mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Data

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-12-09, 19:00   #23
ckdo
 
ckdo's Avatar
 
Dec 2007
Cleves, Germany

2×5×53 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ckdo View Post
November 12, 2010: The trial factoring wavefront hits 79M.

That's 26 days for 1M, again.
December 9, 2010: The trial factoring wavefront hits 80M.

That's 27 days for 1M this time.
ckdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-11, 08:51   #24
Primeinator
 
Primeinator's Avatar
 
"Kyle"
Feb 2005
Somewhere near M50..sshh!

2·3·149 Posts
Default



Quote:
# Countdown to testing all exponents below M(32582657) once: 1
# Countdown to testing all exponents below M(37156667) once: 1
Primeinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-11, 08:59   #25
NBtarheel_33
 
NBtarheel_33's Avatar
 
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA

3·7·53 Posts
Default

Only problem is that this single exponent (which is now holding up *two* milestones) is being run on a P3 by a user who updates only every 28 days, and is not due to finish the test until May of next year...

...yeah, yeah, I know, 100.00000001 is *still* faster than 100, and all that jazz.
NBtarheel_33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-11, 09:04   #26
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

2·4,441 Posts
Default

I suspect that there will be a real early double check of that number completed soon enough.
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-11, 09:29   #27
davieddy
 
davieddy's Avatar
 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

645110 Posts
Default

Even allowing for the 10M digit prize distorting steady
progress somewhat, you might hope that the person entrusted with this
(now rather special) LL test would be sufficiently conscious of
its significance to (at least) keep his machine running 24/7.

David
davieddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-11, 09:42   #28
NBtarheel_33
 
NBtarheel_33's Avatar
 
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA

21318 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davieddy View Post
Even allowing for the 10M digit prize distorting steady
progress somewhat, you might hope that the person entrusted with this
(now rather special) LL test would be sufficiently conscious of
its significance to (at least) keep his machine running 24/7.

David
It looks like this user is a very casual GIMPSter (not that there is the least bit wrong with that!). The computer on which "the" LL test is running is called P3-900 (likely a 900 MHz Pentium III). It has one other completed result to its credit, namely 25126039, ostensibly a double-check. The user *does*, however, own or have access to what is likely a Quad, which turned in 4 exponents in the 45M range between April 18 and May 8 of this year.

I guess it might be considered prodding if George were to e-mail him/her and let them know that they are 93% of the way to their place in mathematical history (proving the order of not one, but two Mersenne primes!)...
NBtarheel_33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-11, 11:17   #29
ckdo
 
ckdo's Avatar
 
Dec 2007
Cleves, Germany

21216 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33 View Post
I guess it might be considered prodding if George were to e-mail him/her and let them know that they are 93% of the way to their place in mathematical history (proving the order of not one, but two Mersenne primes!)...
There's no place in history for completing the first first-time test below X.
There's not even a place in history for completing the last double-check test below X.
And neither of which proves the order of any Mersenne Primes, for common definitions of "order".
ckdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-11, 11:51   #30
Commaster
 
Jun 2010
Kiev, Ukraine

3×19 Posts
Default

Maybe we will get another (read "Don't care about 100.00000001 > 100) opinion as soon as this assignment holds 3-4 Milestones ^.^

Last fiddled with by Commaster on 2010-12-11 at 11:51
Commaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-11, 13:28   #31
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

17·251 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33 View Post
I guess it might be considered prodding if George were to e-mail him/her and let them know that they are 93% of the way to their place in mathematical history (proving the order of not one, but two Mersenne primes!)...
I think it's a good idea for George to (politely) 'prod' the user in this way. Perhaps it will encourage them to move the test to their quad, (if possible) or at least keep the computer on 24/7 (if it's not already), and keep unnecessary CPU-intensive tasks (e.g. other DC participations) off it (if they're not already). Or it could change nothing. Or, as I'm sure Cheesehead et al will tell me, it could also anger them so they quit GIMPS, but I don't think there's a great risk of that happening just by making sure they know the significance of that test (no, it's not extremely important in the long run, but it is holding up a couple of milestones, and some people are more bugged by that than others). Besides, such a communication could very well avert it being poached, which would be far more likely to disappoint/anger the user and make them quit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckdo View Post
There's no place in history for completing the first first-time test below X.
There's not even a place in history for completing the last double-check test below X.
And neither of which proves the order of any Mersenne Primes, for common definitions of "order".
I'm not going to argue about what constitutes a "place in history", but completing the last double-check test below X does prove the order of a Mersenne prime when X is a Mersenne prime, i.e. it proves that since no unknown primes exist below X, that we know that X is the Zth Mersenne number, instead of being uncertain which Mersenne number it is. (in this situation, this is the last first-time test below X, so it's not 100% certain yet) If you have a looser definition of "proving" an "order", this might instead be the last first-time test below X, or when only a certain relatively low number of first-time or double-checks remain below X.

Last fiddled with by Mini-Geek on 2010-12-11 at 13:33
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-11, 14:20   #32
Brian-E
 
Brian-E's Avatar
 
"Brian"
Jul 2007
The Netherlands

1100110000012 Posts
Default

The completed first-time tests below M(37156667) must include thousands of incorrect results. So why the fuss about one incompleted test?

Brian-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-11, 14:52   #33
davieddy
 
davieddy's Avatar
 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

6,451 Posts
Default

His/her Mnumber has a significantly better chance of being prime
than any other, and fewer than 10M digits would
be a turn up for the history books.

David

Last fiddled with by davieddy on 2010-12-11 at 14:58
davieddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Newer X64 build needed Googulator Msieve 73 2020-08-30 07:47
Performance of cuda-ecm on newer hardware? fivemack GMP-ECM 14 2015-02-12 20:10
Cause this don't belong in the milestone thread bcp19 Data 30 2012-09-08 15:09
Newer msieves are slow on Core i7 mklasson Msieve 9 2009-02-18 12:58
Use of large memory pages possible with newer linux kernels Dresdenboy Software 3 2003-12-08 14:47

All times are UTC. The time now is 12:08.

Fri Nov 27 12:08:42 UTC 2020 up 78 days, 9:19, 4 users, load averages: 1.53, 1.33, 1.25

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.