20151217, 02:20  #45 
"/X\(‘‘)/X\"
Jan 2013
C72_{16} Posts 
I found 810 GHzd of work in skipped bit levels, from 65 bits up, for exponents between 34.8M and 105M without any factors.
I'm going to run it all to see if anything comes up. Last fiddled with by Mark Rose on 20151217 at 02:40 
20151217, 02:30  #46 
Aug 2005
11^{2} Posts 
I like spackling (clearing a bit range gap with no credit). If a 72.5 bit factor of an exponent is discovered that has TF no factor to 71, then spackling would be checking 71 to 72. I would argue that 72 to 73 is also spackling if the factor was found by P1, ECM or TF with bail upon factor found.
How should a TF of 73 to 74, etc. be handled? I think it should be treated the same as 70 to 71 was. Unless we choose to not give credit for LL, DC, P1 or ECM of exponents once a factor has been found. My understanding is that TF is currently discriminated against in this regard. If I am mistaken please clarify the existing rules for me. Finding a factor is better in some ways than LL because it does not need a DC. If one really wanted to save some database space, then erase all the other exponent history once a factor is found. I actually like a full history and would like to be able to report bit ranges cleared by TF beyond factors found. 
20151217, 04:30  #47  
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
2830_{16} Posts 
Quote:
 * we tried to negotiate in the past with the gods to give us that emote, we don't associate it with yuck, but with something fierce and angry, which we are, but the gods applied the camel law**, i.e. punished us with the lighting rabbit...  ** once upon a time Camel was upset because he had no horns, other animals had a defense against predators, etc.. so he went to god to complain. Well, god was in a bad mood and said "Who is this ugly Camel bothering me requesting horns? Cut his ears!", so that is why the camels today have no horns, and no ears... Last fiddled with by LaurV on 20151217 at 04:32 

20151217, 06:04  #48 
"/X\(‘‘)/X\"
Jan 2013
2·3^{3}·59 Posts 
I had a bug in my program, where I would miss the last missed bit. It's actually 3691 GHzd of work.

20151217, 19:04  #49  
"/X\(‘‘)/X\"
Jan 2013
2×3^{3}×59 Posts 
Quote:
This one will take a while though: Quote:


20151218, 07:09  #50 
Oct 2015
100001010_{2} Posts 

20151218, 07:35  #51 
"/X\(‘‘)/X\"
Jan 2013
110001110010_{2} Posts 

20151219, 18:28  #52 
"/X\(‘‘)/X\"
Jan 2013
2·3^{3}·59 Posts 
So after testing 2000 skipped bit levels with no factors found, it's not worth my time to continue.
For what it's worth, exponents with no factors from M34800079 to M56500313 have been tested at skipped bit levels 65+. For completeness, I'm going back and testing the skipped bit levels between 61 and 65. 
20151220, 13:36  #54 
Aug 2002
Buenos Aires, Argentina
2×761 Posts 
A small correction. At this rate, prime factors found by TJAOI will reach 2^{60} at the end of December. Notice that on Fridays he submits prime factors of Mersenne number whose exponents are less than 1M found by ECM. These are obviously greater than that bound.
Last fiddled with by alpertron on 20151220 at 13:37 
20151220, 18:37  #55  
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
2·13·131 Posts 
Quote:


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Normalising rent levels  Bundu  Math  4  20170927 06:14 
Racism or low light levels or...?  jasong  jasong  2  20160925 05:07 
Missing bit levels?  NBtarheel_33  Data  6  20160531 15:27 
Is the data missing or did we miss a couple TF bit levels  petrw1  PrimeNet  2  20150507 05:09 
Recommended TF bit levels for M(>10^8)  NBtarheel_33  Math  19  20081103 17:19 