Re: Mersenne: Spacing between mersenne primes

2001-05-18 Thread Steve Harris
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

Overriding assigned exponent type (was Re: Mersenne: Re: 26 exponents)

2001-05-18 Thread tom ehlert
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

Re: Overriding assigned exponent type (was Re: Mersenne: Re: 26 exponents)

2001-05-18 Thread tom ehlert
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 =

Mersenne: Different results

2001-05-18 Thread Denis Cazor
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

Re: Mersenne: Different results

2001-05-18 Thread Nathan Russell
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.

Re: Mersenne: Different results

2001-05-18 Thread Aaron Blosser
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

Mersenne: Re: Different results

2001-05-18 Thread Steinar H. Gunderson
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?

Re: Mersenne: Different results

2001-05-18 Thread Jeff Woods
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

Re: Mersenne: Re: Different results

2001-05-18 Thread Aaron Blosser
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

RE: Mersenne: Different results

2001-05-18 Thread Hoogendoorn, Sander
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

Re: Mersenne: Different results

2001-05-18 Thread Nathan Russell
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

Re: Mersenne: Spacing between mersenne primes

2001-05-18 Thread Steve
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

Re: Mersenne: Different results

2001-05-18 Thread George Woltman
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:

Re: Mersenne: Spacing between mersenne primes

2001-05-18 Thread George Woltman
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

Re: Mersenne: Spacing between mersenne primes

2001-05-18 Thread Nathan Russell
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

Mersenne: Apple vs. GIMPS

2001-05-18 Thread Russel Brooks
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...