Random distribution of Mersenne primes does indeed mean we may not find
another one for years, but it also means we may find the next two just a few
weeks apart.
There is also a nearly random order in which the first-time LL tests are
_completed_. Assignments are being given out around exponent
Hi all,
some thoughts on reaching milestones earlier:
Assigned Exponents Report 18 May 2001 10:00
total
52819
to automatically generated User ID like S012345 [1]
10621 = 20%
to automatically generated Computer ID like C01234ABCD [2]
17870 = 33%
both
I might have added:
assigned to User ID and Computer ID like . C01234ABCD
5322 = 10%
cleared by by User ID and Computer ID like . C01234ABCD
165 = 0.3%
assignments, that are next to be reassigned (timetogo -50 days)
all 1549
S12345 471 =
Hello,
1) When testing a new Pc, I obtain two different results from the old and the new one
M9357637 is not prime. Res64: BCB1164E6826255E. WW1: C4F561C3,5448242,
M9357637 is not prime. Res64: BCB1164E6826255E. WW1: C4F261C3,5448242,0003
Are this results compatible ?
2) I often
On Fri, 18 May 2001 15:49:06 +-200, Denis Cazor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
1) When testing a new Pc, I obtain two different results from the old and the new one
M9357637 is not prime. Res64: BCB1164E6826255E. WW1: C4F561C3,5448242,
M9357637 is not prime. Res64: BCB1164E6826255E.
1) When testing a new Pc, I obtain two different results from the old and
the new one
M9357637 is not prime. Res64: BCB1164E6826255E. WW1:
C4F561C3,5448242,
M9357637 is not prime. Res64: BCB1164E6826255E. WW1:
C4F261C3,5448242,0003
Are this results compatible ?
2) I often
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:47:10AM -0700, Aaron Blosser wrote:
The WW1 is part of Scott's security check, just to make sure it's not been
falsely generated or some such. I assume part of it is related to the date,
time, or some other such thing which is why there's one part that's
different?
At 03:49 PM 5/18/01 +, you wrote:
1) When testing a new Pc, I obtain two different results from the old and
the new one
M9357637 is not prime. Res64: BCB1164E6826255E. WW1: C4F561C3,5448242,
M9357637 is not prime. Res64: BCB1164E6826255E. WW1: C4F261C3,5448242,0003
The
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:47:10AM -0700, Aaron Blosser wrote:
The WW1 is part of Scott's security check, just to make sure it's not
been
falsely generated or some such. I assume part of it is related to the
date,
time, or some other such thing which is why there's one part that's
Hello,
1) When testing a new Pc, I obtain two different results from the old and
the new one
M9357637 is not prime. Res64: BCB1164E6826255E. WW1:
C4F561C3,5448242,
M9357637 is not prime. Res64: BCB1164E6826255E. WW1:
C4F261C3,5448242,0003
Are this results compatible ?
The 64 bits
On Fri, 18 May 2001 10:38:49 -0400, I wrote:
This issue, at least, I can deal with. The two results are the same,
but as it happens, in order to reduce the chance of a fatal code bug,
Prime95 'shifts' the initial inputs into its calculations by a certain
amount; that is why the last number in
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 07:52:48PM -0500, Ken Kriesel wrote:
At 10:56 AM 5/16/2001 -, Brian J. Beesley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another point - we're coming up to the second anniversary of the
discovery of M38(?) - I think we're overdue to find another one!
It would be nice to find
Hi all,
At 03:49 PM 5/18/2001 +, Denis Cazor wrote:
1) When testing a new Pc, I obtain two different results from the old and
the new one
M9357637 is not prime. Res64: BCB1164E6826255E. WW1: C4F561C3,5448242,
M9357637 is not prime. Res64: BCB1164E6826255E. WW1:
Hi,
At 02:44 PM 5/18/2001 +0100, Steve wrote:
Another point - we're coming up to the second anniversary of the
discovery of M38(?) - I think we're overdue to find another one!
It would be nice to find another soon. But I don't think we're overdue.
The Sept 30, 1999 status.htm page
On Fri, 18 May 2001 14:47:49 -0400, George Woltman wrote:
Another way to look at it. Roughly speaking supercomputers owned the
region below 1.3M, GIMPS above that. We've roughly tested three doublings
1.3M to 2.6M, 2.6M to 5.2M, 5.2M to 10.4M. There are 1.78 an
expected Mersenne primes per
I'm contemplating getting a Apple, probably an IMac. I think
I've seen Gimps for the Apple, am I right? How well does an
Apple running Gimps compare to a Pentium/Win* combination?
Of sourse Gimps wouldn't be the only thing I run but I would
like to run it on any pc I have access to.
Cheers...
16 matches
Mail list logo