Am I just wrong in thinking this?
I fully agree with your opinions above[1], but you are wrong when you
make your own rules based on these opinions, and try to force other
people to follow your rules and not the commonly accepted ones. I don't
want to play with people who don't follow the
You will notice that in an email from George he said he does occasionally go
through the database and release those exponents that don't look like they will
be done by his own criteria and that he discourages "poaching". I would think
that you would trust him, and just get new exponents
Hey, guys, this is not strictly mersenne related, but I think we all
deserve a laugh.
Microsoft have just released a patch for all versions of Win 9x (_all_
versions of Win 95 _and_ Win 98) which (is claimed to) resolve a
problem with systems hanging after 49.7 days continuous
operation.
or, more concisely, (1+1+1)^(1+1) + 1.
Can anyone represent that number in fewer than (1+1+1)! ones?
This all depends on what operators and notations are accepted and
without specifying that, the whole question is useless.
What about without any ones at all: (With C++ operators)
The existence of this file is _not_ a joke.
(not a direct quote, force of habit, I deleted the message before I
could respond).
Yes, but it seems like a joke to us Linux users out there,
for whom 2-day patches are not uncommon...
-Lucas Wiman
lrwiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has been mentioned several times recently that factoring is all integer
work, and LL testing is nearly all floating point.
It is my understanding that on intel CPU's, these are done on separate parts of
the CPU. Would it increase net performance to do
lrwiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It has been mentioned several times recently that factoring is all integer
work, and LL testing is nearly all floating point.
It is my understanding that on intel CPU's, these are done on separate parts of
the CPU. Would it increase net performance to do
Microsoft have just released a patch for all versions of Win 9x (_all_
versions of Win 95 _and_ Win 98) which (is claimed to) resolve a
problem with systems hanging after 49.7 days continuous
operation. Only took them four years to find out that this might be
an issue ;-)
The reason
Microsoft have just released a patch for all versions of Win 9x (_all_
versions of Win 95 _and_ Win 98) which (is claimed to) resolve a
problem with systems hanging after 49.7 days continuous
operation. Only took them four years to find out that this might be
an issue ;-)
The reason it
I was just wondering, could anyone give me any info on how factoring is
done, is there a preliminary factoring before numbers send out, how high
we factor, what possible factors are, etc. and also, I would really like
to see the maths behind it as well. I need something to study over summmer
vac
On Sun, Jun 13, 1999 at 11:26:56PM -0600, Aaron Blosser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But hey, this is just my opinion. After I test this little teeny tiny group
of numbers, I won't poach anymore and you can all do whatever, but I still
think it's a good idea to "clean house" every now and then.
### Are we better off with or without these machines? ###
This is the question people have been asking you and that you have been
avoiding. It seems to me you are of the opinion that if a
machine doesn't meet
*your* standards of processor power or network connectivity, we
should just
The other (like with Peltier junction coolers) is that they
often generate
as much heat as they dissipate.
Often? _Always_! (Second law of thermodynamics. If you find this
is violated, get a patent immediately, you have a prototype
pertpetual-motion machine).
Zing! Ya got me! :-)
What
---Aaron Blosser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about another option Aaron? You touch anyone's
exponents...especially mine and I report you to the FBI for
stealing?
DAMNITI sure as hell hope the above message was in jest. You
better not play around with my exponents (or anyone
At 06:09 AM 6/14/99 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reason it took so long is that it wasn't until now that ANYONE
had Win9x run that long without rebooting.
I might have actually hit that problem and not realized it. Until recently,
for many months I had my old P-120 running in another
First of all, no, none of those exponents are mine. I have tons of
machines running Prime95 and I'm pretty high up on the list of
producers It's just that I think you're way off base on this...and I'm
sure other people on this list think the same too. whine, complain,
etc. George, (or
Mersenne Digest Monday, June 14 1999 Volume 01 : Number 576
--
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 19:30:17 -0400
From: George Woltman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
Hi all,
At 11:46 AM
At 11:26 PM 6/13/99 -0600, Aaron Blosser wrote:
This is supposed to be fun, and your behaviour makes it the oposite. I
don't want to stand guard over my exponents, sending in false progress
reports to make you stay away from them.
Hey, whoa. I'm not asking anyone to send in false status
So basically, you are on some sort of drugs or something?
I hate to jump to my brother's defence here, but I think that the point was
to prove 100% that M37 was really M37 and not M38 or M39 or whatever, thus
being able to get rid of the '?' on the GIMPs page. :)
I think that in the spirit of a
Since the agner.org server seems to be down, if you want a copy of this doc,
e-mail me and I'll e-mail it to you (Don't want to waste massive bandwidth).
I'd mirror it, but my stupid internet provider only allows me to upload via
their dial-in (doh!).
Oh well.
---snip---
There's the good doc
My policy is to put all slower computers and those which aren't on 24/7
(such as computers at school) to work for distributed.net. I find they can
do a lot more useful work cracking rc5 than they would do sitting on
Mersenne exponent.
Of course this is just my opinion, as I'm not so fond of
Actually, your a need not be a positive integer. Any non-zero Real,
Complex, quaternion, Hamiltonian, Cayley or Sylvester number will do...
among others...
JT
- Original Message -
From: Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 1:03 AM
Subject:
Original Subject: RE: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575
This strand is getting kinda emotional. So we ask the director, "What is my
motivation?" Hmm.
