On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 12:55:36 +0000 (UTC), Olivier Latinne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My theory is completely general, for 2^p-1 and 2^p+1, I can prove and > there is of course no exceptions. Because I'm also a skeptic, I have > build, for instance, a specific ultrafast program (of factorization) and > I have check for p up to 1000 billion. > > > 2.Can it compute faster than current methods to prove these numbers? > > I suppose you mean that the new tests I have found are faster than the > Lucas-Lehmer test? Right now, I have no idea! It's because I'm concentrate > essentially > on the FUNDAMENTAL theoretical interest of what I have found.
What do you mean you have no idea? You just said in the paragraph above that you have built a program and tested it for p up to 1000 billion. Surely then you must have an idea of how long it takes for your software to run with a specific p value compared to a Lucas-Lehmer test. Why don't you post some specific p values you have tested and then give us the wall-clock time it took for your software to run for those p values (including the type of machine you ran it on). Jeff. _______________________________________________ Prime mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
