Mersenne Digest Monday, May 14 2001 Volume 01 : Number 851
--
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:14:07 -0400
From: "Joshua Zelinsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: 26 exponents
Nathan Russel wrote:
> >Hmm... well, then again, I'm looking at the NTPrime. I've only got one
> >machine running Prime95, and it's been so long...
> >
> >I thought it had all the same options though, but I could just be
terribly
> >mistaken.
> >
> >Running NTSetup (part of the NT service package), I show version
20.
At 09:44 PM 5/14/2001 -0400, Nathan Russell wrote:
>However, that is still drawing a distinction between new and
>experienced users.
Well, how about this - new users can get an exponent that has been
abandoned several times, but they must check in at least once a month to
report the percentage
At 09:44 PM 5/14/2001 -0400, Nathan Russell wrote:
>However, that is still drawing a distinction between new and
>experienced users.
Well, so what if it does? It is an extremely minor difference. New users
would still get first time LL tests - it just means that they wouldn't get
exponents t
At 08:23 PM 5/14/2001 +, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
>On 14 May 2001, at 8:45, Nathan Russell wrote:
>
> > >First of all, as Jud notes, the 'elitism' is already there, in that
> different
> > >machines get treated differently in the assignments that they are given.
>
>Sorry, I don't buy that. Eve
On Mon, 14 May 2001 20:23:45 -, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
>On 14 May 2001, at 8:45, Nathan Russell wrote:
>
>> >First of all, as Jud notes, the 'elitism' is already there, in that different
>> >machines get treated differently in the assignments that they are given.
(To clarify, I did not writ
On Mon, 14 May 2001 18:17:10 -0700, Aaron Blosser wrote:
>Hmm... well, then again, I'm looking at the NTPrime. I've only got one
>machine running Prime95, and it's been so long...
>
>I thought it had all the same options though, but I could just be terribly
>mistaken.
>
>Running NTSetup (part of
On Sat, 12 May 2001 16:04:17 -0400, Jud McCranie wrote:
>At 03:26 PM 5/12/2001 -0400, Nathan Russell wrote:
>I think that's more of a 'quick fix', and might make new participants
>>feel that GIMPS doesn't trust them.
>
>Yes, but a new user need not know that they don't get an exponent that has
>
Hmm... well, then again, I'm looking at the NTPrime. I've only got one
machine running Prime95, and it's been so long...
I thought it had all the same options though, but I could just be terribly
mistaken.
Running NTSetup (part of the NT service package), I show version 20.6.5...
Aaron
-
On Mon, 14 May 2001 17:27:19 -0700, Aaron Blosser wrote:
>> On 14 May 2001, at 19:04, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
>> > There is already a mechanism where people can opt in or out of being
>> > notified if an assignment is due to expire.
>>
>> There is? At the risk of looking dim, what is it?
>
>In th
Hi,
At 04:41 PM 5/14/2001 -0700, Aaron Blosser wrote:
> > That's about a factor six faster than the P2/350 I just sold,
>
>Hmm... your P4 at 1.3GHz should, on face value, be 3.8 times faster, and
>according to George, you should be seeing an extra 3 times improvement in
>the P4 execution for an o
Hi,
At 11:38 PM 5/14/2001 +0100, Thomas Womack wrote:
>When I run it on my K62/333 laptop, the self-test tries to test M5242881
>with a 256k FFT, gives an excess-roundoff-error message and dies; this is
>presumably a bug.
Yes, apparently I broke the old FFT code Another good reason for
only
> On 14 May 2001, at 19:04, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
> > There is already a mechanism where people can opt in or out of being
> > notified if an assignment is due to expire.
>
> There is? At the risk of looking dim, what is it?
In the "user information" config window, you enter your email address
> The P4's PSU fan seems to step up a gear when I've been running Prime95
for
> a few hours, though the CPU temperature reported by Intel Active Monitor
on
> my D850GB board doesn't go about 46C. I suspect the P4 probably runs too
hot
> for it to be possible to build a really quiet solution, but d
I've just collected the beta of version 21, to run on my P4 at home.
When I run it on my K62/333 laptop (which I was using as a portable disc
having downloaded the beta at college), the self-test tries to test M5242881
with a 256k FFT, gives an excess-roundoff-error message and dies; this is
pres
> > >Secondly, if - when I ask the server to give me "whatever kind of work
makes
> > >most sense" - it gives me something else, whether out of spurious
concern for
> > >my feelings or for any other reason, then not only are the programmers
> > >betraying my trust in them, they are also indicating
Mersenne Digest Monday, May 14 2001 Volume 01 : Number 850
--
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 11:03:50 +0200
From: mohk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Pentium 4 owners - pre-beta prime95 release availabl
> >Sorry, I just felt the urge to say this. There is nothing particualarily
> >bad about Outlook Express, these various viruses require you to excute
> >attachments, and you can do that in any mail client..
