Aaron wrote:
> For the most part though, it seemed that once upon a time there was
> a problem with poachers who just took small exponents from people
> who were actually still working on them, and simply ran them on a
> faster machine or something. That's the sort of thing that gives
> us "respec
Gordon Spence wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:28:04 -0500
>> From: "Richard Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Poaching -- Definition (was: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest
V1 #1038)
>>
>> Paul Missman wrote:
>>> I know that this might be earth shattering news for you,
>>> but there is no suc
Paul Missman wrote:
> I do wonder at your assertion that, were I to discover a large
> prime by a self written program, I would have to publish the
> program along with the discovered prime. I'd imagine that, as
> long as the number could be verified by independent means, it
> would be an publisha
At 01:19 AM 1/29/03 +0100, =?utf-8?Q?Torben_Schl=C3=BCntz?= wrote:
17914693 at helly will expire very soon according to the 60 days
rule. And I can't do anything about it. It just will happen.
No biggee. I think I've already picked up and completed one of helly's
expiries. Most likely
Hi Ernst!
You bring up an interesting point about the
software, I suppose. I never thought that George or Scott considered the
software proprietary. I'd think that a basic Lucas-Lehmer type software
could be written without too much headache, though I've never tried my hand at
it.
I do
Fra: Mary K. Conner
Sendt: ti 28-01-2003 06:36
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Emne: Re: Mersenne: An officially sanctioned poach
17035867 351.0 JohnMartin Don
17137801 351.0 JohnMartin Don
17211269 351.0 JohnMartin Don
17914693 384.5 tschelly
18
At 10:02 AM 1/28/2003 -0800, you wrote:
Far be it from me to tell you that you are wrong, but that is not at all
consistent with what I observe with my own exponents. For instance,
exponent 19373911 shows a 9 right now, it connected a short while ago and
the machine is early in the 66 bit pass
Ah, nothing to get one's sluggish blood moving than a juicy discussion about
poaching and other number-theoretic high crimes.
Spike66 (Hiya, Spike!) wrote
>Please, fellow math lovers, do let us get
>things in the proper perspective here. GIMPS
>is just for fun.
Yes, but like most other recreati
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 06:08, Mary K. Conner wrote:
>
> I'm speaking of triple or higher checks where all residues
> agree. The only reason to do those other than the exponents that have only
> 16 bit residues is to check for cheating. If those kinds of checks need to
> be done, they ought to
Thanks for the insight that some of these exponents might be reporting no
progress because they were manually reserved and running on a UNIX or MAC
box.
I've pruned the list a little bit and released the exponents.
_
Unsubscr
At 10:08 AM 1/28/03 -0500, George Woltman wrote:
At 09:36 PM 1/27/2003 -0800, Mary K. Conner wrote:
Garo identified some Team_Prime_Rib exponents in there.
I'll exempt all Team_Prime_Rib exponents
Looking at the other exponents in the factoring range
I'm not worried about reclaiming factori
At 10:00 AM 1/28/03 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The tsc machines show some very odd behavior. The exponents do a "red
> light, green light" game. One exponent I've been following started at 5,
> went to 2, back up to 5, then ran all the way up to 15 before dropping
back
> to nothing an
At 09:36 PM 1/27/2003 -0800, Mary K. Conner wrote:
Garo identified some Team_Prime_Rib exponents in there.
I'll exempt all Team_Prime_Rib exponents
Looking at the other exponents in the factoring range
I'm not worried about reclaiming factoring assignments right now.
The tsc machines show
> The tsc machines show some very odd behavior. The exponents do a "red
> light, green light" game. One exponent I've been following started at 5,
> went to 2, back up to 5, then ran all the way up to 15 before dropping
back
> to nothing and now it shows a 1. Others are similarly dancing aro
14 matches
Mail list logo
