At 09:38 PM 10/15/98 -0400, Harry Kuhman wrote:
>> Anyhow, GIMPS will get to exponents around 5,200,000
>>before too long, and that will help confirm or deny it.
>
>Exhausting the range might well disprove it, but the claim
>of "around 5,200,000" is vague enough that a hit wouldn't
>really be confirmed proof of the original story. If one is
>found, however, and you then believe the story, you might
>want to get a jump on everyone by checking exponents in
>the 18,000,000 range.
>
You are quite correct. But if one was found between 5,150,000 and 5,299,999
(that's close enough to 5,200,000 to be called "around 5,200,000") then that
would lend some credence to the statement. The chance of one being found in
that range is < 1%, so if one is found, it would be strong evidence in
favor of
it, but not conclusive.
I think already about 1/4 of the exponents in this range have been tested, and
I'm working on a larger exponent (so they must all be assigned). So it
shouldn't be more than about 2 months before they're finished, my rough
estimate.
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Jud McCranie [EMAIL PROTECTED] or @camcat.com |
| |
| "We should regard the digital computer system as an |
| instrument to assist the number theorist in investigating |
| the properties of his universe - the natural numbers." |
| -- D. H. Lehmer, 1974 (paraphrased) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
