[QUOTE=ewmayer;314828] Colder = lower speed of sound.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vx2s2G88b0]and you've got Cat Style[/url]

D

Edit: first bracket too curly.

Diner Scene
 

[QUOTE=xilman;317671]That's a chip butty with extra burger.

There are pubs in Britain which will sell you a chip butty but very few have them on the menu. A pub which sells sandwiches and chips separately will generally make a chip butty to special order.[/QUOTE]

Unless you are Jack Nicholson in [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XylSAxvujeA]"Five Easy Pieces".[/url]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;324244]We ran a security audit of the system tonight.

Security is a delicate balance between usability and accessibility. However, we tend to err on the side of security, just to be safe[/QUOTE]

Might I suggest condoms all round?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;326894]Like the central banks (cough, cough) of the world, we need to maintain our independence, or something.

Speaking of slackerdom, I must say that the gerbils are a tad miffed that none of the guess-the-prime ferrets has nailed the new prime's exponent to within a very narrow range using the obvious clues littering this thread.

Mike, how do the snakes feel about this?


I find it interesting that vector hardware is making a roaring comeback, in the guise of SIMD (= vector-data), GPU (= vector-thread), etc.[/QUOTE]

I could try a basic attempt but I know it's not worth it, I suck at math, and if I do figure it out I don't want to give it away to others though I've thought it over and have a few good hints to look at now. oops I forgot I'm a crank.

[QUOTE=retina;326850]That is not Moore's Law.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgtQj8O92eI]I fought the law[/url]
and the law won.

xxx

[QUOTE=axn;327004]Not much of a hint. The largest known Wagstaff Prime is p=~4M (http://www.primenumbers.net/prptop/searchform.php?form=%282^n%2B1%29%2F3&action=Search).

Are you saying that the p in question has a small factor? Again, not much of a hint. About half of the exponents should have small factor.[/QUOTE]


well what I get from the OEIS and this is that [URL="http://oeis.org/A007583"]A007583[/URL](n) = 4^n-[URL="http://oeis.org/A002450"]A002450[/URL](n) is prime for n=(p-1)/2 admittedly I'm not sure that helps. I think the whole reason it got brought up is it's part of what's needed under NMC.

[QUOTE=Ralf Recker;327053]The Wikipedia editing has already begun:

[CODE]To help visualize the size of the 48th known Mersenne prime, it would require 3,461 pages to display the number in base 10 with 75 digits per line and 50 lines per page.[/CODE]The number of digits is from the previous record holding prime:

3460*75*50=12975000
3461*75*50=12978750

and a new entry has been added to the table of known mersenne primes.[/QUOTE]

I have sites telling me that's impossible to believe.... oh never mind I realized what I did wrong.

Let's face it.

a) the primes found by curtis follow the same heuristics, at the huge sizes of X million digits
b) the primes not found by curtis are not following the heuristic, at the huge sizes of X million digits
c) a single NCSA supercomputer installation test would test the numbers by heuristic within a week or so.
installatio ntests usually take months running also prime95 type softwares.
d) curtis crunches at under 2 Tflop, see his Ghz days and also increase in Ghz days,
which around 1.4% of total. Even if we consider he's just doing LL testing, that's under 2%.
2% for 3 primes gives odds 8 in 1 million to find 3 primes
Odds 8 in 1 million is really small.
If you buy 900 tickets your odds to win toto are larger.
e) the output in the CSV file doesn't show what was manual reserved nor when reservation took place.
This where everyone LOVES to datamine.

So the GIMPS output hides possibilities to detect whomever didn't follow the rules.

So if Curtis didn't manual reserve the primes, code of Woltman did of course.

Whom would you give the prime exponents to find if you knew them?
Your biggest fan of course. The guy doing most work for you. Curtis.

I've dealt with big crooks before - and this smells just like that. Also statistically the above if you add it up.
Odds 1 in a trillion that you find those 3 primes in a fair manner.

If i would be in a prime number commission, i would ask for all the money back.
The smell this spreads is too huge.

Vincent Diepeveen

Come on, man! You've got it all wrong. Curtis C roundhouse kicks the candidates to reveal the primes. Then he asks George to secretly manually reserve them and he tests them. He doesn't obviously test the whole list, otherwise people might get suspicious. So he leaves a few of them for the plebs (in fact, he's very generous, having left the 10M prize winner(s) for others).

No one at GIMPS or NCSA would abuse the supercomputing resources for this purpose.

So wrong!

[QUOTE=diep;328935]...
Odds 8 in 1 million is really small.
...
Odds 1 in a trillion that you find those 3 primes in a fair manner.
...
Vincent Diepeveen[/QUOTE]
So is it 8 in 1 million or 1 in a trillion? I am confused.

Why don't we take the LL [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_top_500_LL/"]GHzDays table[/URL] for the last year and sum everyone's GHzDays and take ratio curtisc/everyone else?
1917657.455 curtisc
--------------------------- = 0.2744
6987549.915 everyone else

Doesn't look like 2% to me. There goes the 8 in 1 million number.

Repeat for the last 10 years.
Please show your work for the 1 in a trillion odds?

[QUOTE=diep;328935]
Whom would you give the prime exponents to find if you knew them?
Your biggest fan of course.[/QUOTE]
Sorry pal, but I think this is the most stupid think I ever read in this forum... It even beats cmd, which was annoying, but not stupid.

If I would be George and if I would know which exponent gives prime mersenne numbers, then I would test them MYSELF and I would take ALL the glory AND the MONEY. There is nothing in the rules to forbid me (George) doing this. Why should I be stupid and give the money to somebody else? :whistle:

[edit: I am conspirationist too, but I am not absurd!]