Newer milestone thread

[davar55]

I sure think "organizing our milestones" is a good idea, and
you might make an extended suggestion for how to do that
by starting in a new thread in Forum Feedback. I have some
suggestions, but on this others are more informed.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by davar55

I sure think "organizing our milestones" is a good idea, and
you might make an extended suggestion for how to do that
by starting in a new thread in Forum Feedback. I have some
suggestions, but on this others are more informed.

Hmmm. Another new thread eh?

I suggest milestones should be located at
regular (as distinct from random) intervals
along a (preferably Roman) road.

David

[davar55]

Sounds poetic in its correctness.

I meant can you be more specific as to
priority or importance of milestones, in
a general way (we all have some in common,
some we are more interested in).

Just trying to open discussion in a localized place.

[ckdo]

• Countdown to proving M(30402457) is the 43rd Mersenne Prime: 111,111

We're getting there.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by ckdo

• Countdown to proving M(30402457) is the 43rd Mersenne Prime: 111,111

We're getting there.

On the road to nowhere.
(Talking Heads)
Link may follow

PS had to count the digits in that exponent with some care.

Eyesight not quite as good as it used to be (too much too young)

David

Sorry: just registered that they were all 1s.
Or was that the Roman Numeral thread?
Memory going to pot 'n' all.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by ckdo

• Countdown to proving M(30402457) is the 43rd Mersenne Prime: 111,111

We're getting there.

Now do I have this straight: that means all LLs (first time tests by P95)
and DCs (second time checks by a different machine also running P95)
for all Mersenne numbers up to the MPE 30402457 of known Mersenne
Prime M43* (the same as M(30402457) ) will take 111,111 more P95
LL tests (some of which are DCs) as of that posting (or day)?

[petrw1]

The project just reached 60,000 factored in the first 1,000,000 group.

Only 18,498 to go.

http://www.mersenne.org/primenet/

[Mini-Geek]

Originally Posted by davar55

Now do I have this straight: that means all LLs (first time tests by P95)
and DCs (second time checks by a different machine also running P95)
for all Mersenne numbers up to the MPE 30402457 of known Mersenne
Prime M43* (the same as M(30402457) ) will take 111,111 more P95
LL tests (some of which are DCs) as of that posting (or day)?

I was thinking it was 111,111 exponents, (i.e. probably close to 200,000 tests total) not 111,111 tests (some LL, some DC), but I'm not sure.

[davar55]

I have a question.
From the status report I extracted the numbers

0 78498 33 | 60000 18465

meaning from 0 (to 1000000) there are 78498 primes of
which 33 are MPEs, that (we know?) one factor of 60000
of these MNs, and 18465 have been DCed by P95 LLs.

My question is: I doubt the roundness of the 60000 is
a coincidence. Can anyone explain that either by
how far we TF or by its being an amazing numeric coincidence
or some other way?

...

Now I see why the previous poster mentioned 60000 !
Hey we're getting it now !

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by davar55

My question is: I doubt the roundness of the 60000 is
a coincidence. Can anyone explain that either by
how far we TF or by its being an amazing numeric coincidence
or some other way?

Happenstance. The number of new factored exponents in the lower range is not large. So, the ability to catch it at 60;000 is not as hard as the leading edge of TF.

BTW, the numbers in that range are being ECM'ed, not TF'ed.

[Primeinator]

Originally Posted by davar55

Now do I have this straight: that means all LLs (first time tests by P95)
and DCs (second time checks by a different machine also running P95)
for all Mersenne numbers up to the MPE 30402457 of known Mersenne
Prime M43* (the same as M(30402457) ) will take 111,111 more P95
LL tests (some of which are DCs) as of that posting (or day)?

To my understanding that number is the total number of double checks left to prove the sequence of M43. Therefore, the actual number of LL tests that need to be completed to prove this is actually higher than the number of exponents because some exponents have yet to be tested once in this range.