ll, what I'm saying is, it seems to be a moot point in 99.%
of the cases I can imagine.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:mersenne-invalid-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of George Woltman
> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 11:25 AM
> To: Gar
Yes George,
A list of all bad results would be an excellent idea. It would go
a long way in helping us keep tabs on our computers and at the same time
keep the stats junkies - like those on Team Prime Rib :-) - accurately
informed on their contribution or lack thereof.
Anurag Garg
_
At 07:28 PM 8/9/2002 -0700, Gary Edstrom wrote:
>That brings to mind another question. I was wondering what you
>do when you detect an error during double checking. Do you notify the
>person that sent in the erroneous result so that he can check out his
>computer further?
No, for several reason
On Mon, 05 Aug 2002 15:09:55 -0400, George Woltman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 09:58 AM 8/4/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>>I was curious about how often the PrimeNet server detects a problem in a
>>double-check result and has to re-submit the exponent for another round
>>of testing.
>>
>>I looked ar
I was curious about how often the PrimeNet server detects a problem in a
double-check result and has to re-submit the exponent for another round
of testing.
I looked around the GIMPS web pages and couldn't find any figures.
Thanks, Gary
_
