Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!strath-cs!jml
From: jml@strath-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: New Factoring Record
Message-ID: <663@stracs.cs.strath.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 10-Aug-87 10:49:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: stracs.663
Posted: Mon Aug 10 10:49:51 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Aug-87 07:07:32 EDT
References: <10489@linus.UUCP> <1839@vax135.UUCP>
Reply-To: jml@cs.strath.ac.uk
Distribution: world
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland.
Lines: 19
Xref: utgpu sci.math:1813 sci.crypt:482

In article <1839@vax135.UUCP> booth@vax135.UUCP (David Booth) writes:
>Regarding Bob Silverman's announcement:
>Apparently, the number that was factored should be read as
>(10^94 + 1)/(101*45121).  Bob: would you please use a clearer,
>more conventional syntax next time?  Thanks.
>
>David Booth

Come on. Give the man a break. The notation Bob used was as clear as day
to me and hopefully most others. In fact it is more obvious and direct
than the one you give, whose only advantage is conservation of space.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally prefer the "dot" version
of multiplication to the "star" version when writing a product. However
I do believe that the "star" is much more preferable in a programming
language.

   No hard feelings I hope.

       jml, the modern Mersenne.