Jason Clements wrote:
> The message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> contains these words:
>
>> The error rate is around 3,2 % (From the last statistic files : 32404 bad
>> results and 1001016 verified results.)
>
>> In other words one test in 31 is bad. Enough to justify double-checking
>> in George Woltman's and many others opinion.
>
> Indeed - way more than enough to justify double-checking !
> I hadn't realised the error rate was so high....
>
> Thanks for this, and Ken's, response
> Jason
IMO...
Even if double checking of negatives never revealed an
error, it would be worth doing as a QA measure, that is test
of the software. The purpose of testing is to verify proper operation.
Testing a "known factor" is much easier than locating one.
That figure (3.2%) seems very high to me. Perhaps there is a
defect hiding out in there.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
_______________________________________________
Prime mailing list
[email protected]
http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
