mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Lounge (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

 Uncwilly 2018-12-12 20:07

Predict M52

With M51 found and verified and only the official announcement awaiting, let's guess M52 (specifically, the next, currently unknown, Mersenne Prime yet to be noticed by a human.)

[B]THE RULES OF THE GAME:[/B][list=1][*][COLOR=DarkRed]Post your guess here, [B]no[/B] PM'ing.[/COLOR][*][COLOR=Olive]Your guess [B]must include a prime number[/B] (we are guessing the exponent) and/or date of discovery. No ranges, they may be ignored (or we may take the worst case of the range as the choice.) Failure to guess a prime number will count against you and impose a wait as in rule 6.[/COLOR][*][COLOR=Orange]You can [B]not[/B] guess a number (or date) that has already been guessed. If you do guess a number or date that has already been submitted, this will count against you and impose a wait as in rule 6. [/COLOR][*] If you guess a number that has known factor, at the time you posted, your guess will be ignored. It can have a 'composite' LL or PRP status (pending a recheck), but not a factor. Guessing a number with a known factor will count against you and impose a wait as in rule 6.[*][COLOR=DarkOrchid]If there is a tie (i.e. 2 posts are equally close and meet all other rules), the [B]first[/B] post gets it.[/COLOR][*][COLOR=Sienna]You may post 3 guesses (for each number and date). If all exponents up to your number have had a first time test (or DC), you may select another, after a [B]60 day wait[/B]. Same (60 day wait) for date predictions that have passed.[/COLOR][*][COLOR=DarkSlateGray]All guesses received within the 48 hours before M52 is reported (by or to anyone by any method) are [B]hereby disqualified[/B] (to prevent cheating). This disqualification period will extend through to the time that a person reports to the forum that a candidate prime has been noticed. When that happens all guessing is closed.[/COLOR][*][COLOR=DarkOrange]The discoverer of M52 (not the 'noticer') will have all guesses posted more than [U]10[/U] hours after they were assigned and/or started the expo (whichever is first) that is reported to be prime [B]hereby disqualified.[/B][/COLOR][*][COLOR=RoyalBlue]If the prime that is reported fails the rechecks, those disqualified in 7 and 8 will be restored.[/COLOR][*]For the sake of this game, we will use the date (in UTC) that the prime is reported to and recorded by the PrimeNet server as the date (PRP or LL result). This may differ from the officially reported discovery date. If M52 is not first reported to PrimeNet, the judgement of the date to be used will be left up to George or his designee.[*][COLOR="DarkRed"]Previous discoverers (not the noticers) of M Primes are granted an extra guess (4 vs. the standard 3). This means the person who used the machine that first reported the prime.[/COLOR][/list]
All previous guesses from other threads must be specifically restated.
Absurd guesses may be ignore it any statistical reports or graphs.
Rules may be clarified later. New rules for the next game may be suggested in this thread.

[COLOR="Red"][FONT="Arial Black"]GAME ON![/FONT][/COLOR]

 petrw1 2018-12-12 20:19

87,654,361

December 25, 2019

 ewmayer 2018-12-12 21:43

96000193, May 1st 2021.

 Batalov 2018-12-12 22:15

110691517
6-19-2022
(optimistic, I know)

 masser 2018-12-12 22:37

Recycling an M50 prediction...

[QUOTE]
118,788,157

August 8th, 2020.

[/QUOTE]

... and an M51 prediction:

[QUOTE=masser;493421]117003179

November 24, 2022[/QUOTE]

 Dylan14 2018-12-14 13:43

Exponent: 97,200,647

Date: February 2, 2021

 tServo 2018-12-14 18:10

December 31, 2019

I am betting that the as the new PRP checking is adopted by more folks, the rate of exponents being tested for compositness will greatly accelerate.

 moebius 2018-12-14 22:25

87885437
March 30 th 2019

 Uncwilly 2018-12-14 22:32

[QUOTE=moebius;502807](2^(M51+2000238))-1[/QUOTE]That is not a valid guess. Your guess must be a specific prime number. No expressions or ranges. If you decide after M51 is announced to post the equivalent value, you may. But, this counts against your 3 potential guesses. The 60 rule is thus invoked.

 moebius 2018-12-14 22:43

Yes I did an mistake and changed it, but your post was faster than my brain. Excuse me.

 Prime95 2018-12-16 19:31

Mr. Wagstaff and I predict: M107448181
June 2022

 a1call 2018-12-16 23:43

 Brian-E 2018-12-21 14:07

258150181
15 August 2027

 axn 2018-12-21 17:33

94029857 - Mar 17, 2021
107054317 - Aug 31, 2023
121882903 - Jul 12, 2026

 kriesel 2018-12-21 21:20

Using a variation of the strikingly consistent methodology for guessing M51, to make predictions about M52:
[CODE]ID Ballpark Basis of ballpark Guess exp Mod 8 Date guess
52a 88,318,521 ratio of previous two 88318673 1 Jun 14, 2019 Flag Day
52b 121,882,920 Approx expected ratio 1.47576*p51 121882753 1 May 21, 2025 Assuming 6 million/year first test range covered
52c 402,143,506 A long stride, 521/107*p51 402143633 1 Mar 12, 2052 " "
[/CODE]These have been tweaked to be 1 mod 8, since the probabilities are better there as I recall. Yes: [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=503022&postcount=53[/URL] by GP2.

They have fractions of interior ones bits averaging 0.468, near the trend for higher known Mersenne prime exponents (0.479 overall and declining).

The methodology for predicting M51 was 100% consistent in selecting exponents that did not produce M1, and at least 2 out of 3 did not predict prime numbers. (What's 40 years of hunting, beginning with a programmable calculator to play with the low end.):bangheadonwall:
I predict M52 will be none of these new guesses.

If I squint a bit, it looks a little like Murphy of Murphy's law making a certain hand gesture in GP2's right digit hexadecimal histogram.
But hey, we're in it for the fun and learning, not fame or fortune.

 Uncwilly 2018-12-21 22:27

[QUOTE=kriesel;503601]Using a variation of the strikingly consistent methodology for guessing M51, to make predictions about M52:[/QUOTE]TL;DR Please post a clear and simple guess.

 kriesel 2018-12-21 23:18

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;503606]TL;DR Please post a clear and simple guess.[/QUOTE]
See the "guess exp" column for 3 guesses of exponent value (decimal). "Date guess" column for their respective date guesses.

 Uncwilly 2018-12-21 23:39

[QUOTE=kriesel;503615]See the "guess exp" column for 3 guesses of exponent value (decimal). "Date guess" column for their respective date guesses.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;502537]With M51 found and verified and only the official announcement awaiting, let's guess M52 (specifically, the next, currently unknown, Mersenne Prime yet to be noticed by a human.)
.......

[COLOR="Red"][FONT="Arial Black"]GAME ON![/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
That last 'rule' in the original post was add for M52, because your guesses were buried in the M51 thread, like this time. Last time your 'Ballpark' column almost got entered as your guesses. Post them clearly and apart from how you derived them or other discussion.

 preda 2018-12-22 06:32

87000929
2019-12-01

 kriesel 2018-12-22 11:41

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;503619]That last 'rule' in the original post was add for M52, because your guesses were buried in the M51 thread, like this time. Last time your 'Ballpark' column almost got entered as your guesses. Post them clearly and apart from how you derived them or other discussion.[/QUOTE]
I thought labeled columns were perfectly clear, and still do. Note, in both the M51 and M52 case entries by me, the ballpark computed values rounded to EVENS for b and c. Which can't possibly produce primes since the resulting Mersenne numbers will be divisible by 3 (are repdigits in base 4). Rule 2 prohibits composite exponents as guesses.
Also took the time to carefully align the character cells in the code section this time, for ease of read/clarity, which does not just happen by itself when copy/paste from a spreadsheet is used. Plus the usual care in spelling and grammar.

