Mersenne Digest Saturday, June 17 2000 Volume 01 : Number 748 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:59:27 +0200 From: "Martijn Kruithof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Assignment "stolen" Hi, It is a first time test, I do not care to run some double checks, the problem however is that I cannot even put double-check in the worktodo file, the assignment will be deleted as soon as the primenet server is contacted. It says it already has a result for the exponent. I think I will back the files up and make it a double-check assignment after the next database sync. (Well before the values are assigned again by primenet.) When an unassigned exponent gets reported PrimeNet will assign it to the one reporting to work on the exponent. Anybody knows when the next database sync will be? Kind Regards, Martijn - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian J. Beesley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Martijn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 9:12 PM Subject: Re: Mersenne: Assignment "stolen" > On 15 Jun 00, at 17:31, Martijn wrote: > > > I just saw that an exponent I am testing (due in about > > 20 days) sudennly was removed from my account report. > > When looking in the cleared exponents list, "my" > > exponent is listed as cleared by milbournea (no > > offence). Should I stop testing this exponent or should > > I still await the final result and return it (i.e. > > making a double-check unnecessary / let it be the > > double check.) > > I take it you had a first-test assignment. > > If so I'd let it complete. This will be accepted by PrimeNet & will > eventually save someone else running a double-check. > > If, however, your assignment was a double-check, there seems little > point in continuing :( > > > When returning, will the LL time be credited? > > I don't think so. If this really worries you then stop the program & > mail me the Pnnnnnnn file (will shrink by a useful amount if you > compress it using zip or tar z) & I'll finish the run off for you. > Then delete the offending line from worktodo.ini & restart the > program. > > > Regards > Brian Beesley > _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:55:52 -0400 From: George Woltman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Assignment "stolen" Hi Martijn, At 10:59 PM 6/15/00 +0200, Martijn Kruithof wrote: >the problem however is >that I cannot even put double-check in the worktodo file, the >assignment will be deleted as soon as the primenet server is >contacted. If you leave your worktodo.ini file alone, everything will be OK. That is, your worktodo.ini should read "Test=exponent,64,1" The server will accept your result but probably will not give you CPU credit. There is no difference between a double-check and a first-time test!! Prime95 merely lowers your probability of finding a Mersenne prime if it is told this is a double-check. Other than that, the Lucas-Lehmer test is the same. If you have any further questions, just email me. Regards, George _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:11:58 +0200 From: Lem Novantotto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Assignment "stolen" On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:31:48 +0200, in Mersenne_mailing_list you wrote: >I just saw that an exponent I am testing (due in about >20 days) sudennly was removed from my account report. >When looking in the cleared exponents list, "my" >exponent is listed as cleared by milbournea (no >offence). Should I stop testing this exponent or should >I still await the final result and return it (i.e. >making a double-check unnecessary / let it be the >double check.) >When returning, will the LL time be credited? Hi! Almost the same thing happened to me some months ago. 5 days before sending the result of a LL test, everything was fine. When I sent the result, I got an error saying that the exponent wasn't assigned to me (an then no credit... which made change my account, to see if something had gone wrong with it). But some days after, answering my question, Primenet folks told me that the exponent had been reassigned to me after 60 days of no communication from the previous tester: but he had sent the result just before me, so the exponent was considered cleared. But why my test wasn't seen as a double checking, then? I dunno'. - -- Bye. Lem - ---------- 'CLOCK is what you make of it' ---------- _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:51:56 EDT From: "Nathan Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Assignment "stolen" >From: Lem Novantotto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Mersenne: Assignment "stolen" >Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:11:58 +0200 > >Hi! >Almost the same thing happened to me some months ago. 5 days before >sending the result of a LL test, everything was fine. When I sent the >result, I got an error saying that the exponent wasn't assigned to me (snip) >Primenet folks told me that the exponent had been reassigned >to me after 60 days of no communication from the previous tester: but >he had sent the result just before me, so the exponent was considered >cleared. But why my test wasn't seen as a double checking, then? I >dunno'. >-- >Bye. > Lem IIRC, PrimeNet sends out assignments either as first-time testing or as double-checking. Since the previous tester sent in his result in the middle of yours, your machine still thought it was doing a first-time test. In the next month or two, George and the PrimeNet folks will do a resynch, which means in part that they will look for where weird stuff like that happened. That is when it'll be recognized that the double-check was complete. You will still get PrimeNet credit for the test, and will get credit on George's page once the update takes place. BTW, I myself occasionally grab reissued double-checking assignments