[QUOTE=philmoore;326103]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]

um, I'm getting the results from the future? :alien:

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;326110]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.[/QUOTE]

Running on an iMac 3.4Ghz i7-2600, one worker with 4 threads. I tried different combinations, even two 2 workers over 8 threads, but this config seems to work best for me. Not so hot so that the fans run to an annoying level.

[Work thread Jan 27 09:00] Iteration: 23990000 / 60165251 [39.87%]. Per iteration time: 0.008 sec.

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;326132] (cut)
All things considered, I agree with others who have said Paulie is pulling our chain.[/QUOTE]

Just a little. :whistle:

I am super excited though, been running Prime95 for a while (since like 1997), so it's awesome the project has found another!

[QUOTE=Paulie;326140]Running on an iMac 3.4Ghz i7-2600, one worker with 4 threads. I tried different combinations, even two 2 workers over 8 threads, but this config seems to work best for me. Not so hot so that the fans run to an annoying level.

[Work thread Jan 27 09:00] Iteration: 23990000 / 60165251 [39.87%]. Per iteration time: 0.008 sec.[/QUOTE]
AssignedLL testing to "paulie" on 2013-01-21

[QUOTE=Paulie;326140]Running on an iMac 3.4Ghz i7-2600, one worker with 4 threads. I tried different combinations, even two 2 workers over 8 threads, but this config seems to work best for me. Not so hot so that the fans run to an annoying level.

[Work thread Jan 27 09:00] Iteration: 23990000 / 60165251 [39.87%]. Per iteration time: 0.008 sec.[/QUOTE]
The above.
oops.

You know, it's possible that the exponent is still in server logs, with the only difference being that the residue is now a completely random 64-bit value.

That having been said, my guess is now M56183053.

[QUOTE=ixfd64;326166]You know, it's possible that the exponent is still in server logs, with the only difference being that the residue is now a completely random 64-bit value.

That having been said, my guess is now M56183053.[/QUOTE]

The screenshot shows what the Exponent Status page looked like when last time M[URL="http://v5www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=53878507&exp_hi=&B1=Get+status"]53878507[/URL] was claimed to be a prime and had not been verified. The residue was just hidden.

[QUOTE=LaurV;326120]Yo, Serge, something is wrong with your Prime95, is starting, stopping, starting, stopping....[/QUOTE]
I see. You just never saw what it does when it find Ze Prime. :bump2:

[QUOTE=ixfd64;326166]my guess is now M56183053.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=dabaichi;326179]The screenshot shows what the Exponent Status page looked like when last time M[URL="http://v5www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=53878507&exp_hi=&B1=Get+status"]53878507[/URL] was claimed to be a prime and had not been verified. The residue was just hidden.[/QUOTE]

The Crank p-1 Smoothness Hypothesis [cPSH] indicates both of those exponents as highly unlikely M-prime candidates.

(I prepend 'crank' not because I don't think there's anything to it, but because such claims of not-complete-randomness must be assumed crankish until evidence is found for *why* they should be true. For known M-primes, we have lots of intriguing experimental data but no known mathematical reason for the alleged behavior).

ETAs?
 

What ETAs do we have for the official double-checks???

~3 days for the CudaLucas, ~5 days left for MLucas with a different FFT length.