|
2010-09-15, 06:49
|
#1 |
Aug 2010
26916 Posts |
Redoing work?
I'm testing k=161 from n=1M and up using LLR version 3.8.1.
Today I found out from these threads: http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthr...t=12214&page=3 and http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=13889 that there was a bug in LLR which caused it to miss primes. Should I re-do all or part of my work? Just wondering. Last fiddled with by MooMoo2 on 2010-09-15 at 06:51 Reason: fixing link |
|
|
|
2010-09-15, 07:05
|
#2 | |
|
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)
3×2,083 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-09-15, 17:33
|
#3 | |
|
Aug 2010
26916 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Coordination thread for redoing P-1 factoring | ixfd64 | Lone Mersenne Hunters | 80 | 2021-01-19 17:17 |
| Redoing factoring work done by unreliable machines | tha | Lone Mersenne Hunters | 23 | 2016-11-02 08:51 |
| CUDALucas not redoing iterations with larger FFT | patrik | GPU Computing | 2 | 2014-09-12 00:56 |
| P-1: poorly P-1'd exponents that need redoing | James Heinrich | Marin's Mersenne-aries | 54 | 2008-04-07 20:27 |
| 5.98M to 6.0M: redoing factoring to 62 bits | GP2 | Lone Mersenne Hunters | 0 | 2003-11-19 01:30 |
