(M48) NEW MERSENNE PRIME! LARGEST PRIME NUMBER DISCOVERED!
 

Curtisc found a new mersenne prime!

This hourly report generated Jan 26 2013 12:03AM UTC

1 [URL="http://www.math-cs.ucmo.edu/~gimps/gimps"][COLOR=#0066cc]curtisc[/COLOR][/URL] 1877705.646 17540 1 |

[URL]http://www.mersenne.org/report_top_500_LL/[/URL]

good news!

Yeah I just noticed it as well and was about to post :)

Whoa dang

now, to determine which one it was....

Looks promising! No hardware errors were detected during the run. The computer in question has also reported a dozen or so composite results without hardware errors.

I've emailed Curtis Cooper to send a copy of the last save file. I'll then re-run the last few thousand iterations. If that also reports a prime, then we almost certainly have a winner!

I've also emailed several others looking for big iron to run a verification using mlucas or glucas. I suppose a CUDALucas run would be good too. Anyone with a GTX580 or 590 that would care to give it a go? Batalov?

Holy crap yeah!!

EDIT: could you tell us the general range of it? ex 50M or 45M... or is that not "allowed"?

I'm ready for DC, just let me know.

Lightning strikes THRICE! WOW!!!

[QUOTE=kracker;325870]Holy crap yeah!!

EDIT: could you tell us the general range of it? ex 50M or 45M... or is that not "allowed"?[/QUOTE]
Now would be a good time to re-read all old threads to understand that asking is futile. ;-)

we will know in a few day, no need to get angtsy!

(cc of e-mail I just sent to George and the rest of the folks he informed privately)

Hi, George:

(Preliminary) congratulations ... I have been busy the past several months working on an AVX-vectorized port of my pthreaded Mlucas code, that is not ready yet, but the existing parallel SSE2 version may be sufficiently fast for a verification. Let me do some trial timings on my 4-core Sandy Bridge box when I get home this evening (PST time zone) and I'll let you know what the timings look like.

(FYI, that box is currently testing F27 using FFT length 8192K, getting 0.06 sec/iter running on all 4 cores. George, that should allow you to compute a rough timing estimate for a verify run. Machine is only LAN-networked, so I am unable to access it remotely from my current location.)

[QUOTE=kracker;325870]Holy crap yeah!!

EDIT: could you tell us the general range of it? ex 50M or 45M... or is that not "allowed"?[/QUOTE]

Based on the results that have been coming in recently from curtisc, probably in the 50-60M range. The 40Ms are getting pretty few and far between.

Well, either way, this is what we're all here for. Excited to see the dry streak end.

Very nice, if this turns out to be prime we made it just under 2,000,000 minutes since last one. New record gap, lets hope it's never broken again :)
[URL="http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?iso=20090412T0427&p0=2571&msg=Time+since+last+GIMPS+prime"]http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?iso=20090412T0427&p0=2571&msg=Time+since+last+GIMPS+prime[/URL]


Any chance you could message me the exponent? I would just like to start the "[URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=5862"]penultimate LL step[/URL]" run. I don't have any "big iron" just a standard sandy bridge laptop.

in the prospect of M48 being confirmed, does that mean that we are excepting a 7 -10year drought?

[QUOTE=ATH;325889]
Any chance you could message me the exponent? I would just like to start the "[URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=5862"]penultimate LL step[/URL]" run.
[/QUOTE]

How about I send you the last save file (if I get it)? This will save you an awful lot of needless work.

[QUOTE=firejuggler;325890]in the prospect of M48 being confirmed, does that mean that we are excepting a 7 -10year drought?[/QUOTE]

If it is prime, it does not change davideddy's estimate of the time to the next prime one bit. (Well, technically it does change it a very, very, very tiny bit because one more exponent has changed from status unknown to status known).

A 7-10 year drought is not out of the question. I sure hope not.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;325885]Based on the results that have been coming in recently from curtisc, probably in the 50-60M range. The 40Ms are getting pretty few and far between.[/QUOTE]

Haha, I see.

anyways.... GL to all who are doing to do DC! :smile: Wish I could help, but I only have a measly i3-3220 max :razz:

[QUOTE=Prime95;325893]How about I send you the last save file (if I get it)? This will save you an awful lot of needless work.[/QUOTE]

That would be great. I didn't even consider that as an option :) But if you don't get the savefile I don't mind doing the run like I did before several times.

