On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 07:10:24PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that you >think that using 64-bit residuals is more reliable than using 16-bit >residuals? If so, then surely you'll grant that 256-bit residuals >would be even more reliable yet, meaning that there's still room for >error in our practice of using 64-bit residuals.
Given that the chance of error (given that it is a random error and no program error) of a wrongly matched 64-bit residual is about 0.00000000000000000542%, I think you'll agree that a 64-bit residual would be sufficient. :-) /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
