Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [PrimeNumbers] Sixteen or Bust

Expand Messages
  • Yves Gallot
    ... It s not clear for me and the goal of a proof is to convince other people. Something like: The primality of the number was proved with Proth s theorem for
    Message 1 of 34 , Dec 1, 2002
      > The context of their message shows _clearly_ that they have checked the
      > primality using one of the following softwares:
      > (a) your Proth.exe
      > (b) PFGW
      > (c) or their self written program

      It's not clear for me and the goal of a proof is to convince other people.
      Something like: "The primality of the number was proved with Proth's theorem
      for a=3 with our self written program and double-checked with PFGW or
      Proth.exe" would be a proof for me.

      > But the 5 largest known primes were discovered this way

      The search was not yet automized for 2^1398269-1 and 2^2976221-1.
      You can continue to reserve a number, test it yourself and send your result
      to the GIMPS. That's very important!

      Yves
    • Ken Davis
      Hi All, I must say that it distresses me greatly to see such rancour amongst such great minds. I never realised that people were reserving( proclaiming
      Message 34 of 34 , Dec 2, 2002
        Hi All,
        I must say that it distresses me greatly to see such rancour amongst
        such great minds.
        I never realised that people were reserving( proclaiming exclusive
        right to) ranges of k's, n's or whatever.
        I thought the idea was to make it known that you were searching a
        particular area so that other people didn't waste CPU cycles redoing
        work.
        My decision to select n!11-1 to search based on the fact that it was
        marked as free was not so much that it was marked as free but that I
        was sure that I wasn't redoing someone elses work.
        With !n there are an infinite number of choices so I didn't have to
        tread on any toes.
        With only 17 sierpinski K available, and as is obvious from SOB,
        100's of willing searchers how could we expect one person to be able
        to search one K for what could be years.
        Again I state I am currently searching n!11-1 (n=1-200000) n!11+1 (1-
        200000) and n!2(30000-50000). I have 13 machines searching various
        ranges some top-down but intend to complete all 3 ranges (including
        redoing 35K of numbers which were done with my p4). If somone thinks
        it is worth their time also tesing within theses ranges the so be it.
        I DON'T own them, there just numbers!
        cheers
        Ken
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.