from PrimeNet. In the case of these, a redundant check accomplishes nothing. Nathan ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:53:33 -0700 From: Stefan Struiker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Desperately Seeking Faster Iron TeamG: With first-time L-L checking sliding toward a lunar month on an "old" 1GHz Athlon, we wonder how the Willamette and Itanium might further The Cause. Anyone have guessimates on the numbers for these two, say at 1GHz? Who, Me In A Hurry? Stefanovic _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:40:26 -0700 From: "Jim Howell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Factoring This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01BFD733.D8A291E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [Wed 14 Jun 2000, Paul Leyland writes] Today I found this number 3756482676803749223044867243823 with ECM and B1=3D10,000. It has two factors, each of 16 digits, which could *not* = have been found by trial division in any reasonable time. - ------------- I use a program called "factor.exe", which uses several factoring = methods. It factors the above number within several seconds. (For this = number, the factors are found with the P-1 method.) In case anyone is = interested, the factors are 1483398061194277 and 2532349728015299. This program runs on Windows, and can be downloaded from Chris = Caldwell's main page, at: http://www.utm.edu/research/primes Go down to section 4, (Software), and look for "factor.exe", described = as a DOS program, but it actually runs in a Command Window on Windows 95 = and later, and (probably) not under actual DOS. I find "factor.exe" = quite useful for factoring small numbers (it will accept numbers up to = about 130 digits). - --Jim - ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01BFD733.D8A291E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>[Wed 14 Jun 2000, Paul Leyland = writes]</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR>Today I found this number=20 3756482676803749223044867243823 with ECM and<BR>B1=3D10,000. It = has two=20 factors, each of 16 digits, which could *not* have<BR>been found by = trial=20 division in any reasonable time.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>-------------</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I use a program called "factor.exe", = which uses=20 several factoring methods. It factors the above number within = several=20 seconds. (For this number, the factors are found with the P-1=20 method.) In case anyone is interested, the factors are =20 1483398061194277 and 2532349728015299.<BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This program runs on Windows, and can = be downloaded=20 from Chris Caldwell's main page, at:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20 href=3D"http://www.utm.edu/research/primes">http://www.utm.edu/research/p= rimes</A></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Go down to section 4, (Software), and = look for=20 "factor.exe", described as a DOS program, but it actually runs in a = Command=20 Window on Windows 95 and later, and (probably) not under actual = DOS. I=20 find "factor.exe" quite useful for factoring small numbers (it will = accept=20 numbers up to about 130 digits).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>--Jim</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML> - ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01BFD733.D8A291E0-- _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:10:06 EDT From: "Nathan Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Pointers on farming Hi all, In order to learn hardware before leaving for college, I have taken a full-time job at a local computer recycling place. Since I will be attending college on a rather nice scholarship, I will have more money than I am likely to need in the immediate future; through my work, I will also recieve a 15-30% discount on hardware beyond the wholesale prices. I am considering setting up 1-3 rather slow (P2-250 or below) Debian boxes in my parents' basement and using them for some combination of QA factoring and 'regular' double-checking assignments. I would have to give them assignments via sneakernet, as my family uses dialup internet and I doubt they would want the phone tied up at random hours as machines dial in to request new assignments. Also, it would be tough, to say the least, to run phone cables down from the nearest jack, which is about fifty feet from the counter I envision, and down a flight of stairs to boot. My questions for the list: 1. How difficult is it to set up Debian on a box of known specs? Also, is it plausible that a box would run without intervention from August to December? 2. Which type of processor, memory etc will give the most bang for the buck? We rarely see anything beyond P2-250's, so I would have to pay retail for that. 3. How could I get double-checking assignments that are big enough not to delay the project before I can report results in mid-December, and that will not require constant checkins before then (I am not sure that I will be home between about August 22 and the second week of December; we sometimes go to one of my cousins' houses for Thanksgiving). Email from George is the obvious option; are there any others? Regards, Nathan ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:33:20 -0400 From: George Woltman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Search for primitive trinomial Hi all, Richard Brent is using Mersenne primes in generating random numbers. However, he needs help in finding "primitive trinomials" first. If you would like to help him search or are just curious as to what he is doing, visit http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/richard.brent/trinom.html Regards, George _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:24:13 -0700 From: