May I first say that I'm completely in awe of George's achievements and hard work in respect of this fine project. As far as the prize is concerned one can't predict which exponents are Mersenne primes, so their discovery will always remain something of a lottery irrespective of whether a prize is attached or not. I for one believe that the possiblilty of a win is an essential part and something that adds excitement and anticipation to the completion of a test that may have taken several months of CPU time. Does someone deserve a prize just by running someone else's code? In life one tends to work with one's aptitudes - George has the talent and experience to write fast, accurate code - the alternative is that we all write our own code that can only be inferior in accuracy/speed/pnet compatibilty etc..
Would completing a test slower not be an environmental crime? (we would be wasting vast quantities of electricity through inefficient power use - dumping it into heat unnecessarily). If George became unhappy with us using his code for free he could introduce a pay-to-play system where the user pays to submit an encrypted residue and is only then told if the result is prime/composite.

Sacre bleu, but what is the intrinsic value of a Mersenne prime? (paying a not inconsiderable electricity bill 'just for fun' certainly isn't any at all!)
Furthermore, is the project's goal to find M primes, or to make individuals appreciate what they've found? (I personally love to follow the discoveries of M primes)
Definitely keep the prize, and with a good personal incentive - without it this project would certainly have a lot less computing power, and with the finds becoming sparser (!!!) this could only be a bad thing (the next prime could be 5 years away or more)
On a personal note I will sadly be curtailing my albeit limited DC-ing activites on the basis of electricity costs, and, dare I say it (prepare yourselves) a lack of prize money - with nothing to gain (100 million digits is too much for me) and plenty to lose (leccy, stressed PCs of some value) I cannot justify carrying on the hunt, however much I may enjoy it!

PS. To date, George is the ONLY one to have made the coils in my PSU literally sing!

From ET:

[QUOTE]A prize should be divided among those people:

1 - Richard Crandall who discovered the algorithm.
2 - George Woltman who implemented it in assembly language and created GIMPS.
3 - Scott Kurowski who designed Primenet.
4 - Ernst Mayer and Guillermo Ballester Valor who released the software in multi-threaded fashion on non-Intel platforms.
5 - Mike (Xyzzy) who took the idea of developing this forum and opened GIMPS doors to thousands of "aficionados".
6 - Team Prime Rib who got the idea of developing a stats site where everyone could challenge other GIMPSers (and did a terrific work cleaning up non prime Mersenne numbers).[/QUOTE]

I agree with 1 through 5 from ET's suggestion, but would still give a small share to the person who signs up and keeps the computer running. A few people will download and run the program just for the possibility of winning some money, but a few of those people might also end up realizing how fascinating it all can be (the math itself, that is), and will actually learn something. It might just expand the number of amateurs out here. Use part of the prize as bait; once they spend some time on the forum, some will be hooked.

Norm

[QUOTE=Prime95;141458]
Please no screaming, but Scott is looking at September 15th. In the pre-GIMPS days it often took 6 months or more from time of discovery to time of publication. So patience please :smile:[/QUOTE]

Sept. 11 is inching closer and the main page still says "Independent verification has begun and should complete on the 11th" with no mention of the 15th. Perhaps there is still hope for an earlier release?

[QUOTE=jinydu;141653]Sept. 11 is inching closer and the main page still says "Independent verification has begun and should complete on the 11th" with no mention of the 15th. Perhaps there is still hope for an earlier release?[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's a matter of when the verification is complete, it's a matter of when it's a good time for a press release.

[QUOTE=jrk;141628]I think that's an unfair assumption. If people were interested only in money, they shouldn't be here (the cost-effectiveness of trying to win a EFF prize is terrible, almost as bad as playing state lottery :rolleyes:).[/QUOTE]

Interesting. Thinking about the 100-million digit level, suppose a (future) computer can check a prospective exponent in, say, 6 months.

With an energy-efficient (future) computer and a nice, cheap $0.10 / kW-hr electric price, checking an exponent costs about [url=http://www.google.com/search?q=40+watts+*+6+months+*+0.1+%2F+(1000+watts+*+1+hour)]$18[/url].

The chance of a given prime exponent (1 mod 4) around 100 million being prime is 1 in 1,925,418 by [url=http://primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/NextMersenne.html]the standard heuristic[/url]. But since the numbers will be factored to [url=http://v5www.mersenne.org/report_factoring_effort/?exp_lo=100000&exp_hi=101000&bits_lo=0&bits_hi=999&B1=Get+Data]2^58[/url], I estimate that improves chances by a factor of 70 to 72 for the remaining exponents. So now that 6-month lottery ticket has a 1 in 27,188 chance of winning.

For the expected cost to equal the expected winnings, the prize money given to the finder would need to be $18 * 27,188, or $476,610 (numbers don't multiply due to rounding). If the lottery gives out, say, 1:4 then this seems comparable, depending on how the [url=http://www.eff.org/awards/coop]$150,000[/url] is split up.

