Hi,
At 11:07 AM 4/2/2002 -0800, Mary K. Conner wrote:
>Looking at the status report right after the synch, I could see that a
>very few results from between 7.7M and 9.9M or above 16.8M were removed,
>and most were left behind.
Correct. This is an artifact of our kludgy merge program written
At 03:13 AM 4/2/02 -0800, Aaron wrote:
>I think there's always some of that when they do a database sync.
>
>What truly puzzles me is that I *still* have exponents showing up on my
>status page (thus, apparently not synchronized) going back to March of
>*last* year. Again, that has always been th
At 11:28 AM 4/2/2002 +0200, Henk Stokhorst wrote:
>Does this signify some results have been judged invalid and need retesting?
> 5059 7
> 808945 1
> 100 109 2
> 11000
I think there's always some of that when they do a database sync.
What truly puzzles me is that I *still* have exponents showing up on my
status page (thus, apparently not synchronized) going back to March of
*last* year. Again, that has always been the case, where some exponents
I have finished
L.S.,
Does this signify some results have been judged invalid and need retesting?
YotN,
Henk Stokhorst.
--- Mersenne Exponent Test Distribution Map ---
Exponent Range Trial Factoring Lucas-Lehmer Double Checking
Avail Out Factd
