|
|
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
|
|