> > I may have missed this, but was there any final judgment on the Meganet
> >Corp. claim that they had a "deterministic and polynomial-time" prime
> >test? There were some discussions on the list early this year when they
> >first made their claim. But I don't recall reading about any resolutio
Brian Beesley wrote:
>On 27 Oct 99, at 17:23, Eric Hahn wrote:
>>
>> I'm looking for program(s) capable of trial-factoring
>> prime exponent Mersenne numbers (using 2kp+1) meeting
>> the following requirements:
>>
>> [...requirements...]
>
>Well, I'm prepared to have a go. Could we tighten up t
Mersenne Digest Wednesday, November 3 1999 Volume 01 : Number 655
--
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 19:35:03 -0800
From: Stefan Struiker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mersenne: MersenneInfo: What Happened?
To The MBase:
I hope this is not off-topic, but I saw that this
is under discussion ...
I am running a beta of Windows 2000, which is based
on NT 'technology', that being the more protective kernel and NTFS file system,
etc. It does have a Command Prompt, as Windows NT 4 had, which is basically the
same
command.com and cmd.exe have existed in NT since version 3.51, probably in
NTAS (ver 3.1) also.
Command.com runs, well, dog slow. It's 16 bit methinks, uses LOTS of cpu
time and is generally pretty lousy.
Furthermore, it doesn't support the cmd extensions that cmd.exe does.
CMD.EXE is 32 bit, i
"Blosser, Jeremy" wrote:
>
> Yeh, W2K has both cmd.exe and command.com. Odd thing is that command.com
> displays my typing REALLY REALLY slowly.
Blame that on command.com running as a protected mode application
under Windows on Windows. It's only around to keep legacy
compatibility. For amusem
> As far as 'Millenium'. I can't imagine there not being a DOS box. But then
> again, I've also heard that it might not ever come out.
fyi, millenium HAS dos in-a-window, it just won't have a realmode boot mode
(standalone dos). they are stripping the realmode stuff down to be JUST a
boot loader
First, the important disclaimer, necessary because of my posting address: I
do not in any way speak for Microsoft in what I write below, but only in a
personal capacity.
In the W2k betas that have been issued so far, there is a "CMD" command
which does pretty much what you'd expect.
bash has b
>Anybody care to port bash to Windows? (Oh well, it has probably been
>done already...)
It has been done, and you need only operate swans.
phma
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ
Yeh, W2K has both cmd.exe and command.com. Odd thing is that command.com
displays my typing REALLY REALLY slowly.
As far as 'Millenium'. I can't imagine there not being a DOS box. But then
again, I've also heard that it might not ever come out.
Lastly, bash has been ported to windoze already by
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 08:49:01PM -, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
>(Does anyone know for sure whether or not there's a DOS box
>in "Millenium"? I heard a nasty rumour...)
Don't know for sure. The problem to me, is finding out whether there
will _be_ a `Millennium' (based on 95/98 `technology'),
On 3 Nov 99, at 13:53, Alex Kruppa wrote:
> Ernst Mayer once mentioned to me that Prime95 needs twice the FFT size for 2^n+1
>numbers (compared to 2^n+1 numbers). Does that mean that George is using the identity
> 2^(2n)-1 = (2^n+1)(2^n-1) ? I was wondering why ECM on 2^n+1 numbers took much
>l
Alex Kruppa wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 2^n+1 numbers (compared to 2^n+1 numbers).
^
Ack! Typos, I _hate_ them! Must be 2^n-1 of course.
Ciao,
Alex.
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~lu
Hi,
Ernst Mayer once mentioned to me that Prime95 needs twice the FFT size for 2^n+1
numbers (compared to 2^n+1 numbers). Does that mean that George is using the identity
2^(2n)-1 = (2^n+1)(2^n-1) ? I was wondering why ECM on 2^n+1 numbers took much longer
than on 2^n-1 of the same size..
That
14 matches
Mail list logo