I don't know what happened to the 5 I typed in "did not produce M1" that should read "did not produce M51"; not a moderator myself so can't go back and fix it now.

Guessing here, because I see a lot of variation in others' posts, without objection, that the preferred or required form is something like no more than about ten words of explanatory leading text, and one or more sets of
exponent_guess date_guess

"entered as your guesses" Entered as what, in what? If you're gathering them into a spreadsheet, it would make sense for the guesses to be formatted in our posts to make that easier, not harder. A space-separated table might be easiest.
exp1 date1
exp2 date2
exp3 date3

Or perhaps:

 kriesel 2018-12-22 12:06

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;502809]That is not a valid guess. Your guess must be a specific prime number. No expressions or ranges. If you decide after M51 is announced to post the equivalent value, you may. But, this counts against your 3 potential guesses. The 60 rule is thus invoked.[/QUOTE]
May I suggest for next time, a rule 12:
12. Exponent guesses shall be expressed as integer decimal constants, without punctuation (no embedded comma, period, or space).

 Neutron3529 2018-12-23 13:00

85615531 Oct. 2019
87946949 Oct. 2019
92074531 Oct. 2019
I guess the next prime is close to the current M51 we found
I tried 3 different distance... and don't know whether it would work

 LaurV 2018-12-27 02:09

What do we get if we guess right? :razz:

 christian_ 2018-12-27 03:10

93456799 - 7 April 2019
106456799 - 22 January 2020
146456881 - 3 February 2022

 Spherical Cow 2018-12-27 18:24

It can't be this close to M51, but that's what I said about the last two primes. I'll go with 97211981, October 30, 2019.

 ixfd64 2018-12-27 18:38

M96052357 on May 21, 2021
M110691683 on January 3, 2025
M121596589 on October 8, 2027

 Uncwilly 2018-12-27 18:57

[QUOTE=Neutron3529;503776]85615531 Oct. 2019
87946949 Oct. 2019
92074531 Oct. 2019
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Uncwilly;502537]
[B]THE RULES OF THE GAME:[/B][list=1][*].[*].[*][COLOR=Orange]You can [B]not[/B] guess a number (or date) that has already been guessed. If you do guess a number or date that has already been submitted, this will count against you and impose a wait as in rule 6. [/COLOR][/list][/QUOTE]Oct 1 is used by your first guess. Therefore the dates for your 2nd and 3rd guesses are being ignored. You must wait 60 days before guessing anymore dates. At that time you may only guess the date, you can't update the number.

 patrik 2018-12-28 12:18

91502209 on December 4, 2020

 Uncwilly 2018-12-28 15:30

84000017 on Feb 28, 2019
89999999 on Apr 15, 2020
95000167 on Sept 24, 2021

 firejuggler 2019-01-02 22:00

lets say M
M85,020,577 on 1 january 2020
[URL="https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/87522767"]M87,522,767 on 3 january 2021[/URL]
[URL="https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/90098611"]M90,098,611[/URL] on 1 february 2022

 Uncwilly 2019-01-04 15:37

2 Attachment(s)
A couple of nice graphs of the guesses:
The first one is a scatter plot. The 2 outer lines were upper and lower bounds (until firejuggler came in and guessed all 3 above the upper bound.) The box represents more than half of the guesses. And I ignored the most pessimistic guesses for this.

In the second I re-assigned the dates and guesses, such that the lowest guess was paired with the earliest date. Graphed with a nice trendline for your pleasure.

 GP2 2019-01-04 16:11

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;504930]A couple of nice graphs of the guesses:[/QUOTE]

So, 60% of the guesses are below 100M. And only one (!) guess is solidly above the expected median line of 1.47576 × the previous prime exponent = 121.88M, with three in the borderline area.

I'll revive [URL="https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=475814&postcount=3"]my previous guess[/URL] of 282,362,693 on March 3, 2025. And yes, it's another p=1 (mod 4).

 Uncwilly 2019-01-04 16:23

[QUOTE=GP2;504935]So, 60% of the guesses are below 100M. And only one (!) guess is solidly above the expected median line of 1.47576 × the previous prime exponent = 121.88M, with three in the borderline area.[/QUOTE]
I left these off the charts:
258150181 March 12, 2052
402143633
and these had no date associated with them, so they are not on the left plot:
87885437
87946949
92074531

Current summary
[CODE]Who When guessed Exponent When found
Uncwilly 12/28/2018 84000017 2/28/2019
firejuggler 1/2/2019 85020577 1/1/2020
Neutron3529 12/13/2018 85615531 10/1/2019
firejuggler 1/2/2019 87522767 1/3/2021
Petrw1 12/12/2018 87654361 12/25/2019
moebius 12/14/2018 87885437
Neutron3529 12/13/2018 87946949
kriesel 12/21/2018 88318673 6/14/2019
Uncwilly 12/29/2018 89999999 4/15/2020
firejuggler 1/2/2019 90098611 2/1/2022
patrik 12/18/2018 91502209 12/4/2020
Neutron3529 12/13/2018 92074531
christian_ 12/27/2018 93456799 4/7/2019
axn 12/21/2018 94029857 3/17/2021
Uncwilly 12/30/2018 95000167 9/24/2021
EWMayer 12/12/2018 96000193 5/1/2021
ixfd64 12/27/2018 96052357 5/21/2021
Dylan14 12/14/2018 97200647 2/2/2021
Spherical Cow 12/27/2018 97211981 10/30/2019
christian_ 12/27/2018 106456799 1/22/2020
axn 12/21/2018 107054317 8/31/2023
Prime95 12/16/2018 107448181 6/1/2022
Batalov 12/12/2018 110691517 6/19/2022
ixfd64 12/27/2018 110691683 1/3/2025
masser 12/12/2018 117003179 11/24/2022
masser 12/12/2018 118788157 8/8/2020
ixfd64 12/27/2018 121596589 10/8/2027
kriesel 12/21/2018 121882753 5/21/2025
axn 12/21/2018 121882903 7/12/2026
christian_ 12/27/2018 146456881 2/3/2022
Brian-E 12/21/2018 258150181 5/15/2027
GP2 1/4/2019 282362693 3/3/2025
kriesel 12/21/2018 402143633 3/12/2052
tServo 12/14/2018 12/31/2019
moebius 12/14/2018 1/13/2020
[/CODE]

 GP2 2019-01-04 20:42

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;504936]I left these off the charts:
258150181 March 12, 2052
402143633
[/QUOTE]

In the first graph, it might be more orthodox to have time be the horizontal axis and the exponent as the vertical axis. Also, the exponent axis really ought to be logarithmic.

 ChZ 2019-03-06 11:01

Recent Results:
M[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=94029857&full=1"]94029857[/URL] is not prime. Res64: E7D36A179899BF__
M[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=107448181&full=1"]107448181[/URL] is not prime. Res64: BC8CA4274CD2AC__
M[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=110691517&full=1"]110691517[/URL] is not prime. Res64: EED0F015A35336__

 Uncwilly 2019-03-06 15:35

[QUOTE=ChZ;510226]Recent Results:[/QUOTE]So, you targeted the specific exponents guessed. Big whoop! :groan:
You haven't bothered to make a guess in this thread. Your other 2 posts have been asking for help because you have had mis-matches. Why do you think that your results are valid? Do you think that the list that we have in this thread are magic exponents?

