At 08:23 6/5/99 MDT, Paul Derbyshire wrote:
>Peter Doherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is normal. Because of the bug in v17, all the math it was doing
>> was wrong, so using that 77% would have been a waste since it was
>> incorrect data. There is no need to try and retrieve that data. It's
>> useless.
>
>Are you sure of that? What if the bug didn't happen to strike my run, or the
>errors could be corrected?
This is a known bug the consequences of which were hashed and rehashed at
least one month ago. V18.1 was designed to take appropriate action with
"work in progress." Your work to date on that exponent was disgarded
(though you might still get credit for time spent--Scott?) because it was
invalid.
>If what you say is true, then whoever designed version 17 acted in a
>completely unconscionably rash manner by releasing it without thoroughly
>testing it for problems as serious as that. And has therefore shot the whole
>GIMPS effort in the foot by setting it back many weeks.
Ummmmmm, this is a volunteer effort on the part of George, Scott, and
others. Programming of this type is difficult, and bugs are a part of
life. Let's save phrases such as "completely unconscionably" for more
important things in life. GIMPS, while real science, is supposed to be fun.
>Hopefully, realization of the impact on GIMPS is punishment enough to make
>sure this won't happen again...
Is the phrase "Lighten up" too strong?
Kel <--hoping that one of the 6,000,000s I'm checking is a Mersenne prime
as per the island theory :-)
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
