```Date: Dec 8, 2012 10:34 PM
Author: Ben Bacarisse
Subject: Re: No Putnam spoilers please

Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> writes:> In sci.math message <6wRoX+N1xSwQFw+U@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>>, Thu, 6 Dec 2012 23:38:29, Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.> uk.invalid> posted:>>>In that calculation, longcalc uses only elementary arithmetic, as used>>to be taught in schools in my day.  Your proof, however, is 50%>>incomprehensible to me.  Though it may well be right.  Longcalc found an>>error in *a* printed representation of (3^349-1)/2, which you might have>>difficulty with. Fx : checks : I think it has found another one.>> Can anyone (or more) please provide here the last ten decimal digits (in> order) of  ((3^349)-1)/2, freshly and independently calculated and not> copied from any other medium, and not using my LongCalc or VastCalc?'bc' reports:\$ bc <<<"(3^349-1)/2"16379019558053662392174130154670449583923965684832704024983781709239\69468635132120415650964922608054197182470755579714456896907387777297\3038883717449030628887379284041so 7379284041.  Haskell agrees: Prelude> (3^349-1) `div` 216379019558053662392174130154670449583923965684832704024983781709239694686351321204156509649226080541971824707555797144568969073877772973038883717449030628887379284041as does Python:>>> (3**349-1)/216379019558053662392174130154670449583923965684832704024983781709239694686351321204156509649226080541971824707555797144568969073877772973038883717449030628887379284041LForgive the overkill but I was not sure why you were asking.-- Ben.
```