I don't agree with Phil on this.
If I would take the first R of the certificate of the
La Barbera record who's gonna stop me from adding it
as a prime to Chris Caldwell's database? It would be
the beginning of a new chain of primes.
As I see it the first 19 R's of the certificate
Giovanni and Marco have produced are all ECPP primes.
The problem is that an ECPP prime can be added on it's
own merit. A cunningham chain has it's own merits that
are clearly defined. An ECPP prime doesn't have to.
--- Phil Carmody <fatphil@...
> On Wed, 28 March 2001, Bouk de wrote:
> > Smart thinking from Andrey. He's absolutely right.
> > A solution to this problem could be to no longer
> > a top 20 of ECPP primes with the possible
> exception of
> > the record holder if it can't be archived as a
> > top 20 entry.
> > As David already pointed out only a few primes
> > have to be removed from the list. I personally
> > mind losing one. But I can only speak for myself.
> Mine was just a silly stunt, and has served its
> purpose. Better than I could have first hoped.
> However, through slight rewording the list could
> remain the same. The entry in the table could be
> considered to be for the /chain/ of titanic primes
> that result from its proof. It certainly ought to be
> acknowledged that the ECPP proof does create a whole
> chain of Titanic primes. For example, my cunningham
> chain of length 15 is one record on Warut's table,
> not 15, etc.
> Mathematics should not have to involve martyrdom;
> Support Eric Weisstein, see
> Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> Unsubscribe by an email to:
> The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.