I would NOT encourage using the gpl for this, it's far too restrictive,
and the fact that the security stuff isn't included in the public code
would actually be in direct violation of it.
I am curious, what about the GPL do you find restrictive?
-Chuck
--
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Eric Hahn wrote:
What I'm looking for is the following two items for *all*
Mersenne numbers 2^p-1 where p is prime and p1:
It can be proven that there are an infinite number of these.
1) All known factors (including, but not limited to,
the smallest known
What I'm looking for is the following two items for *all*
Mersenne numbers 2^p-1 where p is prime and p1:
It can be proven that there are an infinite number of these.
Yeah, right, I knew that... I guess I should've clarified
and said for all of them that the information is known :(
If
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, George Woltman wrote:
At 03:01 PM 9/18/99 -0400, Darxus wrote:
I have a question though. Why make the Linux source dependant on code
which needs to be assembled under DOS, when there is an assembler for
Linux (as) ?
There is a ton of assembly source code.
On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Conrad Curry wrote:
There are several programs that can convert between intel and gas, but
usually require some help in converting. One that can convert between
NASM or MASM or Gas is at http://hermes.terminal.at/intel2gas/
Note that this program was designed to
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 03:02:34AM -0500, Conrad Curry wrote:
Though if the object file is available and can be converted, I don't
see the advantage of compiling from the source.
The main advantage the ability to change it in any way, especially if you
don't _have_ MASM at all (ie. building
All (and especially Chris),
Yesterday (and the day before), I went to the Illinois number theory conference.
There (2nd talk of yesterday) J. P. Selfridge announced that he would
give away $1000 US for any factor found of a number which ought to be
prime (he provided a list). On that list was
Oopsy. That should have read J. L. Selfridge
-lucas
_
Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Hi Lucas
Yesterday (and the day before), I went to the Illinois number theory
conference.
There (2nd talk of yesterday) J. P. Selfridge announced that he would
give away $1000 US for any factor found of a number which ought to be
prime (he provided a list). On that list was 2^(2^31-1)-1.
It would be easier to convert the source from MASM to NASM. Both use
intel syntax. NASM is free and its source code available. This is a list
of the object formats it supports.
if I recall correctly, the assembler code also makes extensive use of the
MASM macro facilities to generate
On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, poke wrote:
I would NOT encourage using the gpl for this, it's far too restrictive,
and the fact that the security stuff isn't included in the public code
would actually be in direct violation of it.
I am curious, what about the GPL do you find restrictive?
A
On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Lucas Wiman wrote:
All (and especially Chris),
Yesterday (and the day before), I went to the Illinois number theory conference.
There (2nd talk of yesterday) J. P. Selfridge announced that he would
give away $1000 US for any factor found of a number which ought to be
Hi folks,
After Lucas Wiman's (re)discovery of the factor of M(M(31)), I made some
comment about M(M(p)), something which of course has been long known to not
always be a prime whenever M(p) is. (M(M(13)) is the first counterexample
and even has a factor found by Keller).
Of course, the
Of course, the sequence that still remains unknown is
2
M(2)=3
M(3)=7
M(7)=127
M(127)=170141183460469231731687303715884105727
M(170141183460469231731687303715884105727)=???
Yes, this sequence is interesting, but if someone finds a way to prove/
disprove the primality of M(M(127)), I
At 08:51 PM 9/19/99 -0400, you wrote:
prime, unless we find a factor. Interestingly enough, when we find the next
Mersenne prime, searching for a factor of M(M(p)) might allow us to find an
even bigger prime. If for example, 6*M(p)+1 divides M(M(p)), then it must
be prime!
Which one must be
even bigger prime. If for example, 6*M(p)+1 divides M(M(p)), then it must
be prime!
Before anybody gets overexcited at the last posting...
It is TRUE that if 2k.M(p)+1 divides M(M(p)), M(p) is prime, and k2M(p)+2,
then 2k.M(p)+1 is prime.
However, unless I'm mistaken, non-divisibility does
Hi there Lucas...
The reason is relativly clear: the work of checking *even one* factor of
M(M(p)) is greater than the work required for an LL test on that number.
This is because of the need for p squarings modulo some number greater
than M(p).
Yes, however there is a rather curious
From: Darxus
Iteration: 164000 / 8410531 [1%]. Clocks: 115665753 = 0.496 sec.
Might be nice to display the percentage out to an accuracy that
changes every hundred iterations.
If you're using version 19, add "PercentPrecision=3" to the prime.ini file.
If you want more than three decimal
Might be nice to display the percentage out to an accuracy that changes
every hundred iterations. Hmm, looks like that's an integer of the
percentage, not rounded. Guess it doesn't matter. For the one I'm
working on it looks like 3 decimal places would be needed to see a change
every 100
Iteration: 164000 / 8410531 [1%]. Clocks: 115665753 = 0.496 sec.
Might be nice to display the percentage out to an accuracy that changes
every hundred iterations. Hmm, looks like that's an integer of the
percentage, not rounded. Guess it doesn't matter. For the one I'm
working on it looks
From: Eric Hahn
P.S. At the 79.3M range, you'll probably not want to set it
at 100 iterations... Per iteration time on 266MHz PII with
64MB RAM is 58.781 seconds!!!
The only question that comes to mind is if you had to plough through
factoring before you got to the LL test...but then I
21 matches
Mail list logo