And BTW, your potshots at the exponents do not invalidate them as good guesses.
[QUOTE=Uncwilly;502537][B]THE RULES OF THE GAME:[/B][list=1][*][COLOR="White"].[/COLOR][*] [COLOR="white"].[/COLOR][*] [COLOR="white"].[/COLOR][*] If you guess a number that has known factor, at the time you posted, your guess will be ignored. It can have a 'composite' LL or PRP status (pending a recheck), but not a factor. Guessing a number with a known factor will count against you and impose a wait as in rule 6.][/list][/QUOTE]

 masser 2019-03-06 15:37

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;510239] Do you think that the list that we have in this thread are magic exponents?
[/QUOTE]

Speak for yourself. My guesses are gold. I recommend ChZ checks them next.

 GP2 2019-03-06 18:21

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;510239]So, you targeted the specific exponents guessed. Big whoop! :groan:
You haven't bothered to make a guess in this thread. Your other 2 posts have been asking for help because you have had mis-matches. Why do you think that your results are valid? Do you think that the list that we have in this thread are magic exponents?

And BTW, your potshots at the exponents do not invalidate them as good guesses.[/QUOTE]

All the mismatches he posted have been verified good, except for [M]79961303[/M] which is 80% of the way through a triple check.

Christoph Zenger has turned in about 150 LL results over the years, and the vast majority are already verified good double-checks. There are about six bad results, all of which were from 2017 and earlier.

There is no rule against testing the exponents posted here, and no particular reason to think that these first-time results will be invalidated by double checks.

 Uncwilly 2019-03-06 20:48

[QUOTE=GP2;510253]There is no rule against testing the exponents posted here, and no particular reason to think that these first-time results will be invalidated by double checks.[/QUOTE]It is often not about the specific exponent, rather range. To target them for LL is an exercise in ignorance (of the rules). It is about being closest. Doing TF to try to knock the guess out has potential as a strategy to win the game.

 dcheuk 2019-03-11 03:21

M87668491 March 14, 2019
M89065523 March 14, 2020
M91761547 March 14, 2021

 kriesel 2019-04-06 14:40

TF 2019-04-05 factor 104738601786867368806153 for M402143633
next guess:
402143717 2052-03-12

 kriesel 2019-04-06 14:42

[QUOTE=LaurV;504056]What do we get if we guess right? :razz:[/QUOTE]Eternal fame and a silly grin. ;)

 Uncwilly 2019-04-06 17:10

[QUOTE=kriesel;512863]TF 2019-04-05 factor 104738601786867368806153 for M402143633
next guess:
402143717 2052-03-12[/QUOTE]Please show me in the rules where a factor found for your guess allows for an new guess. And if it does, why a 60 day wait should not apply?

 dcheuk 2019-04-07 17:23

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;512880]Please show me in the rules where a factor found for your guess allows for an new guess. And if it does, why a 60 day wait should not apply?[/QUOTE]

So harsh, but I guess rules are rules. :ermm:

Doesn't that means if curtisc were to join in, if he's on this forum that is, would get 7 guesses lol.

 Uncwilly 2019-04-08 02:40

[QUOTE=dcheuk;512982]Doesn't that means if curtisc were to join in, if he's on this forum that is, would get 7 guesses lol.[/QUOTE]Curtis Cooper does not guess Mersenne Primes, he declares them to be so.

 dcheuk 2019-04-08 13:10

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;513030]Curtis Cooper does not guess Mersenne Primes, he declares them to be so.[/QUOTE]

lol this makes me laugh so hard.

 GP2 2019-04-08 14:38

Curtis Cooper can find factors for Mersenne Primes. That's the only reason he didn't discover even more of them.

 lukerichards 2019-04-08 15:29

My guesses, assuming entries are still being accepted

101834393 1st August 2020
113847439 1st September 2020
202303547 - No date supplied

 kriesel 2019-04-08 15:52

[QUOTE=dcheuk;512982]Doesn't that means if curtisc were to join in, if he's on this forum that is, would get 7 guesses lol.[/QUOTE]Nope. Rule 11 specifies 4.
Had it said "Past discovery of a new Mersenne prime entitles the discoverer to an additional guess" then a case could be made for 7 for curtisc.
(If it had said "Past discovery of a new Mersenne prime entitles the discoverer or co-discoverer to an additional guess"), then Woltman and some others could claim up to 3+17=20 guesses; some of us have been GIMPS participants since before the discovery of M35, and appear in the discovery credits lumped in "et al" of Armengaud, Woltman, et al.)

 kriesel 2019-04-08 15:55

[QUOTE=GP2;513085]Curtis Cooper can find factors for Mersenne Primes. That's the only reason he didn't discover even more of them.[/QUOTE]So, "Curtis Cooper" is Chuck Norris's GIMPS alias?

 Xyzzy 2019-04-08 16:35

[QUOTE=kriesel;513101]So, "Curtis Cooper" is Chuck Norris's GIMPS alias?[/QUOTE][url]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10870[/url]

 kriesel 2019-04-08 21:47

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;512880]Please show me in the rules where a factor found for your guess allows for an new guess. And if it does, why a 60 day wait should not apply?[/QUOTE]Wow, that's a bit like a court requiring the accused to prove his innocence.

[B]Claims[/B]

1) I claim that because the rules do not expressly prohibit retracting, modifying, or replacing a guess, such actions are permitted.

2) I claim that the specified waits apply only to the cases the rules specify, and do not apply to the case of a guess made in good faith which was initially accepted, do not apply to any guess for which the wait period has already expired, and do not apply to replacement of a guess that has been subsequently made invalid by factorization or other form of verified composite status.

3) I claim that the wait for a date rejected is independent of the wait for an exponent rejected; that a wait if applicable does not apply to both the date portion and the exponent portion of a guess.

4) I claim that a participant may reuse his own guess components (exponent or date) without penalty.

[B]Support[/B]

A) Rules were posted for the "Predict M52" game at [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=502537&postcount=1[/URL]

B) No rules supplements, cancellations, modifications, or amendments have subequently been posted, through at least post 51.

C) Rules posted do not state how to handle a guess that is accepted, and then subsequently factored, either by TF or P-1.

D) You accepted all my initial guesses, and posted them in [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=504936&postcount=33[/URL], documenting the date made as 2018 December 21.

E) Any wait periods attached to the initial guesses expired 60 days after they were made, on February 19 2019.

F) Only 4 of the rules make mention of any wait periods.They are rules 2, 3, 4, and 6.

G) Rule 2's wait for selecting an exponent that is not itself prime does not apply, since both 402143633 and its proposed replacement 402143717 are prime exponents.

H) Rule 3's wait does not apply to the exponent 402143717, since it is a new value not guessed before.

I) Rule 4 is ambiguous and so subject to some interpretation. I think the most probable meaning of "If you guess a number that has known factor, at the time you posted, your guess will be ignored." is: a guess made which has an already-known factor at the time the guess is posted will not be accepted and will not count toward the quota of guesses.
The wait period mentioned in rule 4 does not apply to a replacement guess, but to the initial guess if at all. Nor does it apply in the case where a guess is made, accepted, and subsequently factored.

J) Rule 4 continues, " It can have a 'composite' LL or PRP status (pending a recheck), but not a factor." It's possible to interpret that as meaning "kriesel 12/21/2018 402143633 3/12/2052" is no longer a valid guess or combination of guesses. I myself reported promptly the discovery of the factor during my daily manual results submission
"TF 2019-04-05 factor 104738601786867368806153 for M402143633"
[URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=512863&postcount=41[/URL]

K) The wait specified in rule 2 for omission of an exponent does not apply to my entry made in [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=512863&postcount=41[/URL], because it includes an exponent. "402143717 2052-03-12" It also includes a specific date.

L) None of the rules posted at the outset explicitly prohibit replacement of a guess subsequently deemed invalid, such as by factoring. Nor do they prohibit replacement for any other reason, such as the participant changed his mind.

