Hahaha, how cowardly of you.

Why not tell me directly, as opposed to mumbling about me like a common coward would?

Pack of sissies..

[QUOTE=kar_bon;228592]And it's a ridiculous point of his list:

1. Wasting CPU-cycles to find the biggest prime proven by trial disivion.
2. He can't recognize simple 'easy' numbers.
3. He can't prove if such number is proven only by trial division.[/QUOTE]

I'm with you on all these counts. I raised the same objections to his proposal for using obsolete prime-proving tech (of which I suppose this is a special case).

Pi, we're doing this in the open, not by PM; there's no attempt to hide this from you.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;228589]+1. If I had a nickel for every time he did that... well, I'd have about a buck. But still, that's a lot of rules changes.[/QUOTE]

how much would I owe lol. probably the same if not more.

Even so: Why not directly tell me the supposed "objections", that you had?

[QUOTE=3.14159;228613]Even so: Why not directly tell me the supposed "objections", that you had?[/QUOTE]

I've already given you objections, repeatedly, to your obsolete prime-proving category. Since this is just a particular form of it, I didn't feel the need. Further, I was responding to posts by sm and kar_bon, so of course I addressed my responses to them. Finally, there was no need to alert you to any of this because the posts were made on a public forum that you visit, on a thread where you are very active.

[QUOTE=Charles]I've already given you objections, repeatedly, to your obsolete prime-proving category.[/QUOTE]

It is entirely [B]optional[/B] if one wishes to submit something for #20.

What poor scapegoating..

Started a search for item 3; b = 600; n = 26; k = 1 to 10000. In other words; k * 600![sup]26[/sup] + 1.

Each test takes about 80 seconds.. Nothing so far, but I'll get something sometime soon for that search. The odds should be excellent.

[QUOTE=3.14159;228662]What poor scapegoating..[/QUOTE]

We must have different understandings of the word "scapegoat", because this sentence makes no sense in its context.

You asked for my objections and I explained them.

[QUOTE=Charles]We must have different understandings of the word "scapegoat", because this sentence makes no sense in its context.

You asked for my objections and I explained them.[/QUOTE]

And I refuted them. And you merely were reduced to blaming me. Scapegoating??!?!?!??

[QUOTE=3.14159;228726]Scapegoating??!?!?!??[/QUOTE]

That's precisely what I said. What possible meaning could you have for that here?

[QUOTE=3.14159;228726]And I refuted them.[/QUOTE]

You refuted none of them!

[QUOTE=3.14159;228726]And you merely were reduced to blaming me.[/QUOTE]

At what point did I blame you? (I can't rule this out, but I don't recall doing it.)