I have a 2600K (with 8MB L3) and a 560 just begging to run some LL tests...

[QUOTE=flashjh;325886]Well, either way, this is what we're all here for. Excited to see the dry streak end.[/QUOTE]

Exactly! This just made my day.

Just for reference, to compare with M43112609 at 12,978,189 digits:

[CODE]

Millions of Digits || Approximate Exponent Size
-------------------------------------------------------

13 43,185,000
14 46,507,000
15 49,829,000
16 53,151,000
17 56,473,000
18 59,795,000
19 63,117,000
20 66,439,000

[/CODE]

My guess is that the new prime weighs in between 16-18 million digits. :smile:

Wow! That is really good news! And motivation for us to continue, we were a bit depressed after so long dry period...

Congrats to the founders!

Eagerly waiting to see the exponent.

(thinking it makes no sense to offer the services for checking, there are faster and more reliable guys there, but if you are in hurry and need a CuLu fast result - like 50 hours - then count me in. OTOH, we waited years... one week more wont kill anybody).

I have a 590GTX coupled with a i7-3930k. I'd be willing to double check but uh I am a noob so feel free to walk me through it :)

If this discovery turns out, and given curtisc's rep, it has a 99.95% chance of doing so, we will add a couple of lines to the milestones page.

Will probably be deep into the Roaring Twenties before we double-check everything under this new baby, though...

[QUOTE=djf4044;325920]I have a 590GTX coupled with a i7-3930k. I'd be willing to double check but uh I am a noob so feel free to walk me through it :)[/QUOTE]

Send a Private Message (PM) to George, or e-mail him to see if he still needs verifiers:

:woltman:

Other work on the new Mersenne prime
 

It would be very nice if the information about other work done on this new Mersenne prime exponent were not ereased from the database. I guess it would be nice for those who earlier did trial factoring on the exponent to notice this and get the feeling that they also contributed to the new discovery. :smile:

Any big iron or GTX 580/590 started verifying yet?

George is waiting to see if he can get the save file first. We'll know more by tonight.

I don't have the save file yet. Heck, the PC might be locked in some University Administrator's office until Monday morning. So, I'm letting flashjh start his CUDALucas run.

Ernst/Batalov are working on a multi-threaded Mlucas run.

Jeff Gilchrist has started a prime95 AVX run (the prime was found on an SSE2 Core2 machine).

I though we needed 2 non-x86 runs last time. The gpu run is one. Do we need another?

[QUOTE=henryzz;325956]I though we needed 2 non-x86 runs last time. The gpu run is one. Do we need another?[/QUOTE]

I think I've only ever *required* one different-hardware-different-software run. More just adds weight to the claim.

I'd be willing to reduce that to different software on the same hardware type. Personally I'd accept Ernst's Mlucas run on an x86 machine because as an LL / FFT programmer I know it would be virtually impossible for a previously unknown CPU bug to cause two different LL programs to fail with a false prime report.

The whole concept of "when is a new prime considered independently verified" is kind of interesting. How important is the reputation of the verifier? Do GIMPS' claims require less independent verification because of its past track record (or equivalently does a unknown newcomer require a more thorough verification)? How much does the open source nature of the GIMPS and Mlucas software help a claim? How important is the claimant's ability to describe the process / algorithms used?

I know I wouldn't trust a new claim by any of the cranks in the Misc Math subforum if it was independently verified by Joe Blow, John Doe and 10 other no-name individuals -- at least not until I reran the test myself.

[QUOTE]It would be very nice if the information about other work done on this new Mersenne prime exponent were not ereased from the database. I guess it would be nice for those who earlier did trial factoring on the exponent to notice this and get the feeling that they also contributed to the new discovery. :smile:[/QUOTE]The Trolls are convinced they have the right exponent and have saved the relevant information. Or, they are smoking catnip again. Either way, the outcome will be interesting.

