From: spike66 (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Sat Jun 08 2002 - 19:20:20 MDT
E. Shaun Russell wrote:
> Spike wrote:
>
>> spike, fearlessly tickling the tail of the infamous
>> extropian pundragon
>
> Seems to me that your pugnacious
> punning, Spike...
> item...
> kick...
> even...
> '...
> s...
>
> A...
>
> Given...
> extrapolating...
> enjoyable...
> kick...
Yes, I do confess, I striiiive for geekdom, I yearrrrn
for geekdom. I was geeking out just this afternoon,
while on a motorcycle trip. If they made a movie of
my life it would be a geek tragedy. Or comedy.
Wai Dai, you got to the answer much faster than I
did. Congratulations on being the world record
holder for near-perfect, as far as we know.
Nowthen, it occurred to me today that there can
still be a legitimate world record holder for the
most near perfect number. Since we know how
to generate the next number in the series, we still
need to determine the nearest prime to the pre-
calculated target. Since we are in the 100+
decimal digit range, the next term in the series being
the product
566684450325197*29753376105337343078941364947*
30082232218581187462432471034748868284388270918928732239
then just determining the nearest prime is
a hell of a job for a lot of computers in
parallel.
For whatever it is worth (~0), we now
really can form a team and snag the world
record, with complete confidence that some
supergeek 2300 years ago hasnt already figured
it out.
Its about time we overtook this Euclid fellow.
He wasnt so great, I mean, what has he done
recently? So he invented geometry, biiiig
deeeeal.
What we need is some hotshot code jockey
on the team who knows how to set up a background
computing process. We already have good
prime number searching code. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:41 MST