in the bucket of what goes on all the time.

Even though older systems could then do double checks in a reasonable amount of time they very likely are the same achitecture the original work was done on. That is except for the improvements in software of course. My reading is that hopefully DC would be done an newer and consequently different hardware which in most cases is happening.

The unhappy is really for those who for whatever reason weren´t able to complete what they started. I´m certain exponents will be cleared and new milestones will be reached at least as long as springtime and harvest don´t cease. So there certainly isn´t any emergency.

nelson

I'll send bayanne a message.

Ok. 18297089 is 76% done and being worked on actively.

[quote=garo;192510]Ok. 18297089 is 76% done and being worked on actively.[/quote]

Ah that´s good, 18566731 was completed on the 10th. The server definitely gets the work done.

only 37 in the 19M range now.

nelson

What about 18,455,461 and 18,517,333?

We only have 3 exponents below 19M awaiting verification :smile:

18517333 was reassigned 3 October, 18455461 was reassigned 13 October. (!)

18297089
ETC: 1530UTC, tomorrow.

Just one 18M left: 18455461

[QUOTE=lycorn;192882]Just one 18M left: 18455461[/QUOTE]

Why does it say there is still two assigned?

Because bayanne asked me to complete 1829xxxx and I turned in the result but it is still assigned to him until he unreserves it or it expires.

Sorry for dumb question but how do you find what exactly exponent left to be LL or LL-D for some range (for example for range 18M) ? Please explain. I can see state of range on [url]http://www.mersenne.org/primenet/[/url] but how to find exactly values ?

[quote=AlsXZ;193038]Sorry for dumb question but how do you find what exactly exponent left to be LL or LL-D for some range (for example for range 18M) ? Please explain. I can see state of range on [URL]http://www.mersenne.org/primenet/[/URL] but how to find exactly values ?[/quote]
[URL]http://www.mersenne.org/report_LL/?exp_lo=18000000&exp_hi=19000000&exp_date=&user_only=0&user_id=&exdchk=1&exbad=1&exfactor=1&txt=1&dispdate=1&B1=Get+LL+data[/URL]
That shows that 18455461 is the only one in the 18M-19M range without a verified result.
[URL]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=18455461&exp_hi=&B1=Get+status[/URL] shows that it was assigned to a user named Pauly 3 days ago.

(that was for missing DCs, I'm not sure how to check for missing LLs in a range)

Wouldn't missing LLs still be in that report as they are unverified?

No. That report lists only exponents that have at least one LL result (first time and/or DC) turned in.
I don´t know any means of retrieving the exponents that have no LL tests at all in a given range. Except, of course, the brute force method of comparing a list with all the primes in the range with the list obtained from the server reports showing all the exponents with results (LL tests, DC tests and Factored exponents), and figuring out the missing ones in the latter. But this is of course not practical, except for very small ranges.

[quote=lycorn;193070]No. That report lists only exponents that have at least one LL result (first time and/or DC) turned in.
I don´t know any means of retrieving the exponents that have no LL tests at all in a given range. Except, of course, the brute force method of comparing a list with all the primes in the range with the list obtained from the server reports showing all the exponents with results (LL tests, DC tests and Factored exponents), and figuring out the missing ones in the latter. But this is of course not practical, except for very small ranges.[/quote]
Using [URL]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/[/URL] may be more practical, but the limit of 100 exponents per query and lack of filtering sure slows it down...

[quote=Mini-Geek;193072] the limit of 100 exponents per query and lack of filtering sure slows it down...[/quote]
True. That´s why I didn´t even mentioned it as a method of getting this type of info for a range of exponents.

To explore a range of exponents first use the "Factoring Limits" query, if you redo it immediately with "Exclude currently assigned exponents", you have a list of assigned exponents by comparison. Next use the LL Results query, by default it excludes only bad results and results for which a factor was found. Each query can return up to 10 000 rows. If you use "Print simple text report" dif will help you compare the lists. If you use a spreadsheet lookup functions will speed up comparing the lists.

Jacob

Looks like we have completed double checking to 19 million! :groupwave::wacky:

Now just 20 more to 20 million ...

Milestones page need a "All exponents below 19,000,000 double-checked." line now, I think this is a manual thing George does.

[QUOTE=ATH;194191]Milestones page need a "All exponents below 19,000,000 double-checked." line now, I think this is a manual thing George does.[/QUOTE]He might as well wait for the 20 to finish and then post both at once.

That is excellent! Any guesses on how long the 20 19M exponents might take?

