> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 09:26:01PM +0000, david eddy wrote: > > It figures that if one iteration has a non-sero probability of rounding > > error > > then 30,000,000 of them will have 100% error rate.
> > You seem to be assuming that > > a) all iterations will have the same probability of rounding error, and that > b) the probabilities are independent. > > I'm not sure if I want to accept any of those off-hand, especially as the end > result doesn't go well with real-life data. > > /* Steinar */ This was not a proposition from Wittgenstein:) Under very general assumptions: The chance of 30,000,000 successful iterations is zilch unless each iteration is practically a certainty. The point I have been trying to make is that IF the probability of an erroneous LLtest for a particular exponent were say 5% for a particular FFT length, then it would cost more time to test and check it using a 20% larger FFT (with negligible chance of error). We may still prefer not to risk the 5% chance of error on a first time LL test, but anyway the number of exponents involved in the debate is negligible since the chance of error rises so abruptly from zero to 100% David Eddy _________________________________________________________________ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d _______________________________________________ Prime mailing list [email protected] http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