The chances of a false positive this time is almost nil. We all know Curtis Cooper [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10870]is never wrong[/url]. :smile:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;325965]The Trolls are convinced they have the right exponent and have saved the relevant information. Or, they are smoking catnip again. Either way, the outcome will be interesting.[/QUOTE]

Thanks Xyzzy I am happy for that and looking forward to the publication of it as soon as the new Mersenne prime has been thoroughly confirmed and publically anounced. :smile:

Here are the most recent results from Curtis Cooper that were submitted before the purported prime was noticed:

[CODE]
curtisc wd-102--03l 58917769 C Jan 25 2013 11:38PM 71.1 130.8875 44DCF2B8559C18__
curtisc jckl-4570 56183053 C Jan 25 2013 11:03PM 44.6 119.0769 4A31AD9F0DDFF5__
curtisc jckl-4591 59546191 C Jan 25 2013 11:00PM 48.4 132.2835 CD350961C451D6__
curtisc wcm220--03l 59061763 C Jan 25 2013 10:45PM 65.1 131.2073 2FAD4B2069D2CF__
curtisc wde2610-11l 49714487 C Jan 25 2013 10:20PM 33.8 91.0742 321A0CF054A800__
curtisc wde3107-17l 50137189 C Jan 25 2013 10:12PM 41.8 91.8485 3AD1598A834E2C__
curtisc wde2610-34l 59560279 C Jan 25 2013 8:34PM 48.2 132.3148 1C873BE2C88102__
curtisc jckl-4576 52055909 C Jan 25 2013 8:02PM 38.8 99.7286 10E8BB5D808F74__
curtisc jckl-ccd62l 56193461 C Jan 25 2013 7:40PM 42.3 119.0989 6BB4AF9EFB70A6__
curtisc wcm201--07l 60563023 C Jan 25 2013 6:55PM 28.2 134.5424 3E018F00191A30__
curtisc lov1130-22l 59135017 C Jan 25 2013 6:11PM 53.9 131.3701 8C99457344B8E7__
curtisc csc141-04s 58443731 C Jan 25 2013 6:08PM 84.1 123.8682 E7C12B5A206607__
curtisc grn016--17l 57161879 C Jan 25 2013 5:53PM 48.4 121.1514 50639413919D04__
[/CODE]

For the record, the previous fake residues were as follows:

[QUOTE]real M39: 13466917 0x5A4800136C936D__
real M40: 20996011 0xB6C80125A48000__
real M41: 24036583 0x7EC80125B6DB7E__
real M42: 25964951 0x7EC80136C8136C__
real M43: 30402457 0x92480137EC937F__
real M44: 32582657 0x663C8660956654__
real M45: 43112609 0x8691696D2BDA50__
real M46: 37156667 0x23F07D75BB426A__
real M47: 42643801 did not have a fake residue
fake M44: 29225803 0xB6C80136DB7FED__
fake M45: 20314069 0x5A480124936DA5__
fake M45: 43021553 0x1248125A492480__
fake M46: 32428427 0xB6C80137FEDB7E__
[/QUOTE]

How the (old) fake residues were generated is described [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=139789&postcount=25]here[/url] and [url=http://www.hoegge.dk/mersenne/residue.txt]here[/url].

Let the sleuthing begin!

[QUOTE=Prime95;325955]I don't have the save file yet. Heck, the PC might be locked in some University Administrator's office until Monday morning. So, I'm letting flashjh start his CUDALucas run.

Ernst/Batalov are working on a multi-threaded Mlucas run.

Jeff Gilchrist has started a prime95 AVX run (the prime was found on an SSE2 Core2 machine).[/QUOTE]

Sergey, Mike (Xyzzy) and I were up late last night playing with our respective Mlucas builds and multithreaded timing tests. (Strictly SSE2 code in play). As I went to bed (not to be confused with "went to sleep", as I was far too wound up for that) around midnight, both were running at around 0.016 sec/iter, Sergey on 12 Xeon cores (scalability above 4-thread there was crap, but there were still modest speedups at 6 and 12 threads), Mike on 4 Sandy Bridge cores (where timings degraded above 4 threads). My SB quad is a tad slower than Mike's (0.020 sec), so I suggested to them to kick off separate verify runs.

