Hope it's not M49 ;)

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;326088]19910000/0.3309 > 60,169,000. It's a BIG one![/QUOTE]
There is a large margin of error when you're missing 4 significant digits and the percentage is rounded also.

[QUOTE=flashjh;326095]There is a large margin of error when you're missing 4 significant digits and the percentage is rounded also.[/QUOTE]

Percentage difference looks to be between .004931 and .008001, or would that be .001 and .01... :whistle:

[QUOTE=Paulie;326084]I got mine running!

[Work thread Jan 26 23:20] Iteration: 19910000 / ×××××××× [33.09%]. Per iteration time: 0.008 sec.[/QUOTE]

Must be some sort of relativistic effect going on here, over 41 hours of progress less than 24 hours after the discovery. Wait a second, isn't time supposed to [B]slow down[/B] in moving reference frames? Could someone explain the twin paradox to me again?

[QUOTE=philmoore;326103][QUOTE=Paulie;326084]I got mine running!

[Work thread Jan 26 23:20] Iteration: 19910000 / ×××××××× [33.09%]. Per iteration time: 0.008 sec.[/QUOTE]
Must be some sort of relativistic effect going on here, over 41 hours of progress less than 24 hours after the discovery. Wait a second, isn't time supposed to [B]slow down[/B] in moving reference frames? Could someone explain the twin paradox to me again?[/QUOTE]
I have no inside information, but it appears Paulie is yanking our collective chain. He was assigned 60165251 on January 21. 19910000 / 60165251 = ~0.330921914

Just out of curiosity, is that 8 ms per iteration on a single core, or multiple cores? That's under six days for a 60M test which is phenomenal! A DC should take mere hours on a system like that.

Yo, Serge, something is wrong with your Prime95, is starting, stopping, starting, stopping....

[QUOTE=flashjh;326095]There is a large margin of error when you're missing 4 significant digits and the percentage is rounded also.[/QUOTE]

yeah but using .3308 and .3309 I get roughly between 60,170,000 and 60,190,000, which is a range of roughly 1093 primes exponents. if I take it to the decimal place for each estimate I get 1006 primes in between.

oh and that's with no rounding rule, if you say you round at .33085 the lower limit climbs to 60.178 million , using .330845 to round up would allow it to climb further to 60.179 million.

doh never mind that's the upper limit lmao

[QUOTE=rcv;326109]I have no inside information, but it appears Paulie is yanking our collective chain. He was assigned 60165251 on January 21. 19910000 / 60165251 = ~0.330921914[/QUOTE]
Yes, agree

[QUOTE=Paulie;326084]I got mine running!

[Work thread Jan 26 23:20] Iteration: 19910000 / ×××××××× [33.09%]. Per iteration time: 0.008 sec.[/QUOTE]

Assuming this is a true report, this places the exponent in the range 60151103 <= p <= 60169211 (Prime95 rounds down, or truncates, the percentage; this also takes into account known factors). You can see the status of these exponents as [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent.php?browse=60151057-60159999"]reported by mersenne.ca here[/URL] and [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent.php?browse=60160001-60169236"]here[/URL]. While this greatly narrows it, there are still dozens or hundreds of candidates with no factor.

All things considered, I agree with others who have said Paulie is pulling our chain.

[QUOTE=Prime95;326083]I got the last save file from Curtis and re-ran the last 1000 iterations - we have a winner!!!! Of course, y'all still have to wait for the official verifications.[/QUOTE]

Hurrah to GIMPS!!
Jean