> Does that mean that you could, if you wished, have switched to a different machine and just continued where you left off? Totally. It's even explained in the

> Does that mean that you could, if you wished, have switched to a different machine and just continued where you left off? Totally. It's even explained in the original problem description: the idea was that every year you'd switch to more efficient hardware, picking up the computation where you let it off, until Moore's law stopped applying. I considered upgrading from my i7 6700 to a 8700-K overclocked for slightly faster clock speed (and maybe some instructions taking fewer cycles). It'd have saved some time.