Another relative to that - who has a brain issue.

Here is a post that I just placed in the RPS k=257 thread [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10731"]here[/URL] that I think is a good idea to post here:

[quote=gd_barnes;144425]If this post as well as the next post stay here for more than 2 days without being deleted and without further flame wars and insults, I will do exactly what Curtis has requested. It will be pulled from our effort and I'll forward the results files to Curtis.
Gary[/quote]

[quote=Kosmaj;144449]
Furthermore, we don't want to cooperate or negotiate anything with NPLB because you guys are known as troublemakers and arrogant guys who don't observe established norms, don't listen to opinions of others and so on (the old-timers on these pages know very well what I mean). You don't even represent the PrimeSearch project which was started and is owned by another guy.
[/quote]

We all have our opinions. Everyone looks at things in a different way. Established 'norms' are changed many times in this world because times change. In NPLB's opinion, projects cannot claim "ownership" of large RANGES of k (as opposed to very specific k's such as k=1, 3, 27, 121) for years at a time, especially if those k's remain inactive for long periods. That had to change because it is what the original Primesearch project did and look what happened. They were so far behind it was laughable.

On the k<300 effort, most of these k's that we are searching sat inactive for nearly 2 years. Some were beginning to look like another k=5 that sat at n=~390K for more than 3 years.

I had one simple request in order for NPLB to stop k=257 and send the results to Curtis. That is that no post be deleted and no flame wars be started or insults be thrown in a 2-day time frame. This seemed easy enough but I guess it wasn't.

"troublemakers" and "arrogant guys" clearly classify as insults in anyone's book. Therefore k=257 will stay in NPLB's drive until it is complete. These kinds of insults only hurt RPS in the long run so I just don't understand them. It's up to you what you do with it here.

It's unfortunate that the 2 projects could not coordinate again. NPLB has already offered several weeks ago thru Adam to the admins to stop our drive at n=850K on all k's. It was rejected outright and quickly. So we are willing to compromise but there has to be some give on both sides and the insults must stop so that there is some room for negotiation. Maybe someday...


Gary

I should probably archive my post here, just in case:

[quote=Kosmaj;144449]Now, we are open to proposals from other projects to cooperate on some k<300. Justin came over a few years ago and reserved k=27 and 121, no problems. However, we rejected your proposal to test the 15 Ks in question (already tested to n=600k) since your claim that they were not tested enough was wrong ... It was actually not a proposal but a declaration not open to any discussion.[/quote]
Even though it was stated like any normal reservation (i.e. a declaration, not a proposal), did you ever think to ask Gary not to do that and to discuss it instead of just deleting and locking posts?
[quote=Kosmaj;144449](just consider 217*2^546500+1 found a few day ago)[/quote]
That's a Proth prime, not a Riesel (and I checked that wasn't just a mistake where it really was a Riesel at that k and n - it's a Proth prime). NPLB reserved Riesels only.

And I'll post another couple here...

[quote=Kosmaj;144470]These are not opinions, it is the fact that PrimeSerach/NPLB project broke the well established rule in the prime seraching community as I described above. Period.

Your response just illustrates my points that any discussion with you is noting but a waste of time.

Regarding "inactive" Ks: True, some were not tested since our 2nd Drive in 2006, but at that time they were tested extensively and at n=600k they were not behind by any standards. I mentioned the latest k=217 Proth prime just to illustrate this (and Proths have been tested much more than Riesels because of Fermat divisors). And what happened with your k>300? I haven't seen many reported primes at the 500k level. So you stopped your k>300 search at 520k and came over to claim that our Ks at 600k are falling "behind"?? That's silly and laughable if you ask me.[/quote]

Can you refer me to a written statement of this 'well established rule'. One that dictates that a project is allowed to claim large ranges of k for itself and not allow any other project to search it without being highly offended?

What if NPLB claimed that it owned all k=300-10000 and that we would be highly offended if people or projects did not coordinate with us with insults thrown and flame wars started? That would be just a little bit strange, wouldn't you think? Well, it's the same for k<300 and it's why we don't claim ownership of k=300-1001.

