ECPP and related comments
- At 07:00 AM 4/9/01 -0700, Phil Carmody wrote:
> > Below is a 3474 digit number proved prime using Titanix. However, sinceNow there's a pot calling the kettle black ;-)
> an EC
> > test was not required until the 25th test (which was a 140 digit number), I
> > don't think that this really counts as the ECPP record.
I appreciate (I think) all the help in finding holes in "the rules" and I
(I know!) the enthusiasm of all of you. I wish I was completely up to the
task. Part of
the problem is the current format of the lists database, it is quite
difficult to add numbers
that do not have a short form. Partly this is by design, I have a strong
the numbers in print, and would like folks to bend thier efforts toward the
"the community" has declared interesting. For ECPP, this would especially
such things as the large PRP's from the Cunningham project...
In the past we decided that "APRT-CL assisted" could not be stamped on a prime
for which the classical tests handle all of the early steps. (This came
from a helpful
discussion started by Hans Rosenthal) This (I think) should extend
to the ECPP case. So I hardily agree with Paul as he writes:
On Mon, 09 April 2001, "Paul Jobling" wrote:
> Below is a 3474 digit number proved prime using Titanix. However, since
> test was not required until the 25th test (which was a 140 digit number), I
> don't think that this really counts as the ECPP record.
Of course Andrey pointed out the most glaring problem when he mentioned
what I should have noticed--each ECPP proof is usually a chain of ECPP
primes. I am not at all sure how to handle this one. I lean towards
At 11:38 PM 3/28/01 -0800, Bouk de wrote:
>A solution to this problem could be to no longer have
>a top 20 of ECPP primes with the possible exception of
>the record holder ..
The idea of viewing each entry as a chain had appeal, but you know yourselves,
you would not be able to resist leveraging off one prime to create another.
For right now I am going to do nothing with the list; I will continue just
including the "short form" ECPP primes and listening to the discussion.
It may be that comments which refer to the proving method are just not
viable in the long run.
I am also slowly getting ready to modify the list. I have MySQL/PHP
running on one of my servers and as a test case spent much of Christmas
vacation translating the Prime Curios! database over. It may come on-line
before too long. Perhaps this summer I can get to the Prime
list... But as some of you know, I am slow... to many pans on the fire...
But thanks again for the enthusiasm, suggestions, trouble making
and all! You have been great!