How long will the last 100 take?
 

Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 100 as of 0538 GMT on 2009-11-26. It took 50 days to clear 100 exponents, or 1.5 times as long as it took to go from 300->200. Looks definitely like exponential decay on the rate of completion, and I would say that we'll be lucky to see this last 100 cleared by April 1, 2010.

True.
If this rate is maintained, one shouldn´t expect the milestone to be covered before mid-April.

Milestone chart
 

I took the milestones page and plotted it. Comments?

[quote=lfm;199356]I took the milestones page and plotted it. Comments?[/quote]
nice:smile:
would it be possible to do similar but showing the countdown to all numbers below this point doublechecked and singlechecked milestones?

[QUOTE=henryzz;199369]nice:smile:
would it be possible to do similar but showing the countdown to all numbers below this point doublechecked and singlechecked milestones?[/QUOTE]

I think you'd have to collect that data over an extended period of time to get anything interesting to look at. I don't see how you'd plot just the stuff there available right now.

[QUOTE=lfm;199416]I think you'd have to collect that data over an extended period of time to get anything interesting to look at. I don't see how you'd plot just the stuff there available right now.[/QUOTE][url]http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://mersenne.org/status.htm[/url] and
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://v5www.mersenne.org/report_milestones/[/url] can do it for you.

[quote=lfm;199356]I took the milestones page and plotted it. Comments?[/quote]
I'd like to see a linear scale for the exponent.

[QUOTE=davieddy;199515]I'd like to see a linear scale for the exponent.[/QUOTE]

ok

[quote=lfm;199578]ok[/quote]
Many thanks.
We like massaging data in East Anglia.
If you close your eyes you can sort of smell the hockey stick trick:smile:

[QUOTE=davieddy;199589]Many thanks.
We like massaging data in East Anglia.
If you close your eyes you can sort of smell the hockey stick trick:smile:[/QUOTE]

hmmm, I thought the log axis showed some things better. The early details for one and the relative gaps in progress seemed more constant in that the double checks aren't really falling behind.

Of course the log version might seem discouraging implying progress is leveling off or something. I think it does show how far we are from the 100,000,000 bits milestonem let alone 100,000,000 digits.

Both versions are informative in their own ways of course.

[quote=lfm;199673]
Both versions are informative in their own ways of course.[/quote]
Yep.
The straight bits of each tell a tale.
BTW I assume the hockey is played on ice.

I have a brother who lives in Calgary - Peter Eddy.
He went there as deputy leader of your Philharmonic Orchestra (early 70s).
He subsequently became a courier, and for reasons best known
to himself transports radioactive materials around.
I know it's a big place, but if you can trace him*, wish him a merry
Christmas and ask him to get in touch with me. (I've lost his details).

David

* With a Geiger counter or othersise:)

December 28, 2009: [SIZE=2]All exponents below 33,219,281 have been P-1 tested.[/SIZE]

All exponents below 20M double checked:party:

[quote=davieddy;201138]All exponents below 20M double checked:party:[/quote]

All exponents below 20M had a first-time test completed as of December 31, 2007. So it looks like there is almost exactly two years between completing first tests to X and then completing double-checks to X. That's not really that terrible, and probably a lot better than many would have suspected.

[QUOTE=davieddy;201138]All exponents below 20M double checked:party:[/QUOTE]

From my archives I can see it happened January 7th between 05:39 and 06:39 UTC/GMT (6:39-7:39am CET or 12:39-1:39am EST).

[quote=NBtarheel_33;197055]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 100 as of 0538 GMT on 2009-11-26. It took 50 days to clear 100 exponents, or 1.5 times as long as it took to go from 300->200. Looks definitely like exponential decay on the rate of completion, and I would say that we'll be lucky to see this last 100 cleared by April 1, 2010.[/quote]

Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 50

74 days for 50 exponents.

[quote=ckdo;204880]Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 50

74 days for 50 exponents.[/quote]
This actually was reached yesterday.
5 more "half lives" makes it another year before the proof
is completed :-(

Nobody mention it yet, but last week (I think) all exponents below 28M have been checked. :w00t:
Only 3 remaining before 30M milestone :smile:

[QUOTE=davieddy;204882]This actually was reached yesterday.
5 more "half lives" makes it another year before the proof
is completed :-([/QUOTE]

The process seems to have sped up... there are now just 43 remaining.

[quote=Primeinator;205955]The process seems to have sped up... there are now just 43 remaining.[/quote]
Still are.
Guess it's taking a breather after that burst of activity.