Richard,
Your first interpretation of "verified" residues is correct, they are
retested until two residues match. Any time a double-check reports in a
residue which is different from the first LL test, the exponent is returned
to the database to be tested again. This means that at least one of th
At 07:15 PM 12/5/2001 -0800, Mary Conner wrote:
> > No. The server never contacts the client. That's too much of a security
> > risk in my book.
>
>That isn't exactly what I meant. Given that his exponent has been expired
>and assigned to me, if he then checks in later to report further progres
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, George Woltman wrote:
> >On a purely technical note, In the event that the other person does
> >eventually check back in, is there a mechanism in place to either tell his
> >machine or mine that it should abandon the exponent
>
> No. The server never contacts the client.
At 08:40 PM 12/5/2001 -0500, George Woltman wrote in reply to Mary Conner:
>>On a purely technical note, In the event that the other person does
>>eventually check back in, is there a mechanism in place to either tell his
>>machine or mine that it should abandon the exponent
>
>No. The server ne
Brian,
I'm wondering whether we may be misunderstanding each other's
contentions here. I thought you object to at least some of what I
claimed, but now it seems that you're presenting arguments and
evidence that support what I'm claiming.
Since my previous postings may have had careless wording
At 02:40 PM 12/5/2001 -0800, Mary Conner wrote:
> > David Slowinski discovered that M1257787 was prime
> > - when George's own computer was only a few days from finishing that
> > very exponent!
One other "what could have been" note.
I owned two computers at the time.The P-90 was testing 125
At 02:40 PM 12/5/2001 -0800, Mary Conner wrote:
> > To make matters worse, Slowinski delayed the announcement of the prime
> > as he "was out of town" for a while - which turned out to be the better
> > part of half a year. I think I would have flipped. Living for half a
> > year with such a freak
On 5 Dec 2001, at 6:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Brian Beesley wrote:
> > On 3 Dec 2001, at 20:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [... snip ...]
> > > I think our record shows that a verified factor is still
> > > slightly (by a minute but nonzero margin) more reliable an
> > > indicator of composit
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Alexander Kruppa wrote:
> David Slowinski contacted George, asking him wether Prime95 could test
> numbers >1 million bits. He had just discovered that M1257787 was prime
> - when George's own computer was only a few days from finishing that
> very exponent! David also asked
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 4 Dec 2001, at 17:59, George Woltman wrote:
>
> > >Case 1: I finish first, find a prime and announce my discovery. I did
> > >the work but the exponent is assigned to you! Who gets the
> > >credit???
> >
> > You, get the credit. User b will be mighty disheartened
Best idea is to look at your account status page and find the exponents
for that machine on there.
I made the mistake of rebuilding my laptop the other day and while I had
backed up everything else, I forgot to backup the directory with
ntprime. Argh... fortunately it wasn't too far along on the
My hard drive crashed, and I have almost certainly lost all of the GIMPS
data for the exponent I was working on and 4 more I had in the queue. The
initial trial factorization had been done on all of them and the first one
was just about 4 days from completion. What should I do about these los
On 4 Dec 2001, at 17:59, George Woltman wrote:
> >Case 1: I finish first, find a prime and announce my discovery. I did
> >the work but the exponent is assigned to you! Who gets the
> >credit???
>
> You, get the credit. User b will be mighty disheartened. I know first hand.
> Slowinski's Cray
On 4 Dec 2001, at 20:36, Gordon Spence wrote:
> >I've triple-checked thousands of small exponents - some of the
> >ones where the accepted residual was recorded to only 16 bits or
> >less, which makes the chance of an undetected error _much_
> >greater (though still quite small) - so far no subst
Several list members have been kind enough to point out to me that 2^n is
the smallest n+1 bit number - not the smallest n bit number - in the saeme
way that 10^1 is the smallest 2-digit number.
Nathan
_
Unsubscribe & list
Brian Beesley wrote:
> On 3 Dec 2001, at 20:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[... snip ...]
> > I think our record shows that a verified factor is still
> > slightly (by a minute but nonzero margin) more reliable an
> > indicator of compositeness than two matching nonzero LL
> > residues.
>
> AFAIK ou
> Is this a bug in the reporting software? I don't have the
> tools to work it out exactly, but a 103-bit number should be slightly
larger
> than 2^103, or
Nope. A 103-bit number N should lie in the range 2^102 <= N < 2^103.
> Something really odd is going on.
Perhaps this small example w
Nathan Russell wrote:
>> 12348829 103 F 9722991869324431663702571958950 22-Feb-01 07:48
>> SCUM C7375CE26
>
>
> Is this a bug in the reporting software? I don't have the tools to
> work it out exactly, but a 103-bit number should be slightly larger
> than 2^103, or
> 101412048018
18 matches
Mail list logo