Eric Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Desperately Seeking Faster Iron Stefan Struiker wrote: >With first-time L-L checking sliding toward a lunar month on an >"old" 1GHz Athlon, we wonder how the Willamette and Itanium might >further The Cause. Anyone have guessimates on the numbers for >these two, say at 1GHz? I'd guessimate about 17.5-18 days for an exponent around 10,000,000, for the first Willamette(s) which is supposed to debut at 1.4GHz... Then again, according to my calcs, a 1GHz Athlon should finish the same exponent in about 17.5-18 days... Go figure! Eric _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:47:37 +0200 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Re: Factoring On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 01:40:26AM -0700, Jim Howell wrote: >This program runs on Windows, and can be downloaded from Chris Caldwell's main page, >at: Just wanted to add that there is a Linux version as well -- I'd guess it's available at the same place. It didn't factor your number using P-1, though -- it had to go through 11 ECM curves in my case. Guess it's just bad luck or something :-) /* Steinar */ - -- Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/ _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:52:24 +0200 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Re: Pointers on farming On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 08:10:06AM -0400, Nathan Russell wrote: >1. How difficult is it to set up Debian on a box of known specs? Not very difficult, if you've installed Linux before. >Also, is >it plausible that a box would run without intervention from August to >December? Yes. Linux in general is very stable. >2. Which type of processor, memory etc will give the most bang for the buck? > We rarely see anything beyond P2-250's, so I would have to pay retail for >that. Sorry, don't know :-( Divide MHz by price (more or less -- the multiplier setting of the CPU would also count in here) -- higher is better. Remember that a few quicker machines would perhaps be an idea (unless you want the machines for something else later, that is!), as every machine requires some RAM, a power supply, some disk space etc. >3. How could I get double-checking assignments that are big enough not to >delay the project before I can report results in mid-December, and that will >not require constant checkins before then (I am not sure that I will be home >between about August 22 and the second week of December; we sometimes go to >one of my cousins' houses for Thanksgiving). Email from George is the >obvious option; are there any others? What about using the `Vacation' option? If that won't give you enough exponents, you can use the MaxExponents= setting (see undoc.txt) to get more. /* Steinar */ - -- Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/ _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:54:02 +0200 From: Yann Forget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Factoring with ECM Hi, Could you explain this to me ? I am factoring Fermat numbers with ECM. Is this relevant in this case ? Thanks in advance, Yann > Paul Leyland said: As long as the coefficients of the curve and the starting point are recorded, we can re-run exactly the same computation, with the small primes curtailed as in the p-1 case, on the same curve and the number c. It's because my software doesn't normally output the curve and starting point used that the idea hadn't occurred to me. Paul - -- Ionix Services, les services r�seaux d'aujourd'hui http://www.ionix-services.com/ Tel 04 38 12 38 90 Fax 04 38 12 38 94 _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 05:37:06 -0400 From: "Larry Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: LOST NUMBERS Hi ALL: This is a letter I sent asking what happened to the prime numbers I was working on. I am posting it here to remind people who are doing 10million digit numbers to log on at least once a month to update there page so this doesn't happen to them Hi Lawrence, I reviewed the server logs regarding these exponents and what has happened is the timeout period(60 days) that the server will wait prior to releasing them had expired. This is tied to your contacting the server so that Prime95 can update the expected completion date, you missed the window by 3 days. Is all your hard work(and subsequent credit) lost? No, although the server has already re-assigned them to another account it will still accept the results and properly credit your account for the completed work. Regards, Brad Bernard PrimeNet Support Engineer - -----Original Message----- From: Lawrence Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 5:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: not assigned Hi my name is Lawrence Murray and I have been running 2 10million numbers since september of last year 33220001 & 33219313 one is 49% done and the other is 63% done. when I went to upload the latest results it said that these numbers are not assigned to me I would like to know why they were taken away from me. My duel pentium 600mhz processor computer have been working on these numbers and nothing else for 9 months and I am not willing to loose the credit for all that work my computers have put into this. could you please straighten this out right away thank you LP Murray _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:38:02 +0200 From: Lem Novantotto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: LOST NUMBERS On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 05:37:06 -0400, in Mersenne_mailing_list you wrote: >Is all your hard work(and subsequent credit) lost? No, although the server >has already re-assigned them to another account it will still accept the >results and properly credit your account for the completed work. Hi! I think it would be nice to post the mersenne numbers you're still working to, and that have been