Sergey continued to play with alternate (larger than default) FFT lengths and various thread counts this morning, and just a little while ago informed me he gets 0.011 sec/iter running @[spoiler]3328[/spoiler]K (= 13*2^18 doubles) with 26 threads on a 32-core box. That is roughly what should be achievable using a mere 4 cores on Sandy/Ivy Bridge once the AVX code comes online, but for now we gotta run with what we got. :)

So it is about a week for a CPU based confirmation. How long for the GPU one?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;325995]Sergey continued to play with alternate (larger than default) FFT lengths and various thread counts this morning, and just a little while ago informed me he gets 0.011 sec/iter running @3328K (= 13*2^18 doubles) with 26 threads on a 32-core box. That is roughly what should be achievable using a mere 4 cores on Sandy/Ivy Bridge once the AVX code comes online, but for now we gotta run with what we got. :)[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the update :smile:
[CODE]else if( p >= 58050001 && p <= 62850000) /* 3328K */[/CODE]

[QUOTE=ixfd64;325994]Here are the most recent results from Curtis Cooper that were submitted before the purported prime was noticed[/QUOTE]

I already checked none of them follow the fake residue. The success popped up at midnight friday evening so should have been reported between 11pm and midnight. The fake residue haven't been used on primenet v5, I think the exponent is just hidden from all result lists :(


[QUOTE=ewmayer;325995]Sergey continued to play with alternate (larger than default) FFT lengths and various thread counts this morning, and just a little while ago informed me he gets 0.011 sec/iter running @3328K[/QUOTE]

So FFT 3328K is larger than default which in Prime95 means the exponent is < ~ 61.2M where the crossover 3200K/3360K occurs (Prime95 doesn't seem to have 3328K). Crossovers are probably slightly different in Mlucas, I think the exponent is < 60M where most of the current work is done.

[QUOTE=Ralf Recker;326003]Thanks for the update :smile:
[CODE]else if( p >= 58050001 && p <= 62850000) /* 3328K */[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Is that the crossover for Mlucas? That means the exponent is < 58050000.

That was taken from the (online) sources of v2.8x.

This is from the sources of v3.0x (comment at the end of get_fft_radices.c) (FFT size / maxP value)

[CODE] 2816 K 53792328
3072 K 58569855
3328 K 63338470
3584 K 68098867
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=ATH;326004]Is that the crossover for Mlucas? That means the exponent is < 58050000.[/QUOTE]

Not sure - it may be from an old version of my code, because my recent versions have used auto-computed thresholds based on the ROE model I developed in the F[sub]24[/sub] paper, which works very well for both Fermat and Mersenne-mod autoconvolution. My current code gives the exponent range for 3328 K as 58569855 - 63338470.
[code]/*
For a given FFT length, estimate maximum exponent that can be tested.

This implements formula (8) in the F24 paper (Math Comp. 72 (243), pp.1555-1572,
December 2002) in order to estimate the maximum average wordsize for a given FFT length.
For roughly IEEE64-compliant arithmetic, an asymptotic constant of 0.6 (log2(C) in the
the paper, which recommends something around unity) seems to fit the observed data best.
*/
uint32 given_N_get_maxP(uint32 N)
{
const double Bmant = 53;
const double AsympConst = 0.6;
const double ln2inv = 1.0/log(2.0);
double ln_N, lnln_N, l2_N, lnl2_N, l2l2_N, lnlnln_N, l2lnln_N;
double Wbits, maxExp2;

ln_N = log(1.0*N);
lnln_N = log(ln_N);
l2_N = ln2inv*ln_N;
lnl2_N = log(l2_N);
l2l2_N = ln2inv*lnl2_N;
lnlnln_N = log(lnln_N);
l2lnln_N = ln2inv*lnlnln_N;

Wbits = 0.5*( Bmant - AsympConst - 0.5*(l2_N + l2l2_N) - 1.5*(l2lnln_N) );
maxExp2 = Wbits*N;

/* 3/10/05: Future versions will need to loosen this p < 2^32 restriction: */
ASSERT(HERE, maxExp2 <= 1.0*0xffffffff,"given_N_get_maxP: maxExp2 <= 1.0*0xffffffff");
/*
fprintf(stderr,"N = %8u K maxP = %10u\n", N>>10, (uint32)maxExp2);
*/
return (uint32)maxExp2;
}
/* Here a simple PARI 'script' to return maxExp for any desired

