Hi,
At 01:25 AM 9/12/00 -0400, Robert Deininger wrote:
> Found 132497 unique exponents.
> 136 of them had duplicated records.
> 52 of them had ONLY duplicated records.
>
>2. There are few enough bad cases that processing them by hand shouldn't
> be too hard.
>
>3. A l
A big round of applause to Colin Percival and the PiHex distributed
computing project which finished yesterday.
The project has now ended, though their web page says that there
will be future projects under the name idlepower.net and states:-
To those who cannot or do not wish to follow me to thi
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 4:06 AM, Brian J. Beesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 11 Sep 00, at 23:43, Robert Deininger wrote:
>> Maybe non-prime95 results are so rare they aren't worth thinking about.
>
>(I take it you're using Prime95 as a general label covering mprime,
>NTPrime etc. as well i.e.
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 4:06 AM, Brian J. Beesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 12 Sep 00, at 1:25, Robert Deininger wrote:
>
>> 4. The "duplicates only" tend to be the bigger, more recent exponents.
>
>... in the range (exponents over 6 million) where we don't yet expect to
>have had double-check
> George Woltman wrote:
>If the first and second tests were done by the same user, then my program
>prompts me as to whether I really want to accept this result. I usually
>accept the double-check for the following reasons:
> 1) It is not uncommon for top producers to get assigned a
>
On 11 Sep 00, at 23:43, Robert Deininger wrote:
> I'm not particularly worried about intentional cheating, just accidents.
That seems reasonable.
> OTOH, there isn't anything like a verification code on the manual check-in
> page.
This would be fairly hard to arrange. The point is that most of
On 12 Sep 00, at 1:25, Robert Deininger wrote:
> 4. The "duplicates only" tend to be the bigger, more recent exponents.
... in the range (exponents over 6 million) where we don't yet expect to
have had double-checking assignments?
>
> 5. The duplicates were reported by various programs - mos
