Nathan Russell wrote:
> I might note that it's impossible to encrypt something so it cannot
> be copied exactly; even now, it is very common for pirate DVD
> manufacturers to simply copy the original disc byte for byte, without
> even needing to crack the encryption.
I guess "grey bits" never ca
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:22:11 -, Brian Beesley wrote:
>On 20 Mar 2001, at 13:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Phil Carmody's 'illegal prime')
>I take it "illegal" means that the particular number contains a
>representation in some form of language f
On 20 Mar 2001, at 13:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This has probably already been posted to the list by
> others, but as I get it in digest form, I can't say for
> sure.)
>
> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/03/17/1639250.shtml
>
> The numberin question is a 1401-digit probable prime.
> I've
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:17:02 -0500, George Woltman wrote:
>Hi all,
>
> As promised, the server now has about 1000 small exponents
>to give out for triple-checks.
Out of curiousity, am I the only one who, while running triple-checks
by arrangem
> "EWMAYER" == EWMAYER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote the following on Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:35:08 EST
EWMAYER> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/03/17/1639250.shtml
EWMAYER> The numberin question is a 1401-digit probable prime. I've
EWMAYER> asked Phil Carmody whether it's been rigorou
Hi all,
As promised, the server now has about 1000 small exponents
to give out for triple-checks.
Also, the server has about 1000 new exponents between 7 million and
12 million to assign for first-time tests. These exponents were tested once
but had at least one ROUNDOFF > 0.4 o
This has probably already been posted to the list by
others, but as I get it in digest form, I can't say for
sure.)
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/03/17/1639250.shtml
The numberin question is a 1401-digit probable prime.
I've asked Phil Carmody whether it's been rigorously
proven prime, or me