reassigned, so, hopefully, the new tester can read them and stop his testing. Otherwise HE is going to loose time and credit. - -- Bye. Lem - ---------- 'CLOCK is what you make of it' ---------- _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:01:47 +0100 From: Tony Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Pointers on farming Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >>2. Which type of processor, memory etc will give the most bang for the buck? >> We rarely see anything beyond P2-250's, so I would have to pay retail for >>that. > Here is a calculation I did about six months ago AMD K6/2 500 MHz (plus fan) 45 pounds Sterling Super-socket-7 motherboard 45 pounds 32M 100Mhz RAM 20 pounds Old 486 to put it in 1 pound To this one should add the cost of electricity. The computer draws about 40 Watts. A Watt costs about 0.60 pounds per year. For, say, three years of computation, add 120 Watt-years of electricity 72 pounds ---------- Total 183 pounds That's 36.6 pence per MHz; or, since I am writing it off after three years, 0.389 pence per trillion cycles. - -- Tony _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:28:52 +0200 (CEST) From: Henrik Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: LOST NUMBERS On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Lem Novantotto wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 05:37:06 -0400, in Mersenne_mailing_list you > wrote: > >Is all your hard work(and subsequent credit) lost? No, although the server > >has already re-assigned them to another account it will still accept the > >results and properly credit your account for the completed work. > > Hi! > I think it would be nice to post the mersenne numbers you're still > working to, and that have been reassigned, so, hopefully, the new > tester can read them and stop his testing. Otherwise HE is going to > loose time and credit. Since first and double checks are credited equally(as far as I know), both should get credited with the same amount of work except for counting tests. Time spent on a doublecheck is only wasted if it's turned into a triplecheck and all three results agree. - -- Henrik Olsen, Dawn Solutions I/S URL=http://www.iaeste.dk/~henrik/ ZOOLOGY, n. The science and history of the animal kingdom, including its king, the House Fly (Musca maledicta). The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce. _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:03:26 +0100 From: "Michael Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Pointers on farming > >Here is a calculation I did about six months ago > >AMD K6/2 500 MHz (plus fan) 45 pounds Sterling >Super-socket-7 motherboard 45 pounds >32M 100Mhz RAM 20 pounds >Old 486 to put it in 1 pound > >To this one should add the cost of electricity. The computer draws about >40 Watts. A Watt costs about 0.60 pounds per year. For, say, three years >of computation, add > >120 Watt-years of electricity 72 pounds > ---------- >Total 183 pounds > >That's 36.6 pence per MHz; or, since I am writing it off after three >years, 0.389 pence per trillion cycles. > Warning on K6's: As far as GIMPS is concerned they're not too good, because the FPU is about half the speed of the Intel Pentium FPU. (If you run RC5 then they're as good, if not better, because they have very good integer units). This means that on GIMPS effectively you get 250MHz, so you get 73.2 pence per MHz. So providing you can find an AT form factor PII/Socket 370 Motherboard (which I managed to do last December), you can put a Celeron in instead, although a 500MHz Celeron costs about �85 instead of 45, you get back to your 37pence/MHz figure. Also note memory prices have gone up, so 32M now costs about �40-50!! Maybe this is the first time in recent history the price of a computer has stabilised?? Michael Bell. _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 09:52:30 -0700 From: Stefan Struiker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Factoring Assignments: Are They Always "First-Time?" TeamG: When a requested factoring assignment is listed with, say, 52 in an account log, does this mean it has been factored to 52 bits, but _without_ success? Or could a factor have already been found in some cases, but less than 52 bits long? My strategy in factoring 13.3 mill exponents and up, is to save L-L testing and DCing time by knocking some out early. Seem to be on a roll, too, with factors found 40% of the time, with a turnaround of 40 hours per. Tell me I'm not just a Foole For Factores, "Donne, Anne Donne, Undone," Stefanovic _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:00:57 -0700 From: Eric Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Factoring Assignments: Are They Always "First-Time?" Stefan Struiker wrote: >When a requested factoring assignment is listed with, say, 52 in >an account log, does this mean it has been factored to 52 bits, >but _without_ success? Or could a factor have already been >found in some cases, but less than 52 bits long? If it's listed as 52 in the fact-bits column of the report, it means that it's been trial-factored thru 2^52 without any factors being found. Currently, all exponents thru Prime95's limit of 79.3M have been factored to at least 2^50... If a factor is found for an exponent, it's eliminated from further testing of any kind. Eric _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:14:00 -0400 From: Jeff Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Factoring Assignments: Are They Always "First-Time?" At 01:00 PM 6/17/00 -0700, you wrote: >being found. Currently, all exponents thru Prime95's limit of >79.3M have been factored to at least 2^50... If a factor is >found for an exponent, it's eliminated from further testing >of any kind. Isn't the factor itself verified? _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ End of Mersenne Digest V1 #748 ******************************