M) Rule 6 states in part "You may post 3 guesses (for each number and date)." Whatever that means. The parenthetical part makes it less clear.
Does it mean a participant can post
1) 3 attempts max per guess slot allowed, to get a guess approved, and a lifetime total of 3 (or 4) guesses accepted
2) 3 (or 4) guess values total, whether any are accepted or not
3) 3 (or 4) exponents and for each such exponent up to 3 tries to get an associated date accepted
4) 3 (or 4) date guesses and for each date guess posted 3 tries to get an associated exponent accepted
5) 3 simultaneously active guesses at any time, which may consist of an exponent, a date, or both, that currently meet the requirements for valid guesses. Guesses invalidated by subsequent events are removed from the participant's quota and may be replaced at the participant's initiative.
6) 3 simultaneously active guesses at any time, which may consist of an exponent, a date, or both, that when guessed, met the requirements for valid guesses. If any are no longer valid, as a result of events subsequent to making the guess, too bad for you, now they're disqualified from being a winning guess
7) 3 simultaneously active guesses at any time, which may consist of an exponent, a date, or both, that when guessed, met the requirements for valid guesses. If any are no longer valid, as a result of events subsequent to making the guess, too bad for you, now they're disqualified from being a winning guess
8) blends of some of 3) and some of 4), eg guess one is an exponent, guess two is a date, to which later a date and an exponent are added until accepted, and guess 3 (and perhaps 4) is tbd later
9) You may post up to 3 guesses per post. Future guesses replace past guesses. If you break the rules in your guesses, delays will be imposed before you can try again to fill or modify the guess slots on which the rules were violated. For example, if in a post, the first and third guesses follow the rules, but the second does not, you must wait 60 days to try to fill or modify slot two. During that time slot two is empty/null. Or still has the old value (Which is it?)
etc) there are probably more

N) Rule 6 says in part, "If all exponents up to your number have had a first time test (or DC), you may select another, after a 60 day wait." Since the premise does not apply to the "402143633 3/12/2052" guess, that 60 day wait requirement is not applicable on that basis.

O) The previous game was "Predict M51", [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=22879[/URL] There, precedent was established, for guesses with only month and year date predictions, or no date at all, and they were not objected to or invalidated or penalized in any way.
[URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=476253&postcount=12[/URL] included a date guess of "in April 2021". Multiple others also expressed dates in only month/year fashion.

P) There is precedent, in this game, for reuse of guesses from earlier. See for example [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=502554&postcount=5[/URL]

Q) It's my understanding that in civil law, gaps or flaws in a written agreement or contract count against the entity that prepared the agreement. In this case that disadvantaged entity would be the author of the rules, you, uncwilly.

R) The forward pass was used in American football before the rules were revised to expressly allow it, and the innovation changed the game massively, for the better, including reducing the injury and fatality rate.

[B]Triviality[/B]

Let us consider what happens if post 41 is deemed a violation of the rules such as they are. Uncwilly seems to think that the rules don't allow replacing an exponent because of factoring. So 402143633, now factored, would remain as a guess, unable to be dislodged until decades of primality verification progress reaches it, or the game ends with discovery of M52. 402143717 would be blocked from becoming a guess, until the earlier of m52 is discovered and the game ends, or my lowest exponent guess 88318673 is surpassed by primality verification in approximately 2029. So the ~1ppm chance of calling a Mersenne prime would be lost for the duration. But 402143717-402143633 = 84 = ~209ppb, so the probability of M52 falling nearer it than another guess is hardly affected at all. The predicted date, 2052 March 12, might also be deemed invalidly submitted, either by association with the rejected exponent submission, or by its being identical to a past guess. So presumably the prior submission would still be in effect. Which is 2052 March 12. So no difference there. Conversely, to have accepted the guess and entered it in a spreadsheet as an edit would take around 30 seconds.

[B]Other matters[/B]

While we're on the subject and focusing on rules, the ruling was unjust and incorrectly arrived at, in [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=504147&postcount=27[/URL] where a participant gave a vague specification of dates, using the same month-of-year and year, and omitting day-of-month in all cases, and you arbitrarily assigned the first day of the month to each. Rule 3, as you quoted there, emphasis mine here: "You can not guess a number (or date) [BOLD]that has already been guessed.[/BOLD]. If you do guess a number or date that [BOLD]has already been submitted[/BOLD], this will count against you and impose a wait as in rule 6." That text is more consistent with the interpretation "previously" than with "simultaneously in the same post". There is no rule that specifies date guesses must be a specific unique day of the year. There is no rule that specifies a month/year date guess will be interpreted as first-day-of-month/month/year. Rule 2 says "No ranges" but appears to be entirely about the exponent not the date. There is no rule that states that dates submitted simultaneously must be distinct. Declaring simultaneously posted guesses to be sequential, so that some can be deemed to follow another, so as to invalidate them and create an opportunity to penalize the participant with wait periods, smacks of barratry at best. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law[/URL])
It also violates your own rule. The three guesses in the same post had not "already been submitted" when the post containing them was being drafted, so they were in fact permissible under rule 3 and NOT subject to a wait penalty. The single post was parsed as if it had been made in three separate posts, to maximize penalties in a way not justified by the rules.

Additionally, in [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=502809&postcount=9[/URL], you, uncwilly, rejected an expression and imposed penalties. Rule 2 excludes ranges. No rule excludes algebraic expressions. There was no rule violation, so no justification for a penalty. If you want to receive only base ten integer constant forms for exponent, say that in a rule, at the outset.

In law and in sports, ex post facto rulings are frowned upon. It is fundamentally unfair to make an act illegal after the action is done, trapping the hapless actor with retroactive negative consequences for an action permissible when he chose it and performed it. (Under such a legal theory, someone enjoying a beer in a tavern before Prohibition passed or went into effect could have been prosecuted once it went into effect.)

This thread is posted under "Fun Stuff/Lounge". It's supposed to be fun. For the participants doing the guessing.

Clear rules, and fair and faithful application, would promote that. I propose the rules be rewritten entirely, for clarity and completeness, for "Predict M53", if a new game round is initiated in the future. I further propose that the person applying the rules is not the person
writing them. (Do not mistake the preceding two sentences as volunteering for either role.)

 Uncwilly 2019-04-09 03:14

[QUOTE=kriesel;513164]Wow, that's a bit like a court requiring the accused to prove his innocence.

[B]Claims[/B]

1) I claim that because the rules do not expressly prohibit retracting, modifying, or replacing a guess, such actions are permitted.[/QUOTE]Someone has a lot of time on their hands.

While the rules specifically do not state that a person may or may not change a guess, the conditions are spelled out when a guess does 'expire'. The intent is clear that once you guess, you are stuck with consequences of it until it expires or if it is bad guess, you must live with the penalty.
[QUOTE]2) I claim that the specified waits apply only to the cases the rules specify, and do not apply to the case of a guess made in good faith which was initially accepted, do not apply to any guess for which the wait period has already expired, and do not apply to replacement of a guess that has been subsequently made invalid by factorization or other form of verified composite status.[/QUOTE]Guesses that are of exponents with known factors demonstrate that the guesser has not done due diligence, thus the waiting period penalty. Same for numbers that have a proven composite status via LL or PRP. Even if your number is later proven composite, nothing in the rules invalidates the guess (as it was valid at the time guessed) just because the number was proven composite. You may still be closest to the found prime.
[QUOTE]3) I claim that the wait for a date rejected is independent of the wait for an exponent rejected; that a wait if applicable does not apply to both the date portion and the exponent portion of a guess.[/QUOTE]Date guesses expire based upon date. However invalid date guesses (those already guessed) invalid the whole of the guess (same way with invalid exponent guesses). A guesser may chose to guess the dates and exponents independent of each other (as a separate line or group). If guessed independent of each other any single piece is invalid at the time of the guessing, this preserves the other.
[QUOTE]4) I claim that a participant may reuse his own guess components (exponent or date) without penalty.[/QUOTE]When a date or exponent guess becomes passe, after the 60 day wait, the other component may certainly be reused (subject, of course, to it being currently valid.)

