[quote=Kevin;176715]He even capitalized "Big Iron", how could I pass up the chance?[/quote]
I thought he was bragging about the size/weight/rigidity of his
appendage for a minute, until I twigged he was talking about his
latest hardware.

I can't resist either:
I was looking for the original version of "Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes"
but meantime here's another ditty from your namesake:
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUS31_0ARqY&feature=related[/URL]

Saw him several times. Hope you like it.

[QUOTE=davieddy;176698]Apparently there are lots of possible values you can use for S(0) (the next one being 10) but everyone is using 4.
David[/QUOTE]There are only 3 possible universal seeds for the LLT: 4, 10, and 2/3. See the [URL="http://www.mersennewiki.org/index.php/Lucas-Lehmer_Test#Initial_Values_of_LLT"]Wiki[/URL].
However, for one Mersenne number to test, you could build many (2^(q-2)) other seeds. But they do not apply to all Mersenne numbers.
Tony

[QUOTE=joblack;176671]Such a trickery...[/QUOTE]I'm saying the truth.
Tony

[QUOTE=davieddy;176710]Tony Reix (aka T.Rex)[/QUOTE]T.Rex means: Tyrannosaurus Rex . :smile:
Tony

[quote=T.Rex;176731]T.Rex means: Tyrannosaurus Rex . :smile:
Tony[/quote]
You thought I didn't know that?
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19IqwU3itFk[/URL]
Memories:smile:

PS I taught in Barnes for fifteen years, within a mile
of the tree he wrapped his Mini-Cooper around.

PPS when I said a Mersenne prime might be expected in ~3/4 years,
I meant ~ 3 OR 4 years, not 0.75 years.

David

Finally reached the half-way point.

[QUOTE=joblack;176671]If they have willingly changed the exponent (and let the people check out the wrong one) it's very bad and I will be more than annoyed. Such a trickery is unacceptable and I will think about stopping support for the project if such methods are accepted ... :furious:[/QUOTE]Hehe, relax dude, it is just part of the whole GIMPS thing. It is in the (I believe that it is a mistaken) belief that someone will try to "steal the thunder" of the discovery, so they just do a little trick here or there so that until the official announcement is made no one will believe anyone else that claims to have discovered something. Anyhow, it is only a week+ that you have to wait, no big deal. And also kind of fun to chase down a mystery for some of the folks here. Get with the game, don't fight it.

[quote=T.Rex;176730]I'm saying the truth.
Tony[/quote]

Grmpf ... from now I will believe no one until the second check is finished =).

[quote=philmoore;176689]Lycorn, you wrote that George said in this thread that no mechanism to disguise the exponent in the server reports had been implemented. I didn't see that, I only saw that he said that the server did not send out the expected emails. But on the other hand, look at Tony's stats:
1624000/.38075=4265266
1624000/.38085=4264146
In this range, how many exponents were finished between April 12th and June 4th? Not very many. I would be very suspicious that the fake exponent would be chosen that close to the true exponent.[/quote]
Interesting. When I try querying an "Exponent Status" report for 4264146-4265266, 42643801 doesn't even show up on the list (despite obviously being a valid exponent). Possibly something fishy here?

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;176757]Interesting. When I try querying an "Exponent Status" report for 4264146-4265266, 42643801 doesn't even show up on the list (despite obviously being a valid exponent). Possibly something fishy here?[/QUOTE]

Look at the numbers carefully (count the digits if you wish) and you will easily figure out why... :devil:

[QUOTE=lycorn;176759]Look at the numbers carefully (count the digits if you wish) and you will easily figure out why... :devil:[/QUOTE]

Sure are a lot of exponents already double-checked in that range...