On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 07:10:24PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that you
>think that using 64-bit residuals is more reliable than using 16-bit
>residuals? If so, then surely you'll grant that 256-bit residuals
>would be even more reliable yet, meaning
Hi all,
Another news story (a good one) a little ahead of schedule:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1693000/1693364.stm
In the last 24 hours, Guillermo Ballester Valor's Glucas run and Paul
Victor Novarese's run using Ernst Mayer's program have completed
and proved the number pr
one more time, I'm offering a ride to anyone and everyone who wants to be
picked up in the santa cruz or los gatos areas, leaving santa cruz around
5pm friday... I've got a brand new 7 passenger full sized van (Ford E150
'Traveler'), and 7 *is* a Mersenne prime number (2^3 - 1)...
anyone wants a
On 5 Dec 2001, at 21:23, Nathan Russell wrote:
> However, when the client does contact the server (every 28 days by default,
> IIRC), will it not get an "this assignment does not belong to us"?
>
But the test will continue if it is underway. If it isn't the first entry in
worktodo.ini the resu
On 5 Dec 2001, at 22:33, George Woltman wrote:
> > > No. The server never contacts the client. That's too much of a security
> > > risk in my book.
Correct. Though I suppose the server could automatically e-mail a
warning to the user that their assignment has been pre-empted.
> >
> >That isn'
I've got two questions:
1) I have a P4 1.9 GHz with PC800 ram that is testing an exponent in the
333X range,
and it is getting approximately 0.180 sec/iteration when completely idle
on Windows 2000.
According to the benchmark on mersenne.org, it should be around 0.143.
Am I losing cycles
some
At 05:26 PM 12/6/2001 -0500, Paradox wrote:
>1) I have a P4 1.9 GHz with PC800 ram that is testing an exponent in the
>333X range,
>and it is getting approximately 0.180 sec/iteration when completely idle
>on Windows 2000.
>According to the benchmark on mersenne.org, it should be around 0.143
At 05:26 PM 12/6/2001 -0500, Paradox wrote:
>1) I have a P4 1.9 GHz with PC800 ram that is testing an exponent in the
>333X range,
>and it is getting approximately 0.180 sec/iteration when completely idle
>on Windows 2000.
>According to the benchmark on mersenne.org, it should be around 0.143
Dated December 4:
http://www.lescienze.it/index.php3?id=4383
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
- Original Message -
From: "George Woltman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 4:50 PM
Subject: Mersenne: More on M#39
> I presume Scott will now try get the story really rolling in the press.
> Let's wish him luck.
Can you let us know when we
At 12:50 AM 12/7/2001 +, Daran wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: "George Woltman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 4:50 PM
>Subject: Mersenne: More on M#39
>
>
> > I presume Scott will now try get the story really rolling in the press.
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