 Uncwilly 2019-04-09 03:32

[QUOTE=kriesel;513164]B) No rules supplements, cancellations, modifications, or amendments have subequently been posted, through at least post 51[/quote]
Actually they were amended by edit (to include PRP and to clarify about the wait periods.).

[QUOTE]C) Rules posted do not state how to handle a guess that is accepted, and then subsequently factored, either by TF or P-1.[/QUOTE]That is not needed. The main purpose of the no known factor rule is to demonstrate the the guesser is not doing so completely blindly (without some research.) It also keeps the possibility that the number will be the actual new prime.

[QUOTE]D) You accepted all my initial guesses, and posted them in [url]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...6&postcount=33[/url], documenting the date made as 2018 December 21.[/QUOTE]They were valid at the time. Nothing in rule 6 (or any other rule) has made them invalid. Therefore they stand.
[QUOTE]E) Any wait periods attached to the initial guesses expired 60 days after they were made, on February 19 2019.[/QUOTE]The waits regarding the initial act of guessing were not invoked. Rule 6 wait does not apply, as it does not come into play.

 Uncwilly 2019-04-09 04:26

[QUOTE=kriesel;513164] J) Rule 4 continues, " It can have a 'composite' LL or PRP status (pending a recheck), but not a factor." It's possible to interpret that as meaning "kriesel 12/21/2018 402143633 3/12/2052" is no longer a valid guess or combination of guesses. I myself reported promptly the discovery of the factor during my daily manual results submission
"TF 2019-04-05 factor 104738601786867368806153 for M402143633"
[URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=512863&postcount=41[/URL][/quote]The prohibition applies at the original time of the guess (as rule 4 covers the guessing process, rule 6 is about the expiration or demise of guesses.)
[QUOTE] K) The wait specified in rule 2 for omission of an exponent does not apply to my entry made in [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=512863&postcount=41[/URL], because it includes an exponent. "402143717 2052-03-12" It also includes a specific date.[/QUOTE]Neither of which has been made passe via the mechanisms in rule 6.
[QUOTE] L) None of the rules posted at the outset explicitly prohibit replacement of a guess subsequently deemed invalid, such as by factoring. Nor do they prohibit replacement for any other reason, such as the participant changed his mind.[/QUOTE]We shan't be having willy-nilly changing of guesses.

[QUOTE] M) Rule 6 states in part "You may post 3 guesses (for each number and date)." Whatever that means. The parenthetical part makes it less clear.
Does it mean a participant can post
1) 3 attempts max per guess slot allowed, to get a guess approved, and a lifetime total of 3 (or 4) guesses accepted
.....
[/QUOTE]Let me make this clear. A person may chose to guess: solely dates, solely exponents, exponents linked to dates, or exponents and dates that are not linked. If they guess only dates, they may only have 3 active guesses. If they guess only exponents, they may only have 3 active guesses. If they guess linked exponents and dates, they may only have 3 active guesses. If they guess unlinked exponents and dates, they may have 3 exponent and 3 date guesses active. If they initially guessed only dates or exponents, they may added the other at a later time. This added guesses are unlinked. Linked guesses are expired/made passe/etc. when either part expires. The 60 day wait applies. Any portion that would be part of a valid guess at the end of the 60 day wait (or when the guesser actually makes the guess) may be reused (i.e. if the exponent is now below the confirmed DC's, the date may be reused, or if the date has passed, the exponent may be reused {as long as the item being reused is currently a valid guess}).

[QUOTE] N) Rule 6 says in part, "If all exponents up to your number have had a first time test (or DC), you may select another, after a 60 day wait." Since the premise does not apply to the "402143633 3/12/2052" guess, that 60 day wait requirement is not applicable on that basis.[/QUOTE]And since it does not apply, you are stuck with your guess. Live with it.

[QUOTE] O) The previous game was "Predict M51", [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=22879[/URL] There, precedent was established, for guesses with only month and year date predictions, or no date at all, and they were not objected to or invalidated or penalized in any way.
[URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=476253&postcount=12[/URL] included a date guess of "in April 2021". Multiple others also expressed dates in only month/year fashion.[/QUOTE]Rule 2, a month is treated as a range. I will take the first day of the month as the guess, unless the last day of the month would allow someone else to be closer and thus win. "or we may take the worst case of the range as the choice"
BTW, the rules can be changed for each new game. We are not bound by past games (new rules have been added over time or rules have been changed.)

[QUOTE] P) There is precedent, in this game, for reuse of guesses from earlier. See for example [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=502554&postcount=5[/URL][/QUOTE]As long as they make the exponent and/or date explicit in this thread (I am not going to look up their old guess, nor just roll over the old ones), they can repost their foolish guesses if they wish. Masser specifically restated previous guesses as noted in the first post.

[QUOTE] Q) It's my understanding that in civil law, gaps or flaws in a written agreement or contract count against the entity that prepared the agreement. In this case that disadvantaged entity would be the author of the rules, you, uncwilly.
[/QUOTE]This is not covered under civil law. It is a frivolous game with no signed contracts nor actual compensation or consideration. It is only slightly more rigorous than Calvin Ball (q.v.).

My recent posts are considered official rulings and the rules will be interpreted as such, as stated in the first post.

 lukerichards 2019-04-09 08:31

[QUOTE=kriesel;513164]Wow, that's a bit like a court requiring the accused to prove his innocence. [/QUOTE]

In a past life, I was a lawyer so I can see the comparison for sure. Except that rule applies in courts because of the gravity of the stakes involved. The concept to which you refer is the 'burden of proof' which rests on the prosecution to prove the guilt of a defendant. The consequence of a defendant being found guilty is loss of liberty, reputation and potentially life. The 'standard of proof' is the extent to which a court or jury has to be convinced.

Where the stakes are lower - for example a civil case like a law suit - the standard of proof is lower but understandably the burden is the same. That is, it still rests on the accuser to show that the defendant committed the acts but the extent to which they need to convince a court changes from 99% to 51%. Understandably, as the stakes lower the proof requirements lower. All of this refers to legal proceedings where there is a lot at stake.

This is a game. Being a bit of fun, it's arguably quite alright to change the burden of proof to the other side. I don't see any reason to take it quite so seriously.

However, in this particular we are not talking about unwilly as the accuser who holds the burden of proof. Kriesel is the one who is [b]asking for[/b] something, they are [b]claiming[/b] to be entitled to another guess, which makes them akin to the [b]claimant[/b] in the legal analogy. A claimant in a court of law is the civil equivalent to the prosecutor in a criminal court. That is, even in court the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that they are entitled to one thing. I don't necessarily feel that legal comparisons are appropriate given this is supposed to be fun, but if one wishes to draw one, uncwilly's request was entirely consistent with legal practice.

 lukerichards 2019-04-09 08:35

I would also add that this post:

[url]https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=510263&postcount=39[/url]

Shows that ruling out an individual candidate does not make a guess pointless. The next candidate above or below the one which has been factored could still render the guesser as the victor in the game, rendering the need for an alternative guess redundant.

 lukerichards 2019-04-09 10:34

[QUOTE=lukerichards;513097]
113847439 1st September 2020
202303547 - No date supplied[/QUOTE]

These guesses have actually been factored, which I believe leaves me subject to a 60 day wait. If not, I have alternatives to provide.

