--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, Phil Carmody <thefatphil@...> wrote:
> Sent to just me by mistake, bringing back on-list.
> --- Dirk Augustin <Dirk_Augustin@...> wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:10:34 -0000
> > From: "Dirk Augustin" <Dirk_Augustin@...>
> > To: "thefatphil" <thefatphil@...>
> > Subject: Re: Amazing Coincidence
> > ....
> > I checked three of them and directly discovered three prp's that are
> > smaller than those that are listed:
> > 10^12012+30879 < 10^12012+60387
> > 10^16000+7749 < 10^16000+23967
> > 10^16001+3921 < 10^16001+15757
> Perhaps a systematic double-check should be done, it's not exactly
> showing a particularly good hit-rate so far.
Thx for reposting my message here, Phil.
I now send an e-mail to Patrick de Geest and gave him the
proposal to mark all prp's where he is unsure if they are
nearest to 10^n with something like "not yet double checked".
I also retested Milton's nice coincidence that the smallest prp's
above 10^n for n=12990 and n=12991 have the same k=11163. And in
this case his statement was correct.