TorbenS wrote
> No you wouldn't because they would like yourself go to do only >factoring work, Only factoring work? I found over 95% of those on a single P133...... Brian Beesley wrote >I've triple-checked thousands of small exponents - some of the >ones where the accepted residual was recorded to only 16 bits or >less, which makes the chance of an undetected error _much_ >greater (though still quite small) - so far no substantive errors in the >database have come to light. A very few (think fingers of one hand) >instances of incorrectly matched residuals have come to light - >completing the double-check in these cases proved that one of the >recorded residuals was correct. Currently my team report cleared list shows 338 double checks and 12 double checked factored including this monster 6630223 87 DF 195139088771490335223859559 07-Apr-01 07:58 trilog (In fact when it was checked in PrimeNet initially rejected it because it was longer than this sort of check was supposed to find! Has anyone found a factor bigger than 87 bits using Prime95?) Of course some of these may be because the original check went to a lower bit depth than the version of Prime95 that I used. I know from doing "deep factoring" in the 60m range that one more bit of factoring can find a "lot" of extra factors...So if we say that as a ballpark figure half of these are due to an increase in factoring depth, then the error rate from this admittedly small sample is 1.78% or in other words of the current 137,924 exponents less than 20m with only a single LL test we can expect to find just under 2500 exponents with an incorrect result. regards Gordon _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
