On 1 Dec 2001, at 17:39, George Woltman wrote: > 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.
The other problem here is that the "known factors" database does not include the discoverer. > > 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. Again there is a complication, since the ratio of time to do factoring assignment X to time to do LL/DC assignment Y varies according to the processor. e.g. PIIs are relatively quick at factoring, whereas P4s are much more efficient LL testers. > > 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. Hear hear. Congratulations to the discoverer (whoever he/she is), to George on his program finding a fifth Mersenne Prime, and to everyone involved in the project, without whom we wouldn't have reached this milestone. Regards Brian Beesley _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
