[QUOTE=koekie]For those who worry about extra verification, I started an Mlucas run on a HP Visualize C300 with a PA-RISC processor which will take about 250 days to complete. That is if I guessed the right exponent :surprised[/QUOTE]Just for kicks, I'm also doing my own verification run using Mlucas on a single processor of a dual Itanium box - that should take about a month. Hopefully with Tony R's help I can get a fully multithreaded version of the code running sometime in the coming months - it would be nice to have dual verify runs of Glucas and Mlucas running at similar speed, so we could cross-check interim residues and know if something has gone awry with one of the verify runs before in something approaching real-time.

[QUOTE=jinydu]Mathworld has a news item on this:
{snip}
"GIMPS organizer George Woltman reported that the new candidate has fewer than 10 million digits (a holy grail for prime searchers)..."[/QUOTE]
"Holy grail" seems a bit strong - I would refer to 10Mdigit more in terms like "lucrative milestone."

Encryption
 

Dear Akruppe,

thank you very much for improving my cryptography. Be sure that it's so perfect that I can't decode "my" own code now - despite knowing the answer. :smile:

Still, when I look at the discussion, the guess is that there are at most 4 people here who know the number. :wink:

Aren't you worried that the leak is so slow and inefficient only because no one really cares about the number?

All the best
Lubos

[QUOTE]Aren't you worried that the leak is so slow and inefficient only because no one really cares about the number?[/QUOTE]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

and a french emoticon...

Actually, there was a hint in another thread that made me find the correct answer. But I also did not "break" any of these encryptions, even Lumo's. :sad:

[QUOTE=Phil MjX]:lol: :lol: :lol:

and a french emoticon...[/QUOTE]

I should have saved up the laughing dog image for this thread! :grin:

Alex

[QUOTE=Mystwalker]Actually, there was a hint in another thread that made me find the correct answer. But I also did not "break" any of these encryptions, even Lumo's. :sad:[/QUOTE]

I can tell you that my prediction on this thread is more based on "security by obscurity" than on "security by secrecy".
In other words if you find the algorithm I used you don't need to find secret key or other secret because you immediately get the answer.

The simplest algorithm I've seen for "encrypting" a simple number was to subtract each digit of the candidate number from 10. For example, 16983 would become 94127. Believe it or not, this is used on certain older mainframes to prohibit casual access to powerful system commands.

slightly better routines can be written using "and" or "xor", etc.

Fusion

Verification 75% complete!

My verification is about 35% complete and expected to finish on Dec. 31st so hopefully just squeaking in before the end of the year. But we will know much sooner from Tony's fast machine. :bow:

91.28 % (Jusqu'ici tout va bien ...)
 

Out of town. But I can access Internet.
Verification is 91.29 % done.
It should end tomorrow morning around 7:00 am France time.
Tomorrow, I'll say if the verification is complete or not.
But I'll let George announce if it is positive (or not ...).
Tony