Bmant = 53.; AsympConst = 0.6; ln2inv = 1.0/log(2.0);
N = [enter FFT length in #doubles]
ln_N = log(1.0*N); lnln_N = log(ln_N); l2_N = ln2inv*ln_N; lnl2_N = log(l2_N); l2l2_N = ln2inv*lnl2_N; lnlnln_N = log(lnln_N); l2lnln_N = ln2inv*lnlnln_N;
Wbits = 0.5*( Bmant - AsympConst - 0.5*(l2_N + l2l2_N) - 1.5*(l2lnln_N) )
maxExp2 = Wbits*N */[/code]

=======================

On a separate note: Bad, wicked, naughty, evil [strike]Zoot[/strike] Serge! Whatever would your mother think?

I've only just spotted this thread despite looking at the forum several times since it started. The title successfully put me off: I thought it was the crank thread in Misc. Math so I ignored it. Bet I'm not the only one who missed it for that reason.

Exciting stuff! This is what we're here for!:smile:

[QUOTE=ATH;326004]I already checked none of them follow the fake residue. The success popped up at midnight friday evening so should have been reported between 11pm and midnight. The fake residue haven't been used on primenet v5, I think the exponent is just hidden from all result lists :([/QUOTE]

I wonder what it would look like if someone happens to manually look up the exponent. Would it show the real residue? A fake one? Or would it say the exponent is still "assigned"?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;326006]On a separate note: Bad, wicked, naughty, evil [strike]Zoot[/strike] Serge! Whatever would your mother think?[/QUOTE]
I said nothing about 3328! What is this number? :help::max:

[QUOTE=Batalov;326011]I said nothing about 3328! What is this number? :help::max:[/QUOTE]

You may be a victim of ID theft and not even know it. Check your credit card statements and online accounts now!

[QUOTE=Batalov;326011]I said nothing about 3328! What is this number? :help::max:[/QUOTE]
See post #42...

[QUOTE=c10ck3r;326015]See post #42...[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but all sensitive data there are wrapped in super-steganographically-safe encryption. I defy anyone, even with an NSA-style supercomputer, to crack that.

[QUOTE=ixfd64;326009]I wonder what it would look like if someone happens to manually look up the exponent. Would it show the real residue? A fake one? Or would it say the exponent is still "assigned"?[/QUOTE]

I don't think it would show any of these. Just TF depth, P-1 bounds, and "history" would be shown. But if you try to manually reserve this exponent for LL, it will return an error.

[QUOTE=paulunderwood;325997]So it is about a week for a CPU based confirmation. How long for the GPU one?[/QUOTE]
My GTX 580 started at ~90 hours. I'm running it on two 580s in parallel for residue checks.

[QUOTE=flashjh;326020]My GTX 580 started at ~90 hours. I'm running it on two 580s in parallel for residue checks.[/QUOTE]

I do hope you're running with proper "Serge protection." :P

[YOUTUBE]RkP_OGDCLY0[/YOUTUBE]

This reminds me on this one: [YOUTUBE]XuzpsO4ErOQ[/YOUTUBE]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;326021]...with proper "Serge protection." :P[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=lemonchiffon].[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Thomas11;326023]This reminds me on this one: [YOUTUBE]XuzpsO4ErOQ[/YOUTUBE][/QUOTE]

IMDB has a funny homage to that bit on their page for the movie. See if you can spot it.

[i]p.s.: Like the user name ... other blokes named Thomas, they'll be user-suffixin' at 10, but where they do they go from there, huh? Nowhere, that's where.[/i]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;326027]IMDB has a funny homage to that bit on their page for the movie. See if you can spot it.
[/QUOTE]

Nice. I never noticed that before.

:motorhome::camping:

I wonder how many are... this thread.

I am

[QUOTE=dabaichi;326018]I don't think it would show any of these. Just TF depth, P-1 bounds, and "history" would be shown. But if you try to manually reserve this exponent for LL, it will return an error.[/QUOTE]

I suppose one could write a bot to reserve and reserve all exponents within a given range. Of course, George probably wouldn't like that very much as it would put a lot of strain on the PrimeNet server.

