At 08:13 AM 3/10/01 +0100, you wrote:
>this without any polemic spirit, please belive me, enjoy yourself and try to
>explain yourself why it is tolerable to wait one year or more for testing
>M(33250000) and is not tolerable to wait eight years for testing M(3250000):
>is it the first figure really more important than the first just because of
>its size?
Actually, the latter is more important (to me) because of its proximity to
the lower boundary of untested numbers. Not knowing the former is of
little importance today in comparison, because there are substantially more
untested exponents below it.
I'm only saying that I'd rather see the profject working a bit more
linearly, as opposed to "first come first served" now, so that all machines
can contribute while at the same time, we make linear progress from zero
forward, instead of expending the bulk of our efforts on exponents double
or higher above those untested ones.
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
