How would you go about redoing exactly what Lander and Parkin did? You can’t because they don’t really say. Isn’t this whole thread about a lack of reproducible studies resulting in fraud?
But anyway, I like what you’re doing here because you’re beginning to document why the modern peer review system was developed in the first place in the 70s. Sounds like a good topic for a research paper.
Many modern papers are of this form. If you have some specific data as recent enough to be valid I could provide one but I am not going to just pick a paper from 1990 and you say nope not recent enough.
Another is for posterity and for future generations. If I give the paper you cited to a student, they can be wowed at its brevity and impressed by its genius, but they learn nothing.
I get you’re trying to prove your point but all you’ve done is solidify my position in my mind that literature reviews are essential to good research. You’ve given me a great topic for my talk to our incoming class of Ph.D. students in a couple weeks, so thanks for that, I mean it. Cheers.
O well, there’s a reason science advances one retirement at a time.
A direct search on the CDC 6600 yielded 27^5 + 84^5 + 110^5 + 133^5 = 144^5
as the smallest instance in which four fifth powers sum to a fifth power. This is a counterexample to a conjecture by Euler [1] that at least n nth powers are required to sum to an nth power, 1 > 2.
And that’s the paper. They could have gone into great detail about the program used etc, but it clearly communicates what was done and the results so why bother.