 Uncwilly 2019-04-09 14:00

[QUOTE=lukerichards;513226]These guesses have actually been factored, which I believe leaves me subject to a 60 day wait. If not, I have alternatives to provide.[/QUOTE]
Correct, you have to wait 60 days to add the allowable additional guesses of exponents. You may add a single date guess though.

 lukerichards 2019-04-09 14:35

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;513247]Correct, you have to wait 60 days to add the allowable additional guesses of exponents. You may add a single date guess though.[/QUOTE]

I'll wait to add the date with my exponent guesses.

 kriesel 2019-04-09 14:43

Note that neither uncwilly nor lukerichards have addressed the other two instances I described in the "Other Matters" section, where it seems clear uncwilly deviated from the posted rules to invalidate and penalize other participants' guesses.

 lukerichards 2019-04-09 14:56

If I'm completely honest, I have no interest in doing so. I'm not bothered either way on this debate, I just thought I'd share my insight about the legal parallels.

Although my advice would be to take the 60 day wait on the chin. Let's be honest, we are not going to find M52 in the next 60 days anyway.

 kriesel 2019-04-09 15:23

[QUOTE=lukerichards;513219]a civil case like a law suit - the standard of proof is lower but understandably the burden is the same. That is, it still rests on the accuser to show that the defendant committed the acts but the extent to which they need to convince a court changes from 99% to 51%. Understandably, as the stakes lower the proof requirements lower. All of this refers to legal proceedings where there is a lot at stake.
[/QUOTE]
Not an attorney myself, although have had reason to make use of them at times.
In the US, in civil matters, on occasion, the presumption is on the side of the claimant, and defendants' hands may be somewhat tied in regard to proof, such as in an estate claim, where "upon information and belief" may be the only basis for a charge of wrongdoing (a very weak basis for a claim that might consist of little more than a foundation of suspicion and greed), and conversations the defendants had with the deceased parent are inadmissible, while there's no such constraint on the plaintiff. It's pretty screwy.
[QUOTE]This is a game. Being a bit of fun, it's arguably quite alright to change the burden of proof to the other side. I don't see any reason to take it quite so seriously.[/QUOTE]Yeah, trivial. But speculating about the guesses, and considering what the best rules could be, are possible parts of the game. [QUOTE]
However, in this particular we are not talking about unwilly as the accuser who holds the burden of proof. Kriesel is the one who is [B]asking for[/B] something, they are [B]claiming[/B] to be entitled to another guess, which makes them akin to the [B]claimant[/B] in the legal analogy. A claimant in a court of law is the civil equivalent to the prosecutor in a criminal court. That is, even in court the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that they are entitled to one thing. I don't necessarily feel that legal comparisons are appropriate given this is supposed to be fun, but if one wishes to draw one, uncwilly's request was entirely consistent with legal practice.[/QUOTE]Uncwilly clearly asked for something, in [URL]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=512880&postcount=43[/URL]. Sort of like a regulatory agency initiating an action. Is not the burden on the regulator to show a violation has occurred? My post in 41 wasn't starting a claim, it was playing the game, and I never imagined it would create all this, and my lengthy response was a response to what uncwilly initiated. I found it disturbing that there were two cases easily found where the posted rules were apparently violated by the person who wrote the rules. Does not seem very legit. Detracts from the fun.
Anyway, thanks for weighing in, lukeR. With a law background, you might make a good choice for interpreter of the rule set in a future game.
I think the volume and content of uncwilly's responses confirms my view that the rules could stand improving for future games. Diving into it, reluctantly, in response to post 43, revealed a lot about the rules and where they could be clarified or where gaps exist.
I get that uncwilly has reason to want to avoid lots of guess churn; keeping up a spreadsheet of guesses could become a nuisance.

 lukerichards 2019-04-09 15:34

[QUOTE=kriesel;513254] Diving into it, reluctantly, in response to post 43, revealed a lot about the rules and where they could be clarified or where gaps exist.
I get that uncwilly has reason to want to avoid lots of guess churn; keeping up a spreadsheet of guesses could become a nuisance.[/QUOTE]

People often comment things to the tune of "Lawyers just make the laws dense and complicated to keep them in business."

I think what this has shown is that if a law does not go through a repeated process of scrutiny and tightening up of language, there are all kinds of ambiguities and loopholes. The reason why law is such a complicated area of expertise is because it is constructed in such a way to give no ambiguity.

And this is why I would have no interest in officiating over the next incarnation of the game! At least not at present. I reckon it'll be well over a year (if not 5) until we play "Predict M53" so maybe I'll be more open to it then!

 kriesel 2019-04-09 15:49

[QUOTE=lukerichards;513255]People often comment things to the tune of "Lawyers just make the laws dense and complicated to keep them in business."

I think what this has shown is that if a law does not go through a repeated process of scrutiny and tightening up of language, there are all kinds of ambiguities and loopholes. The reason why law is such a complicated area of expertise is because it is constructed in such a way to give no ambiguity.
[/QUOTE]
Yep. Case law exists because even a house (or senate) full of legislators (mostly lawyers by training) have limits to their imaginations of what combination of facts may come up and what interpretations others may imagine.
Now couple that with fun environments like Wisconsin, where "line item veto" means not that the governor can strike individual main header sections as a whole, or subordinate sections as a whole, but individual sentences, words, and characters, and then sign into law what is left. There was a news report some years ago about the legislature puzzling over the language they had passed, to see how by deleting some of it, governor Doyle had created new language authorizing expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars for a purpose the legislature had never intended, benefiting the members of a union that had provided substantial financial support for his election campaign. Turns legislating into a defensive game of Scrabble. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein_veto[/url]

 joblack 2019-05-27 20:02

1 Attachment(s)
Took me over 4 years of background calculation. Unfortunately no prime but I am still a little bit proud for my patience. :)

 LaurV 2019-05-29 01:43

[QUOTE=joblack;517905]Took me over 4 years of background calculation. Unfortunately no prime but I am still a little bit proud for my patience. :)[/QUOTE]
Congratulations! Now you are, as your name says, "job lack"... :razz: (unless you start another one!).

Hey, I did TF to 73 to that one! :showoff:

 GP2 2019-05-29 05:35

[QUOTE=LaurV;518004]Hey, I did TF to 73 to that one! :showoff:[/QUOTE]

But [M]M332,356,309[/M] ought to be TF'd to at least 81, better yet 84 (it's at 77 now). And P−1 was only done to B1=B2=5.3M, which is fairly low. Better would be B2=75M or 100M.

I can't help but think of [M]M333,070,799[/M], which was factored four days after an LL test was completed.

 joblack 2019-05-30 15:04

[QUOTE=LaurV;518004]Congratulations! Now you are, as your name says, "job lack"... :razz: (unless you start another one!).
Hey, I did TF to 73 to that one! :showoff:[/QUOTE]
Nicenstein.

No I have a second one at around 80 percent.

Didn't manually care about the TF'ing just set it up to 'world record prime number' and let it roll. Maybe the automatic queuing order should be different.

 masser 2019-08-03 17:23

115856161

July 4th, 2023

 dcheuk 2019-08-29 13:33

[QUOTE=dcheuk;510576]M87668491 March 14, 2019
M89065523 March 14, 2020
M91761547 March 14, 2021[/QUOTE]

2019/07/18: M[M]87668491[/M] is not prime. LL residue: 7AAF77EE96E1ED__.
2019/07/22: M[M]89065523[/M] is not prime. LL residue: B32AA15CA93F6F__.
2019/07/26: MM[M]91761547[/M] is not prime. LL residue: 0A2547DD85A473__.

