Let's Optimize P-1 for low exponents. TL;DR in post #1. More in posts 60 and 61.

[cmpute]

Thanks! But there's a typo in the list, my requested range in 0.15-0.2 (not 2.0) :)

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by cmpute

Thanks! But there's a typo in the list, my requested range in 0.15-0.2 (not 2.0) :)

Oops...fixed

[lycorn]

I´ll stop working on 0.7M, at least for some time, to avoid toe stepping (some people are currently working there).
Please remove my username from the list.
Will keep working on 0.8M, tho, although at a rather slow pace.

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by lycorn

I´ll stop working on 0.7M, at least for some time, to avoid toe stepping (some people are currently working there).
Please remove my username from the list.
Will keep working on 0.8M, tho, although at a rather slow pace.

Sadly Jocelyn is all over our ranges....I think he/she may not be on the forum so it likely unaware of our efforts.

[KingKurly]

Originally Posted by petrw1

Sadly Jocelyn is all over our ranges....I think he/she may not be on the forum so it likely unaware of our efforts.

Yeah they've been doing work in "my" range and to a lower B1/B2 than I've been using. Not sure if it's worth redoing those exponents.

[Mark Rose]

Originally Posted by petrw1

Sadly Jocelyn is all over our ranges....I think he/she may not be on the forum so it likely unaware of our efforts.

Is Jocelyn not jocelynl1204?

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Mark Rose

Is Jocelyn not jocelynl1204?

Yes he is.

[Denial140]

Originally Posted by KingKurly

Yeah they've been doing work in "my" range and to a lower B1/B2 than I've been using. Not sure if it's worth redoing those exponents.

In 2.6M, I estimated that your bounds give a 7% improvement in probability over jocelyn's, which is quite significant. To put that into perspective, the original improvement was about 9.7%. In my mind that is worth redoing, but of course I am not going to tell you what to do with your resources :)

[petrw1]

from jocelyn...

PS ... I too am reworking his assignments as I get to them because our prescribed bounds are still worth it.

[KingKurly]

Originally Posted by Denial140

In 2.6M, I estimated that your bounds give a 7% improvement in probability over jocelyn's, which is quite significant. To put that into perspective, the original improvement was about 9.7%. In my mind that is worth redoing, but of course I am not going to tell you what to do with your resources :)

Sounds like a plan, I will make a second pass through the range I think, once I reach the end. It should be a much smaller pass than the first, anyway.

[petrw1]

2,164 more P-1 required exponents factored (some may have been TF or ECM)
29,089 more exponents with P-1 completed

New ranges cleared: 1.6, 2.7, 3.0, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 5.8, 5.9, 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 8.0, 8.6, 9.7
(5M is entirely complete)

On the LOW TF wave front:
All exponents above 20.4M at 73 bits (TBH just a few stragglers at 21.1)
All exponents above 9.3M at 72 bits (TBH just a few stragglers at 11.4)

Woot Woot!!!

I'm in the process of updating assignment ranges based on activity in the last month...

I've updated these to the best of my ability ... correct me if you see any issues.

P.S. Some of you have indicated your ranges are COMPLETE ... in your assessment;
however (no offense intended) I won't mark them COMPLETE until they pass my somewhat aggressive bounds.