scott wrote:
>> .....1,549,498,368
> 
> I recognise those last 6 digits!  I think I got them from my program, 
> but then my method was too slow to do any more digits in reasonable time.

Heh. Could be just fluke.

I'm still not 100% certain that my program works. For example, the 
exponent is reduced as per the modulus too, which could affect the 
answer. As a quick check, I tried rerunning with 20 digits:

.......1,225,862,901,549,498,368

So the digits don't change by making the calculation wider. Which 
presumably means it's wide enough not to screw up the answer. (Or it's a 
very big fluke. You never know - mathematics is like that!)

Post a reply to this message