On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Jud McCranie wrote:
> At 06:07 PM 10/20/99 -0400, Darxus wrote:
>
> >I was pretty surprised that the extrapolations for M38-M42 (all that I
> >did) were *exactly* the same for both methods of extrapolations,
>
> Your two methods are equivalent.
I know, but I thought the algorhythms for fitting linear & exponential
lines would differ enough to result in at least a small difference in
results.
> > I still wanna know why extrapolating off of the number of digits, instead
> >of the actual exponents, gave me a number closer to 6972593 (38th
> >discovered mersenne prime). I dunno, coulda just been a coincidence.
>
> Probably so. If you use the number of digits in one method and the actual
> exponents in another, the predictions will differ slightly. One of them
> will be closer to the true value.
Right. Using the actual exponents (instead of the # of digits) should,
usually, yield more accurate results, right ? Of course, using the
expanded prime would give the best accuracy, but I'm not prepaired to deal
w/ numbers millions of digits long yet :)
__________________________________________________________________
PGP fingerprint = 03 5B 9B A0 16 33 91 2F A5 77 BC EE 43 71 98 D4
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://www.op.net/~darxus
Join the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search
http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
_________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