I do GIMPS because it is fun. I am not a big contributor but I have a total
of 5 machines running. Two months ago, I had two machines
"Blosser, Jeremy" wrote:
Okay, so apparently there are some people out there crying because someone
might "steal" their exponents (and turn people into the FBI)
I think my brother brought up a valid point, that being that there are
exponents that people are "sitting" on, and it is holding
"Aaron" == Aaron Blosser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote the following on Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:16:28 -0600
Aaron Certain tools are better suited to certain jobs. Find the
Aaron job that your slower computer is best suited for and go for
Aaron it.
I think this argument also applies to your
On 14 Jun 99, at 6:41, lrwiman wrote:
We will of course have to check factors considerably further than we are doing
on our current exponent range (due to the increased LL iteration time.)
Yes - on the principle that it's worthwhile to spend 5% to 10% of the
LL testing time attemptimg to
At 07:40 AM 6/14/99 -0600, you wrote:
Sheesh, well it has been a rough past week... :-) Call it "testing the
waters". I'm good at that. To my knowledge, the issue of poaching numbers
has never been discussed (on the list anyway), so at least we got to talk
about it. We now know that some
Aaron Blosser wrote:
One nut is working on total immersion of his system in oil, with
an air-conditioner coil submersed as well. This would solve the problem of
condensate, but there is concern that the mineral oil will break some of the
components on the board.
I like the idea, but
From the GIMPS page:
"You could be the first person to find a 1,000,000 digit prime number!
However, these exponents take quite a while to test. A 200 MHz Pentium
computer will take 4 weeks to test a single exponent! These ranges are
definitely not recommended for 486 or Cyrix 6x86 owners."
Aaron Certain tools are better suited to certain jobs. Find the
Aaron job that your slower computer is best suited for and go for
Aaron it.
I think this argument also applies to your computers...why not put
your faster computers on the bigger exponents where they are needed,
instead
Mersenne Digest Monday, June 14 1999 Volume 01 : Number 577
--
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 08:51:12 -0400
From: Bryan Fullerton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575
On Sun, Jun
lrwiman wrote:
*never ever* cheap out on power supplies.
This is good advice, but personally I have never seen the
point of giving every machine in a rack of computers its own
power supply rather than having one big one and just running
DC all the way up the rack. The fact that it is not
Chris Nash wrote:
maybe every electronic device in my house will be
squaring and subtracting 2 in its idle time.
voice character="futurist" aspect="tut-tut"
make that every stitch in your clothing
voice
David Nicol
At 11:29 AM 6/14/99 -0500, Paul Becker wrote:
I've got a slower computer working on this project, and I've been
involved for perhaps two years. My machine IS contributing to the
project 24/7, and I'd like that to continue.
How long is it taking per exponent? What % complete is it for the one
Brian,
We will of course have to check factors considerably further than we are
doing on our current exponent range (due to the increased LL iteration time.)
Yes - on the principle that it's worthwhile to spend 5% to 10% of the
LL testing time attemptimg to find at least one factor before we
Mersenne Digest Monday, June 14 1999 Volume 01 : Number 578
--
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:21:46 -0700
From: Michael Gebis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575
"Aaron" ==
We will of course have to check factors considerably further than
we are doing on our current exponent range (due to the increased
LL iteration time.)
Yup. And don't forget that the larger the exponent, the fewer the
possible factors in a given range (e.g., from 0 to 2^40 or 0 to
Daren Scot Wilson writes:
I've switched from Linux to BeOS - entirely, not even dual-booting
both. Same hardware as before - PII 400 MHz. BeOS is POSIX
compatible, has TCP/IP, but the file system is offbeat, and from
what I hear most linux software needs a little bit of tweaking
Yvan Dutil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One weird bahavior: 5292757. Which as appear to have been resetted
recently by its 'owner' to an duration as long as the initial one!
Obviously, someone got dinged with the v17-v18 upgrade. I pity them...
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
I thought that if no check-in was done in 60 days, the number was put back in
the pool.
No, if no check-in has been done in 60 days _after the exponent was expected
to complete_, it is put back into the pool. Of course, once in a while,
the
All you GIMPS-ers...
Today while I was mindlessly working my body on a treadmill to attempt
to maintain some kind of decent physical condition, I had a thought (it
wasn't intentional... it just happened, honest!).
Has anybody tracked the value of "S" in the LL test?
When you square S over and
Hi all,
1) The problem is solved for all v16 and later clients. In other
words it is 99% solved. Even if you check out a first time LL test on a
P-75 the existing system will not time you out as long as you are running
the program regularly. The Primenet status reports will show the
At 08:06 PM 6/14/99 -0500, Gary Diehl wrote:
When you square S over and over and over in one LL test, does that same
value of S come up in a test for another exponent?
It could, but I don't think that helps since for each exponent the calculations
are done to a different modulus.
*never ever* cheap out on power supplies.
This is good advice, but personally I have never seen the
point of giving every machine in a rack of computers its own
power supply rather than having one big one and just running
DC all the way up the rack. The fact that it is not done
that way
Sounds about right for a SWAG estimate.
SWAG?
SWAG stands for Scientific Wild-Assed Guess - translation: educated guess
-Lucas Wiman
Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
45 matches
Mail list logo
