On Saturday 17 January 2004 02:32, Daran wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 07:15:46PM +0000, Brian J. Beesley wrote: > > ...matching > > residuals mean that the chance of an error getting into the database as a > > result of a computational error is of the order of 1 in 10^20. > > That's per exponent, isn't it? The chance that one of the roughly quarter > million status-doublechecked exponents being in error is about five orders > of magnitudes higher.
Sure. That's why I ran the project to triple-check a not inconsiderable number of smaller exponents where one (in some cases both) of the residues was reported to less than 64 bits, usually only 16. No discrepancies were discovered. > > Still acceptible, or at least a minor consern in comparison to the other > security issues. > It's easy enough - and computationally exceedingly cheap - to report more residue bits but, as you say, other issues are not so easy to fix. Regards Brian Beesley _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
