The error rate is around 3,2 % (From the last statistic files : 32404 bad results and 1001016 verified results.)
In other words one test in 31 is bad. Enough to justify double-checking in George Woltman's and many others opinion. Jacob > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 2008-06-22 13:58 > To: The Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search list > Subject: Re: [Prime] Double-checking > > It's like taking system backups... 99% of the time it's a > wasted effort, but it's worth doing because of the other 1%. > > Ian > > > ------Original Message------ > From: Jason Clements > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: The Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search list > ReplyTo: The Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search list > Sent: 22 Jun 2008 11:31 > Subject: [Prime] Double-checking > > I've set one of my computers to run double-checking as it's > not switched > on full time. > Which leads me to wonder: how often does double-checking actually come > up with a different result from the original ? > > In other words, how valuable an activity is it ? > Thanks > Jason Clements > _______________________________________________ > Prime mailing list > [email protected] > http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime > > > Sent from my BlackBerryR wireless device > _______________________________________________ > Prime mailing list > [email protected] > http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime > _______________________________________________ Prime mailing list [email protected] http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
