mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Fun Stuff > Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-07-30, 20:43   #375
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

64718 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
It's a record I expect to be exceeded repeatedly going forward. I made an extrapolation in late 2018 of completion of first testing to exponent 1G by around 2170 (152 years from 2018, ~148 years from now). There's an estimated 6 Mersenne primes to be found in that span. So that suggests an average around 25 years between future Mp discoveries below 1G exponent.
This estimate is not proven and we had 13 between 107 and 108, so who knows how many there will be.
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-07-30, 23:24   #376
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

22·29·59 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATH View Post
who knows how many there will be.
No one, yet. But after over almost all of recorded history, of the discovered Mp count lagging the Wagstaff conjecture's implications for count versus search limit, since Mp#51 was found a few years ago, for a change we're a bit ahead of the conjecture's forecast. It seems a bad bet to expect the extremely productive run of the past 2 decades to continue despite the data below 107 indicating a lower mean rate vs. log(exponent). I've not seen any rumored theoretical basis for a change in slope above some exponent. Earlier there were ~2:1, 3.5:1 and 4:1 intervals that were empty.

Possibly of interest: last paragraph of the "dubious claims" post, George's Wagstaff conjecture run post, number of Mersenne primes versus search limit (with Wagstaff conjecture and DC limit also plotted)
kriesel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-07-31, 18:14   #377
tuckerkao
 
"Tucker Kao"
Jan 2020
Head Base M168202123

2·389 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
I hope to see at least one more Mp discovered in my lifetime. If one is located near 1.47576 x 82.6M ~122M, reaching and finding it may only take a few more years from now. I'd be happy to be shown unduly pessimistic in regard to time required to find Mp52* or Mp53*.
Unless someone has already reached the retiring age now. Most of the users here should be the well beings up to at least year 2029~2032.

Last fiddled with by tuckerkao on 2022-07-31 at 18:15
tuckerkao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-08-19, 22:11   #378
tuckerkao
 
"Tucker Kao"
Jan 2020
Head Base M168202123

14128 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATH View Post
Here is the list using the agreed upon discovery dates, and today July 30th we reached the previous record gap of 1331 days, so tomorrow will be a new record This is not a record we want to beat.
I'm willing to wait until Sep 23, 2022 to solidly declare victory over Post #199 of this thread.
tuckerkao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-08-19, 23:28   #379
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

3×3,581 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckerkao View Post
I'm willing to wait until Sep 23, 2022 to solidly declare victory over Post #199 of this thread.
"Declare victory over Post#" How do declare victory over a post? Is a post an opponent?
If you are concerned about the content of the post, my statement at that time was exactly correct in that there was still a long way to go to declare it the longest gap. Since that post, there has been over a year and 3 months. That is not a small amount of time, when talking about gaps in MP discovery in the computer era.
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-08-20, 13:51   #380
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

22×3×499 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckerkao View Post
I'm willing to wait until Sep 23, 2022 to solidly declare victory over Post #199 of this thread.
This makes less than no sense. The lengthening time since the last discovery of a Mersenne prime is in no way a "victory" for anyone, especially you.

I would say the longest gap during the GIMPS project is between the discovery of the exponent 42643801 giving M46 (June 12, 2009) and 43112609 giving M47 (August 23, 2008). The larger of the two was discovered first, so that's -293 days. Using 4-byte two's complement integers, that's 2^32 - 293 = 4294967003 days.

Your basic claim (in post #214 to this thread) is

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckerkao View Post
I'm still believing the next Mersenne Prime will be in the M168,xxx,xxx region, if so, then the longest gap will be possible.
Have all exponents between 82,589,933 and 168,000,000 been eliminated as candidates? Not even close.

In fact, not all the exponents between 57,885,161 and 74,207,281 have been double-checked. (I don't think any additional exponents less than 82,589,933 yielding Mersenne primes will be discovered)

The GIMPS milestones include "All exponents up to xxxxxxxxx have been tested at least once." At present, "xxxxxxxx" is nowhere near 168,000,000. It's not even close to 117,000,000 which had already been suggested in this post (#188 to this thread) as a possible upper bound for the next Mersenne prime exponent.

