Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!hc!beta!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Fermat's Last Theorem apparently proven
Message-ID: <7465@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 19 Mar 88 02:56:58 GMT
References: <977@thumper.bellcore.com> <7440@brl-smoke.ARPA> <26797@linus.UUCP> <7449@brl-smoke.ARPA> <26822@linus.UUCP> <7453@brl-smoke.ARPA> <11288@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <11288@duke.cs.duke.edu> srt@duke.UUCP (Stephen R. Tate) writes:
>This also has practical considerations -- what if there are times
>when the algorithm will not stop?

What if it was proven theoretically that it would eventually stop but
in a particulare case it's still taking too long?  In practice there
will be some watchdog timer used to abort an operation that takes too
long.

>And yes, if people didn't assume RH and that it would work, I doubt that
>they ever would have implemented it.

That was my original point.  A proof of RH wouldn't seem to have made
any practical difference.