[QUOTE=ixfd64;326035]I suppose one could write a bot to reserve and reserve all exponents within a given range.[/QUOTE]

I have exactly such a bot. Several of them in fact... :wink:

[QUOTE=ixfd64;326035]Of course, George probably wouldn't like that very much as it would put a lot of strain on the PrimeNet server.[/QUOTE]

He wouldn't; and it would. That's why I only use them in an agreed way.

Just let the verification process work... It exists for a reason.

We'll all know soon enough....

[QUOTE=ixfd64;326035]I suppose one could write a bot to reserve and reserve all exponents within a given range. Of course, George probably wouldn't like that very much as it would put a lot of strain on the PrimeNet server.[/QUOTE]

There are better ways to write a script to find the exponent in question. I'm fairly sure dabaichi has one that's successful.

[QUOTE]…on 4 Sandy Bridge cores (where timings degraded above 4 threads)[/QUOTE]It probably does not matter, but it is an Ivy Bridge processor.

[CODE][Jan 26 06:05:24] M×××××××× Iter# = 1000000 clocks = 00:00:00.000 [ 0.0171 sec/iter] Res64: DEADBEEFBAADF00D. AvgMaxErr = 0.159785313. MaxErr = 0.218750000[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Dubslow;326037]There are better ways to write a script to find the exponent in question. I'm fairly sure dabaichi has one that's successful.[/QUOTE]

Actually I don't have such a script. Last few times, I found the exponents from the discoverers' team results. But George has removed the records from there as well.

He was quick this time!

YaY!
 

So exciting! This dry spell has been so annoying. :bear:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;326042]It probably does not matter, but it is an Ivy Bridge processor.

[CODE][Jan 26 06:05:24] M×××××××× Iter# = 1000000 clocks = 00:00:00.000 [ 0.0171 sec/iter] Res64: DEADBEEFBAADF00D. AvgMaxErr = 0.159785313. MaxErr = 0.218750000[/CODE][/QUOTE]
Mike totally gave away the exponent by posting the residue!
Anyone can run a million iterations for every [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]suspicious [/FONT][/COLOR]expo and check for a match. Damn!

It matches my residue, though, so that's good. So far, so good.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;326042]It probably does not matter, but it is an Ivy Bridge processor.[/QUOTE]

Sandy, Ivy - dated 'em both and I still get 'em mixed up, cad that I am.

[QUOTE=Batalov;326077]It matches my residue, though, so that's good. So far, so good.[/QUOTE]

The exxxxxxxponent matches mine, too. Mike totally gave the game away.

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=ewmayer;326078]Sandy, Ivy - dated 'em both and I still get 'em mixed up, cad that I am.



The exxxxxxxponent matches mine, too. Mike totally gave the game away.[/QUOTE]

I got mine running!

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

[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]
Awesome News - Congrats!

Nobody has posted any guesses so far. It would seem that sleuthing is indeed much harder now.

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

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


19910000/0.3309 > 60,169,000. It's a BIG one!

Hee hee, it's also impossible to look up LL results in the 60M range right now @ [URL]http://www.mersenne.org/report_LL/[/URL] :smile:

My guess: M60195613.

It's the only exponent in the neighborhood that isn't assigned to someone or have an unverified LL result. I tried to manually request it for a double check, but it was not available. Hmm...

Edit: maybe not. 19910000 / 60195613 !~ 0.3309.

Edit 2: The P-1 just completed today. It's definitely not M60195613.

Edit 3: Assigned LL testing to "nextPrime" on 2013-01-27 :smile:

[QUOTE=ixfd64;326091]My guess: M60195613.

It's the only exponent in the neighborhood that isn't assigned to someone or have an unverified LL result. I tried to manually request it for a double check, but it was not available. Hmm...

Edit: maybe not. 19910000 / 60195613 !~ 0.3309.

Edit 2: The P-1 just completed today. It's definitely not M60195613.[/QUOTE]

You should reserve it for first time LL test.

Edit 1: nextPrime is me.
Edit 2: I've unreserved it.

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

[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).