Guess I'll be guessing new exponents 2019/09/27. :smile:

 Uncwilly 2019-08-29 14:00

[QUOTE=dcheuk;524792]2019/07/18: M[M]87668491[/M] is not prime. LL residue: 7AAF77EE96E1ED__.
2019/07/22: M[M]89065523[/M] is not prime. LL residue: B32AA15CA93F6F__.
2019/07/26: MM[M]91761547[/M] is not prime. LL residue: 0A2547DD85A473__.

Guess I'll be guessing new exponents 2019/09/27. :smile:[/QUOTE]Why? Under which rule?
[QUOTE=Uncwilly;502537]6. [COLOR=Sienna]You may post 3 guesses (for each number and date). If all exponents up to your number have had a first time test (or DC), you may select another, after a [B]60 day wait[/B]. Same (60 day wait) for date predictions that have passed.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]This does not apply. We have not gotten to [M]87668491[/M] yet. Current milestone is: [M]85387261[/M] Note that the rule says [B]all[/B] exponents.

 kriesel 2019-08-29 18:56

[QUOTE=dcheuk;524792]Guess I'll be guessing new exponents 2019/09/27. :smile:[/QUOTE]I think by rule 6 you're now eligible to guess a new DATE to replace 2019 Mar 14 (pi day past). A rough estimate of when your 87.xM guess may become eligible for replacement is March 2020.

 dcheuk 2019-08-29 21:39

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;524794]Why? Under which rule?
This does not apply. We have not gotten to [M]87668491[/M] yet. Current milestone is: [M]85387261[/M] Note that the rule says [B]all[/B] exponents.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]... you may select another, after a 60 day wait ...[/QUOTE]

Nevermind lol

 sweety439 2019-08-30 01:49

94539113

May 09, 2021

 Uncwilly 2019-08-30 04:09

[QUOTE=kriesel;524808]I think by rule 6 you're now eligible to guess a new DATE to replace 2019 Mar 14 (pi day past).[/QUOTE][QUOTE=dcheuk;524814]Oh oops epic failed cannot read. I read this in my head:[/QUOTE]
Wait a moment:
Based upon the previous ruling on the rules before (see below), because the date and the number were tied together, once the date passed, it free you up (after 60 days) to guess them again. So, guess that one.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;513200]Date guesses expire based upon date. However invalid date guesses (those already guessed) invalid[ate] the whole of the guess (same way with invalid exponent guesses). A guesser may choose to guess the dates and exponents independent of each other (as a separate line or group). If guessed independent of each other any single piece is invalid at the time of the guessing, this preserves the other.
When a date or exponent guess becomes passe, after the 60 day wait, the other component may certainly be reused (subject, of course, to it being currently valid.)[/QUOTE]

 dcheuk 2019-08-31 06:13

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;524836]Wait a moment:
Based upon the previous ruling on the rules before (see below), because the date and the number were tied together, once the date passed, it free you up (after 60 days) to guess them again. So, guess that one.[/QUOTE]

So I get to pick a new exponent AND a date? :confused2:

 Uncwilly 2019-09-01 01:40

[QUOTE=dcheuk;524891]So I get to pick a new exponent AND a date? :confused2:[/QUOTE]
:ttu:

 dcheuk 2019-09-01 17:12

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;524954]:ttu:[/QUOTE]

Great. :big grin:

I'm gonna go with M[M]333898333[/M] on November 1st, 2019. Lol

 MattcAnderson 2019-09-11 03:43

a prediction

HI all,

My prediction for M51 is exponent 84,000,013.
I used Maple computer tool nextprime() function to choose an 8 digit prime number.
This date prediction is April 1st of the year 2020.

Cheers,
Matt

 VBCurtis 2019-09-11 04:59

[QUOTE=MattcAnderson;525661]HI all,

My prediction for M51 is exponent 84,000,013.
Cheers,
Matt[/QUOTE]

It takes less typing to check the database for a factor than it did to write your post:

84000013 Factored 14081090179217

You fail.

 Uncwilly 2019-09-11 05:15

[QUOTE=MattcAnderson;525661]My prediction for M51...[/QUOTE]

 Uncwilly 2019-09-11 05:20

[QUOTE=dcheuk;524994]Great. :big grin:

I'm gonna go with M[M]333898333[/M] on November 1st, 2019. Lol[/QUOTE]
8. [COLOR=DarkOrange] The discoverer of M52 (not the 'noticer') will have all guesses posted more than [U]10[/U] hours after they were assigned and/or started the expo (whichever is first) that is reported to be prime [B]hereby disqualified.[/B][/COLOR][/QUOTE]If that is the actual winner you don't get credit for the win. You posted more than 1 month after it was assigned. That does not mean that the guess is invalid. If M52 is close to it, you will be the winner.

 kriesel 2019-10-03 13:26

Has George scheduled his year end vacation trip yet? (Recently that's when new finds were made.)

 dcheuk 2019-10-03 18:20

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;525665]Please note rule #8If that is the actual winner you don't get credit for the win. You posted more than 1 month after it was assigned. That does not mean that the guess is invalid. If M52 is close to it, you will be the winner.[/QUOTE]

Oh I just saw this lol

I cry :cry:

Hopefully we get another prime in Xmas.

 Viliam Furik 2019-12-03 16:30

exponent: 91305491
date: 18th of January, 2020

 Uncwilly 2019-12-19 21:13

Current status update:
All guesses have been factored (96052357, 101834393, & 402143633)
or had a first time LL/PRP except 146456881, 258150181, & 282362693, but those are currently being tested. That makes scant issue, the guess can still be closest to M52.

The following have been passed by the first time tail end (and are eligible for re-guessing per rule 6, they may choose not to if they think a DC will find a prime) :[CODE]Who When guessed Exponent When found
MattcAnderson 9/11/2019 84000013 4/1/2020
Uncwilly 12/28/2018 84000017 2/28/2019
firejuggler 1/2/2019 85020577 1/1/2020
Neutron3529 12/13/2018 85615531 10/1/2019[/CODE]

Other than those, the following have had their prediction date passed (and are eligible for re-guessing per rule 6):
[CODE]Who When guessed Exponent When found
dcheuk 3/11/2019 87668491 3/14/2019
kriesel 12/21/2018 88318673 6/14/2019
christian_ 12/27/2018 93456799 4/7/2019
Spherical Cow 12/27/2018 97211981 10/30/2019
dcheuk 9/1/2019 333898333 11/1/2019[/CODE]

These are currently within a month (they will have to wait 60 days after the date has passed to guess again):
[CODE]Who When guessed Exponent When found
Petrw1 12/12/2018 87654361 12/25/2019
tServo 12/14/2018 12/31/2019
firejuggler 1/2/2019 85020577 1/1/2020
moebius 12/14/2018 1/13/2020
Viliam Furik 12/3/2019 91305491 1/18/2020
[/CODE]

