Hi Gerry, At 11:03 AM 12/1/2001 -0800, Gerry Snyder wrote: >I must be having a senior moment. I would swear George said that one way >a person could lose credit for a correct LL test is if later factoring >finds a factor.
This is because my rather limited reporting software only adds up the LL results in the verified and one-LL-tests databases. Once an exponent is factored it is removed from those databases. >Is my feeble brain making this up, or is finding a factor more important >than stated above? I prefer a factor to a double-check. But it is hard to quantify "prefer" in a mathematical formula for computing trial factoring limits. Prime95 uses the formula: cost_of_factoring must be less than chance_of_finding_a_factor times 2.03 * the cost_of_an_LL_test. This should maximize GIMPS throughput. The 2.03 is because we must run two (or more) LL tests to do a double-check. -- George P.S. I'll comment on the M#39 news later. For now lets celebrate our grand accomplishment rather than worry about non-optimal press coverage. _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
