> 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
At 05:40 PM 12/4/2001 -0500, Nathan Russell wrote:
>>12348829 103 F 9722991869324431663702571958950 22-Feb-01 07:48
>
>Is this a bug in the reporting software?
>Something really odd is going on.
Yes. The structure used to pass back factors found only supports factors
up to 32 digits. The
At 10:28 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Henk Stokhorst wrote:
(as part of a listing of factors found by himself)
>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
Gordon Spence wrote:
>
> Currently my team report cleared list shows 338 double checks and 12
> double checked factored including this monster
>
> 6630223 87 DF 195139088771490335223859559 07-Apr-01 07:58 trilog
>
> (In fact when it was checked in PrimeNet initially rejected it because
> it was
