http://www.academicpress.com/inscight/11302001/grapha.htm
_
Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Warut Roonguthai wrote:
http://www.academicpress.com/inscight/11302001/grapha.htm
Look like the cat is out of the bag now - it's 2^13,466,917 - 1. Was
this early publication indended? I thought the press release was due
only after the independent double check completed, but then they quote
At 05:47 PM 12/1/2001 +0100, Alexander Kruppa wrote:
Look like the cat is out of the bag now - it's 2^13,466,917 - 1. Was
this early publication indended? I thought the press release was due
only after the independent double check completed, but then they quote
Tim Cusak of Entropia, which makes
It looks to me like someone goofed in publishing this, for a few
reasons. The article consistently gets the definition of Mersenne
numbers wrong. While it does mention something about the expoential
2p, it claims that Mersenne numbers are of the form 2p - 1, that
the previous Mersenne prime
Steve Harris wrote:
Actually, Richard's statement that a 'Factored' status is better for GIMPS
than a 'Two LL' status is not quite true. It's better for the mathematical
community as a whole, but not for GIMPS. GIMPS is looking for primes, not
factors, and without skipping over any.
Hmmm,
I thought it was a bit nasty in the last paragraph. The author doesn't know
why people search for Mersenne primes, so it must be stupid.
Check the attributions, it was written by someone at Science News.
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/
Bob Farrington
12/1/2001 10:53:47 AM PST, [EMAIL
On 1 Dec 2001, at 17:47, Alexander Kruppa wrote:
Warut Roonguthai wrote:
http://www.academicpress.com/inscight/11302001/grapha.htm
Look like the cat is out of the bag now - it's 2^13,466,917 - 1. Was
this early publication indended? I thought the press release was due
only after
This might run anything; but I'm probably to stupid to manage to set
up anything on it. :-/ Can anyone use this machine as is for any
purpose related offcourse to primechruncing?
If the system has a C compiler, you can certainly run LL tests
using Glucas.
No C compiler; not even
Hi Gerry,
At 11:03 AM 12/1/2001 -0800, Gerry Snyder wrote:
I must be having a senior moment. I would swear George said that one way
a person could lose credit for a correct LL test is if later factoring
finds a factor.
This is because my rather limited reporting software only adds up the
LL
George did say that, and I was aware of his statement, but that still has no
effect on the point I was making.
George's GIMPS stats also give no credit at all for finding factors, but
that doesn't mean he considers finding factors worthless.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Gerry Snyder
10 matches
Mail list logo
