It seems a W_p is prime implies an LLT with seed 6. ([URL="https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL13/Luca/luca33.pdf"]reference[/URL]) Tony, did we use 27 in the LLR runs? :ermm:

[offtopic]Hey, that guy was my colleague, we were in the same class at the university in '90/91, he was really brilliant in math, but a bit nerdie... :wink:
edit: his uncle was also teaching differential equations and partial derivatives there
[/offtopic]

Apparently, LLR uses 3/2 as the seed, and [URL="http://tony.reix.free.fr/Mersenne/SummaryOfThe3Conjectures.pdf"]this paper[/URL] says one can use 1/4, but I see no proofs :ermm:

[QUOTE]Anton Vrba has provided a proof for the sufficiency of Conjecture 2, but
failed to prove the converse.[/QUOTE] Do you have a link to Anton's proof?

Edit: Found [URL="https://trex58.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/wagstaffandfermat.pdf"]this one[/URL] by Robert Gerbicz. So our years of Wagstaff PRP crunching was sound. :smile:

[QUOTE=paulunderwood;409611]It seems a W_p is prime implies an LLT with seed 6. ([URL="https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL13/Luca/luca33.pdf"]reference[/URL]) Tony, did we use 27 in the LLR runs? :ermm:[/QUOTE]

Yes. I've seen that recently. Robert Gerbicz used 3/2 mod N and Anton Vrba used 6, in 2008 October.
See: [URL="https://trex58.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/wagstaffandfermat.pdf"]Gerbicz[/URL] and [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=144848&postcount=44"]Vrba [/URL].
Berrizbeitia's paper is 2010. But Melham's paper is 2008, final version received 2007, April 17. Melham first.
Melham, Vrba, and I thought about the same LLT ideas and provided different proofs (with different seeds, but that is not an issue).

[QUOTE=LaurV;409627][offtopic]Hey, that guy was my colleague, we were in the same class at the university in '90/91, he was really brilliant in math, but a bit nerdie... :wink:
[/offtopic][/QUOTE]
[offtopic][URL="http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/colleague"]Colleague[/URL] is some one of your rank (society's [I]class[/I]), not your college [I]class[/I]. It is someone of your level whom you work together, not study together. A person with whom you studied together is your [URL="http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/classmate"]classmate[/URL].

And of course, it is still totally unclear whom you were even talking about. :razz:[/offtopic]

[QUOTE=Batalov;409679][offtopic][URL="http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/colleague"]Colleague[/URL] is some one of your rank (society's [I]class[/I]), not your college [I]class[/I]. It is someone of your level whom you work together, not study together. A person with whom you studied together is your [URL="http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/classmate"]classmate[/URL].

And of course, it is still totally unclear whom you were even talking about. :razz:[/offtopic][/QUOTE]
hehe, indeed, in the light of that, he was my classmate, and not my colleague. Englich trikcs..
(the name is in the link, but yet, if you google for the guys, "there can be only one", says the highlander...)