[quote=CRGreathouse;141660]...But since the numbers will be factored to [URL="http://v5www.mersenne.org/report_factoring_effort/?exp_lo=100000&exp_hi=101000&bits_lo=0&bits_hi=999&B1=Get+Data"]2^58[/URL], I estimate that improves chances by a factor of 70 to 72 for the remaining exponents. So now that 6-month lottery ticket has a 1 in 27,188 chance of winning.[/quote]
Not so fast. This only improves those chances by a factor ~2, not 70 (observe that only 1/2 of candidates are removed by TF). [SIZE=1]Where did the rest of the chance improvement factor go? Within the accuracy of a remaining factor of ~1-2, it is the density of primes in that range of p's.[/SIZE]

So the chance for [I]that[/I] lottery ticket is about 1 in a million, give or take. Notably, the Prime95/mprime program would honestly tell anyone so, if one would reserve such a task and press the status button.

Money should not be a (misguided) reason for the GIMPS participation.

--Serge

I don't think that right now (I mean before award for 10M digit prime is paid) is a proper time to discuss how this award should be distributed. The rules have been announced here [url]http://www.mersenne.org/prize.htm[/url] and no matter what your intentions are/were, this discussion looks to me as a form of putting some pressure on the lucky individual who probably found 10M digit prime...

[QUOTE=xilman;141582]That is not fair.

Bob has many times helped complete newbies with very elementary mathematical questions. He has, of course, helped many others at higher, some times much higher, levels of accomplishment.

What he asks is that questioners don't try to bite off more than they can chew --- that is, they should have a reasonable estimate of their own level of ability and convey that estimate in the questions they ask and their expectations of what they will be able to achieve in their subject of interest.

Further, he asks that they make an honest attempt to work out what they are asking for and to phrase it in meaningful and reasonably precise language.

Finally, and quite rightly in my view, he expects his answers to be read and either understood or sensible requests for clarification to be made. It's infuriating, IMO, to spend time constructing an answer only for the questioner to ignore it completely and prove that it has been ignored by the nature of the follow up.

Paul[/QUOTE]Well, I don't quite see Dr. Silverman that way. In my estimation, he ridicules everyone who doesn't think on his level and is rather haughty and arrogant about his own achievements and intelligence. I don't want to offend anyone, but I think he's too smart for his own good and his self concept is larger than any human deserves. If he could converse in a more, and I think this is a good way to say it, low class or plebian way, he might not be so harsh sounding. In other words, we are emminantly aware of his beyond genius thinking ability, but he needs to come down to the level of the "idiots" on this board when explaining things and not expect his level of precision or explanation when talking to others. He's like a college professor trying to teach particle physics to a 2 year old who can't even tie his shoes yet.

[QUOTE=ET_;141583]I do not agree with you either :smile::smile::smile:

I like being corrected if I'm mistaken or definitely wrong, because it enlarges my horizon of knowledge, and let me know something new or empower what I already know. [B]The secret is not taking it personally.[/B]

As I said in another thread, I am free to take the wrong steps, [B]he is free to point my wrong action in the mood he likes[/B], and I'm free to like or dislike the way he expresses himself. If I like it I will learn something more, while if I don't I just ignore him: my life won't change its pace.

I accept harsh answers from someone who has far more knowledge than I will have in my life about math.

It's all about freedom: if you want the freedom to ask, let others the freedom to answer your question as they like. Then if you know about the subject you were asking you'll be prepared to contrast any answer, if not you'll have something new to learn.

I've had my share of shame asking a question that introduced a "go study the subject!" answer, but I took the time and the courage to ask again for some links to get information, and he gave me those links soon after his previous answer.

Maybe the worst question is the one you don't ask. :smile:

Luigi[/QUOTE]I am responding to the sentences/phrases I have bolded.

1. How anyone could not take his harsh and belittling comments toward people personally is beyond me. He acts as if people are not worthy of his knowledge or help if they don't ask or understand or respond in a way that he requires beforehand.

2. I've always thought that politeness should be required on a message board and I don't usually find all of Dr. Silverman's responses polite when he speaks to people like they aren't smart enough to talk to him or ask a question unless they do it his way that he thinks is the only way to ask. He should hire a "go between" or an agent or a translator to speak for him, if you ask me.

[QUOTE=Prime95;141592]I concur that this is not fair. He has raised a valid issue for debate. I've wrestled with the prize rules many times. I'm not fully satisfied with them and think they need to be changed.

1) Bob is right. Does someone "deserve" a huge windfall for simply doing download, setup, and forget about it?
2) In 1999, when a 10M test took 2 years there was more rationale for the large award. When the GIMPS wavefront passed 10M it did become a raffle.
3) What about honoring the original EFF donor's wishes? If GIMPS took the $100K and kept it all or gave it to charity, then we've subverted the donor's desire to spur Internet collaboration.
4) The large prize does attract more CPUs, but at what cost? Do you really want the finders of Mersenne primes having absolutely no appreciation of what they've discovered?

This is a fine balancing act. Make your thoughts known. Hypothetically speaking, what would you propose for the $150K award that is probably 15 years away.[/QUOTE]1. If those are the agreed upon conditions and rules at the time for the situation. HELL YES!!
2. What's wrong with a raffle-like situation to get participation?
3. The person who sets up the conditions initially should have his or her wishes honored because they were the one to have the authority to set up the rules.
4. Most people who would take part in a Distributed Computing related project would have at least a smattering of knowledge or interest in a subject, even if it is very elementary. Appreciation shouldn't mean that you have to have a degree in a subject or be a scholar to have the ability to appreciate.

If you want polite then go to

[url]http://www.politetalk.com/forums/[/url]

I don't mind Bob's brusque way...I would rather have a post of his to one of my questions than not.