AFAIK you have not contributed to the effort of testing exponents between 82,589,933 and 168,000,000 in order to validate the part of your claim that no exponents yielding Mersenne primes exist in that range.

Nor have you found an exponent in your pet range which yields a Mersenne prime. You have, however, eliminated a number of candidates in your pet range by finding factors.
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-08-20, 14:11   #381
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

2·3,301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
You have, however, eliminated a number of candidates in your pet range by finding factors.
I find this to be a useful contribution.

I don't see any reason to discourage people to test whatever exponents that want. Just because some people are hyper-focussed on the leading edge stuff doesn't make it the only thing we should care about. Nor does it mean any other testing not currently advancing their goals is worth anything less.

Go for it tuckerkao, keep testing your exponents. Good luck.
retina is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-08-20, 14:26   #382
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

684410 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
Have all exponents between 82,589,933 and 168,000,000 been eliminated as candidates? Not even close.
...
AFAIK you have not contributed to the effort of testing exponents between 82,589,933 and 168,000,000 in order to validate the part of your claim that no exponents yielding Mersenne primes exist in that range.
It's easy enough to check.
I find 40 verified PRP first tests by tuckerkao between 82M and 169M, and 1 unverified:
https://www.mersenne.org/report_prp/...=tuckerkao&B1=

and one unverified LL first test: https://www.mersenne.org/report_ll/?...=tuckerkao&B1=
Most are in 168-169M. But ten of those verified PRP run by tuckerkao are 103.x M, as is the sole LL first test.
(Didn't find anything under drsardonicus or slight variations though. Maybe running under a different alias, or a different work type?)

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2022-08-20 at 14:26
kriesel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-08-20, 14:46   #383
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

22×3×499 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retina View Post
<snip>
I don't see any reason to discourage people to test whatever exponents that want. Just because some people are hyper-focussed on the leading edge stuff doesn't make it the only thing we should care about. Nor does it mean any other testing not currently advancing their goals is worth anything less.
<snip>
I'm not trying to discourage anyone from working on the Project. What I am trying to discourage is making ludicrous, nonsensical, incoherent claims about their preferences and their work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
<snip>
easy enough to check.
I find 40 verified PRP first tests by tuckerkao between 82M and 169M, and 1 unverified:
<snip>
Most are in 168-169M. But ten of those verified PRP run by tuckerkao are 103.x M, as is the sole LL first test.<snip>
I stand corrected. He's tested 10 exponents in that range.
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-08-22, 18:25   #384
tuckerkao
 
"Tucker Kao"
Jan 2020
Head Base M168202123

11000010102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
It's easy enough to check.
But ten of those verified PRP run by tuckerkao are 103.x M, as is the sole LL first test.
When people contribute to the frontwave, their efforts tend to be forgotten faster and easier once the milestone passes through that area unless the total contribution is as massive as Ben Delo's.

Last fiddled with by tuckerkao on 2022-08-22 at 18:27
tuckerkao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-08-22, 23:06   #385
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

2×5×11×97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckerkao View Post
When people contribute to the frontwave, their efforts tend to be forgotten faster and easier once the milestone passes through that area unless the total contribution is as massive as Ben Delo's.
It takes valuable time to interact with you... And... You are, as usual, incorrect.

Every effort is valued. And recorded.

Every test reduces the entropy slightly.

You and yours introducing noise into these serious exercises is just something we have grown used to dealing with.

Thanks for being part of the equation so we can prove we have filtered out the noise.

Quick question: Do you and yours get paid by the hour, the day, or the job?
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Predict M50 Uncwilly Lounge 65 2018-01-06 17:11
Predict M#50... Raman Lounge 3 2016-10-03 19:23
Predict M44... Xyzzy Lounge 66 2014-02-01 14:45
Predict M45... ewmayer Lounge 215 2008-09-17 21:14
Predict M42 Uncwilly Lounge 22 2005-02-27 02:11

All times are UTC. The time now is 13:31.


Sat Oct 1 13:31:07 UTC 2022 up 44 days, 10:59, 1 user, load averages: 1.01, 1.17, 1.25

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