The current active guesses (those don't have the date passed or the exponent passed by the first time milestone:
[CODE]Who When guessed Exponent When found
firejuggler 1/2/2019 87522767 1/3/2021
Petrw1 12/12/2018 87654361 12/25/2019
moebius 12/14/2018 87885437
Neutron3529 12/13/2018 87946949
dcheuk 3/11/2019 89065523 3/14/2020
Uncwilly 12/29/2018 89999999 4/15/2020
firejuggler 1/2/2019 90098611 2/1/2022
Viliam Furik 12/3/2019 91305491 1/18/2020
patrik 12/18/2018 91502209 12/4/2020
dcheuk 3/11/2019 91761547 3/14/2021
Neutron3529 12/13/2018 92074531
axn 12/21/2018 94029857 3/17/2021
Uncwilly 12/30/2018 95000167 9/24/2021
EWMayer 12/12/2018 96000193 5/1/2021
ixfd64 12/27/2018 96052357 5/21/2021
Dylan14 12/14/2018 97200647 2/2/2021
lukerichards 101834393 8/1/2020
christian_ 12/27/2018 106456799 1/22/2020
axn 12/21/2018 107054317 8/31/2023
Prime95 12/16/2018 107448181 6/1/2022
Batalov 12/12/2018 110691517 6/19/2022
ixfd64 12/27/2018 110691683 1/3/2025
masser 8/3/2019 115856161 7/4/2023
masser 12/12/2018 117003179 11/24/2022
masser 12/12/2018 118788157 8/8/2020
ixfd64 12/27/2018 121596589 10/8/2027
kriesel 12/21/2018 121882753 5/21/2025
axn 12/21/2018 121882903 7/12/2026
christian_ 12/27/2018 146456881 2/3/2022
Brian-E 12/21/2018 258150181 5/15/2027
GP2 1/4/2019 282362693 3/3/2025
kriesel 12/21/2018 402143633 3/12/2052
moebius 12/14/2018 1/13/2020
tServo 12/14/2018 12/31/2019
[/CODE]

 sweety439 2019-12-20 12:47

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;533234]Current status update:
All guesses have been factored (96052357, 101834393, & 402143633)
or had a first time LL/PRP except 146456881, 258150181, & 282362693, but those are currently being tested. That makes scant issue, the guess can still be closest to M52.

The following have been passed by the first time tail end (and are eligible for re-guessing per rule 6, they may choose not to if they think a DC will find a prime) :[CODE]Who When guessed Exponent When found
MattcAnderson 9/11/2019 84000013 4/1/2020
Uncwilly 12/28/2018 84000017 2/28/2019
firejuggler 1/2/2019 85020577 1/1/2020
Neutron3529 12/13/2018 85615531 10/1/2019[/CODE]

Other than those, the following have had their prediction date passed (and are eligible for re-guessing per rule 6):
[CODE]Who When guessed Exponent When found
dcheuk 3/11/2019 87668491 3/14/2019
kriesel 12/21/2018 88318673 6/14/2019
christian_ 12/27/2018 93456799 4/7/2019
Spherical Cow 12/27/2018 97211981 10/30/2019
dcheuk 9/1/2019 333898333 11/1/2019[/CODE]

These are currently within a month (they will have to wait 60 days after the date has passed to guess again):
[CODE]Who When guessed Exponent When found
Petrw1 12/12/2018 87654361 12/25/2019
tServo 12/14/2018 12/31/2019
firejuggler 1/2/2019 85020577 1/1/2020
moebius 12/14/2018 1/13/2020
Viliam Furik 12/3/2019 91305491 1/18/2020
[/CODE]

The current active guesses (those don't have the date passed or the exponent passed by the first time milestone:
[CODE]Who When guessed Exponent When found
firejuggler 1/2/2019 87522767 1/3/2021
Petrw1 12/12/2018 87654361 12/25/2019
moebius 12/14/2018 87885437
Neutron3529 12/13/2018 87946949
dcheuk 3/11/2019 89065523 3/14/2020
Uncwilly 12/29/2018 89999999 4/15/2020
firejuggler 1/2/2019 90098611 2/1/2022
Viliam Furik 12/3/2019 91305491 1/18/2020
patrik 12/18/2018 91502209 12/4/2020
dcheuk 3/11/2019 91761547 3/14/2021
Neutron3529 12/13/2018 92074531
axn 12/21/2018 94029857 3/17/2021
Uncwilly 12/30/2018 95000167 9/24/2021
EWMayer 12/12/2018 96000193 5/1/2021
ixfd64 12/27/2018 96052357 5/21/2021
Dylan14 12/14/2018 97200647 2/2/2021
lukerichards 101834393 8/1/2020
christian_ 12/27/2018 106456799 1/22/2020
axn 12/21/2018 107054317 8/31/2023
Prime95 12/16/2018 107448181 6/1/2022
Batalov 12/12/2018 110691517 6/19/2022
ixfd64 12/27/2018 110691683 1/3/2025
masser 8/3/2019 115856161 7/4/2023
masser 12/12/2018 117003179 11/24/2022
masser 12/12/2018 118788157 8/8/2020
ixfd64 12/27/2018 121596589 10/8/2027
kriesel 12/21/2018 121882753 5/21/2025
axn 12/21/2018 121882903 7/12/2026
christian_ 12/27/2018 146456881 2/3/2022
Brian-E 12/21/2018 258150181 5/15/2027
GP2 1/4/2019 282362693 3/3/2025
kriesel 12/21/2018 402143633 3/12/2052
moebius 12/14/2018 1/13/2020
tServo 12/14/2018 12/31/2019
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

You lost my post [URL="https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=524833&postcount=75"]#75[/URL]

 Uncwilly 2019-12-20 14:58

[QUOTE=sweety439;533266]You lost my post [URL="https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=524833&postcount=75"]#75[/URL][/QUOTE]I have added it, sorry for the oversight. BTW, it has been factored.

 kriesel 2019-12-20 16:42

PRP runs on 146456881, 258150181, & 282362693 are projected to complete in April, January, and April respectively. Lingering guesses from M51, M50, M45, and various dubious claims in other threads are also being run if possible with current technology. This cleanup/catchup is expected to essentially complete in 2020, except for 3 untestably large 66-bit to 127-bit exponent claims. Our collective track record of predicting Mersenne primes remains perfect so far. See [url]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=512904&postcount=5[/url]

 Uncwilly 2020-01-02 20:58

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;533234]Current status update:

These are currently within a month (they will have to wait 60 days after the date has passed to guess again):
[CODE]Who When guessed Exponent When found
...
firejuggler 1/2/2019 85020577 1/1/2020
moebius 12/14/2018 1/13/2020
Viliam Furik 12/3/2019 91305491 1/18/2020
[/CODE][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Prime95;533960]I'll be leaving for an extended trip and ....[/QUOTE]
:hmm:

 sweety439 2020-02-11 04:15

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;533275]I have added it, sorry for the oversight. BTW, it has been factored.[/QUOTE]

What are its prime factors?

 Uncwilly 2020-02-11 05:22

[QUOTE=sweety439;537299]What are its prime factors?[/QUOTE]
You can use this handy tool on the website to check: [url]https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/[/url]
Or on this site: [url]https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/94539113[/url]

 sweety439 2020-02-11 11:00

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;537306]You can use this handy tool on the website to check: [url]https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/[/url]
Or on this site: [url]https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/94539113[/url][/QUOTE]

Well, can you add it to the list in post [URL="https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=533234&postcount=87"]#87[/URL]?

 Uncwilly 2020-02-11 15:18

[QUOTE=sweety439;537318]Well, can you add it to the list in post [URL="https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=533234&postcount=87"]#87[/URL]?[/QUOTE]
I am not going to go back and update the post. I have the guess in my spreadsheet.

 storm5510 2020-02-11 17:41

2[SUP]109123789[/SUP]-1.

October 2020.

 Uncwilly 2020-02-11 18:03

[QUOTE=storm5510;537359]2[SUP]109123789[/SUP]-1.

October 2020.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/109123789[/url]
[QUOTE=Uncwilly;502537]
[B]THE RULES OF THE GAME:[/B][list=1][*][COLOR=DarkRed]Post your guess here, [B]no[/B] PM'ing.[/COLOR][*][COLOR=Olive]Your guess [B][SIZE="3"]must include a prime number[/SIZE][/B] (we are guessing the exponent) and/or date of discovery. No ranges, they may be ignored (or we may take the worst case of the range as the choice.) [B]Failure to guess a prime number will count against you and impose a wait as in rule 6.[/B][/COLOR][/list][/QUOTE]

All times are UTC. The time now is 16:35.