>
> Not true! With Outlook Express all you have to do is read the message.
> The virus can
> > I'll try to keep this a little bit on-topic... Does this mailing list
do
> > any sort of virus scanning? I know you can't post to the list unless
you're
> > actually on the list, but any scanning going on?
>
> No there isn't any virus scanning going on.
>
> There is however a message limit t
On 14 May 2001, at 8:45, Nathan Russell wrote:
> >First of all, as Jud notes, the 'elitism' is already there, in that different
> >machines get treated differently in the assignments that they are given.
Sorry, I don't buy that. Every system has exactly the same chance of
picking up any given a
On 14 May 2001, at 9:08, George Woltman wrote:
> At 01:02 AM 5/14/2001 -0700, xqrpa wrote:
> >Is ordinary factoring code also present ("Factor Only") and is
> >there a corresponding speed-up?
>
> The factoring code is present but unchanged. Thus, no speedup.
... except for the fact that the sl
Nathan Russel wrote:
>Are you suggesting that, every time George offers exponents to the
>members of this mailing list, he should send out a newsletter to every
>participant - guaranteeing hundreds or thousands of replies for him to
>deal with? I think there may be no good solution to this.
Hav
>Sorry, I just felt the urge to say this. There is nothing particualarily
>bad about Outlook Express, these various viruses require you to excute
>attachments, and you can do that in any mail client..
Not true! With Outlook Express all you have to do is read the message.
The virus can be embedde
On 13 May 2001, at 19:41, Nathan Russell wrote:
> >Another nice thing would be if people who have submitted several results
> >that don't match other people's results they could be notified that they
> >may have a hardware problem.
>
> I can't help wondering whether some users would find that
On 13 May 2001, at 20:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> True, for composite c, not all factors of 2^c - 1 need have form
> 2.K.c + 1; for example, if c = 15, 2^c - 1 = 7.31.151, and the
> smallest factor, 7, does not have the form 2.K.15 + 1. However,
> if we do not know any of the factors of c, th
> I'll try to keep this a little bit on-topic... Does this mailing list do
> any sort of virus scanning? I know you can't post to the list unless you're
> actually on the list, but any scanning going on?
No there isn't any virus scanning going on.
There is however a message limit that tends to
> >Sorry, I just felt the urge to say this. There is nothing particualarily
> >bad about Outlook Express, these various viruses require you to excute
> >attachments, and you can do that in any mail client.. If any other mail
> >client gets as popular as OE, then it will start to have viruses aimed
On Sun, 13 May 2001 20:39:34 -0400, George Woltman wrote:
>At 07:46 PM 5/13/2001 -0400, Nathan Russell wrote:
>>As it stands, I notice that PrimeNet is given assignments only a few
>>tens of thousand of exponents in advance. Is this done so that you
>>have more flexibility, or is it a technical
Hi all,
The 6 available small exponents are long since gone. One had a
P-1 factor found this morning. I've had one other LL result reported, so
we're at 20 below M#38 and counting
Embarrassingly, the P4 version I announced 2 days ago fails the
self-test. You would have tho
Chris, I don't think he was bashing Outlook PER SE -- just the version
number in question. There have been MANY MANY security fixes to OE since
that release, which came with Internet Explorer FOUR a few years
back. Even the granola OE that comes with IE 5 (v5.00.2314.1300) has been
radically
At 01:02 AM 5/14/2001 -0700, xqrpa wrote:
>Is ordinary factoring code also present ("Factor Only") and is
>there a corresponding speed-up?
The factoring code is present but unchanged. Thus, no speedup.
Regards,
George
_
Un
On Mon, 14 May 2001 00:20:47 +0100, Daran wrote:
>As someone currently running a legacy machine, (It's taking 4-5 months to run
>double-checks in the range under consideration,) I have some thoughts on this.
>
>First of all, as Jud notes, the 'elitism' is already there, in that different
>machine
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 09:24:00PM -0400, George Woltman wrote:
>So. the first 6 folks that email me privately can have one exponent each.
Yes please -- if there are any left by now :-)
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/
_
Is ordinary factoring code also present ("Factor Only") and is
there a corresponding speed-up?
What a prospect: doing a 33M exponent L-L in about 60 days!
Thanks And Best Wishes,
Stefanovic
xqrpasuper
- Original Message -
From: George Woltman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTE
34 matches
Mail list logo
