Brian Beesley wrote: > On 12 Nov 2001, at 23:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] > > Consequent elimination of once-L-Led Mnumbers by second-round > > factoring would account for some of the difference, though I doubt > > there've been 30,000. [snip] > 70,000 double check assignments would be expected to find about > 2,000 factors.
So you agree with me that second-round factoring would account for some of the difference, but not 30,000 -- right? > > In addition, some folks have concentrated on factoring Mnumbers > > that have been L-L tested but not yet DC'd, specifically in order > > to reduce the number of necessary double-checks. > > Eh? Doesn't it make more sense to concentrate on factoring > Mnumbers that haven't yet been L-L tested? That way "success" in > finding a factor reduces the number of LL tests, as well as > (eventually) the number of double checks. Surely you don't mean to suggest that someone who receives a PrimeNet double-checking assignment that starts with some trial or P-1 factoring should stop, return that DC assignment to PrimeNet, then specifically request an assignment of factoring a Mnumber that hasn't yet been L-L tested, because that would make more sense than doing the second round of factoring on the once-L-Led Mnumber, do you? :-) Another way of looking at what those to whom I referred are doing is that we (I'm there) are performing the extra-factoring portions of potential future DC assignments. If we don't do that, whoever gets the future DC assignment will do it, so there's really no wasted effort. It's just a redistribution of work that would be done sooner or later anyway. As an old punchline goes: "If you don't, someone else will!" Ahem. Richard B. Woods _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
