At 04:07 PM 9/30/2001 -0700, Daniel Swanson wrote:
I went through the Cleared Exponents
report looking for other examples of factors found during
double-checks that
should have been found during the initial factorization.
5977297 53 DF6726544627832489
6019603 57 DF
I believe the idea of trying to skip P-1 factoring was talked about
within
the last 3 or 4 months. Apparently there are people who would just
prefer
to get credit for doing LL work than to find factors.
This is why I like that you loose credit for a LL-test if someone else
finds a
Carleton Garrison wrote:
[? wrote:]
This is why I like that you lose credit for a LL-test if someone else
finds a factor later, or if two other independant checks prove your
result to be wrong.
Me too. I understand that George's top producer page does this, while the
PrimeNet stat
Steve Harris wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Mersenne: Re: Factoring Failure?
snip
Either way, GIMPS
has never considered missing a factor as a big
Jean-Yves: Did you check to see if any or all of the exponents cleared by
tomfakes matches with the exponents I found in the 701-702 range?
List: Three new small factors have been turned in in the past few days.
The list in the 70x range is now
7019297 57 DF 160100125459121849
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 18:29:52 -0700, Gerry Snyder
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, at least in theory, every Mersenne number proven non-prime will
eventually be factored. Again, to me, so what? At least the LL test
showed that further factoring activity would eventually succeed.
It might be
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:52:42 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However if it could be established that all the missed factors
reported were the work of one user, perhaps it would be worth fixing
the database to force rerunning of trial factoring for those factoring
assignments run by that user