We're willing to negotiate but statements such as 'any discussion with you is nothing but a waste of time' nullify that possibility. It's quite insulting. Any statement that implies that 'you always this' or 'you never that' is simply a personal attack and is intended to stop discussion altogether. It's no different in interpersonal relationships where such statements are quite demeaning. If you're willing to back off of making such statements, perhaps we can negotiate.


Gary

[quote=MooooMoo;144481]I know the question isn't directed at me, but it looks like one of the problems with that reservation is that it reserved a whole bunch of k's (15? 20? I don't remember), not just one or two. The 321 project only reserved k=3, Justin's project only reserved k=27 and k=121, and individuals don't normally reserve more than 4 k's at once.

If I or any other individual were to pick up 15 or so k's at once, I'm pretty sure that whoever reserved those 15 k's had to provide a good reason for testing them. Gary's reason that the k's were too far behind didn't seem to be good enough, so his requests were denied.

By reserving so many k's at once, NPLB was denying individual RPS members the chance to test k's at a low n-level. Not everyone here has a fast machine, and people with slow computers won't be able to make a reasonable progress on megabit primes.

Finally, RPS has been focused on k<300 for many years. RPS has been generous enough to let other projects reserve one or two k's < 300. I'll use the analogy that it's like giving some money to a friend or charity. Any nice person who isn't in the poorhouse would not deny a request to give 25 dollars or so. But if he's asked to give a few thousand dollars, then it would be a problem.[/quote]


Here's a count, that may not be entirely accurate but should be very close:
Kosmaj; reserved 14 k's for several years; 3 k's from NPLB 4th drive for 1 month
Curtis; reserved 16 k's for several years; 2 k's from NPLB 4th drive for 1 month
NPLB; reserved 15 k's for one month

Kind of shoots holes in your argument, doesn't it? No one can claim that we reserved too much if they, as individuals, have more reserved, regardless of the timeframe in which they reserved those k's!

"Generous enough" to "let" other projects search "their" k's. Please. In math, no one can claim ownership of any 'specific area' of the math world. They can let others know that they are working in a specific area or are willing to coordinate efforts for the area. It's no different with prime searching.

What if I all of a sudden decided that I'm going to start a project to search all Proth's for k<300 and that you HAD to coordinate through me any time you searched k<300? People would laugh at me. That's what Benson does with RPS. I'm sure he's tired of you guys claiming that you 'own' all the 'best k's'.

There's a book called "Someone moved my cheese" that is intended for people whose lives are being impacted by corporate downsizing, layoffs, and other changes that impact one's life that one has no control over. I think it would be good reading for many. Things change and that is a fact of life that we cannot control.

Finally, when we are done with our 4th drive, all ranges will be reported completed and results will be available upon request.


Gary

Another from the same thread. Delightfully, none have been deleted yet. :smile:

I'm tired of the bickering. NPLB will pull k=257 from its drive. It was an honest mistake to include it and you guys should be happy that we "double-checked" it with no harm being done. We weren't near filling in the range below your current drive limit. I'm getting ready to send more files to our server folks and it will be pulled out. I'll also mention it in our drive and change the thread name and specifics.

Despite the insults, I don't want further accusations of 'pilfering the RPS 6th drive' thrown if we were to find a prime on it on something that we didn't intend to do in the first place, that is reserve a k that was already reserved.

We will have to agree to disagree on the 'ownership' thing. What Retep states is correct. "Numbers cannot be owned by anyone" despite what one states. If I or Benson or whomever wish to search k=1, 3, 27, or 121, or any other k<300, it is our peragative to do so. The same applies to k=300-1001.

It's only the honorable thing to do to mention one's intention to do work in the areas and check reservation status of the projects that usually search specific area of k in order to avoid double work. That is what we did.

BTW, Kosmaj, I do appreciate you allowing my/our posts to stand this time. Even if the responses haven't been the kind that I would have liked, unkind responses are far perferrable to removal. :smile:


Gary