[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kevin [/i]
[B]The article in the Ann Arbor news (from the Associated Press) said the computer used had 2 GHZ of memory. You'd think [I]someone[/I] would've caught that before it was released. [/B][/QUOTE]

The question becomes:
Was it a 2 GHz processer, 2Gb of memory, or both?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by tom11784 [/i]
[B]The question becomes:
Was it a 2 GHz processer, 2Gb of memory, or both? [/B][/QUOTE]
The Associated Press news was probably constructed using the facts from this news release:[url]http://www.mersenne.org/20996011.htm[/url]
In that release is this line:[QUOTE]He used a 2 GHz Pentium 4 Dell Dimension PC running for 19 days to prove the number prime[/QUOTE]
So it was a 2 GigaHertz processor.
Here is another newspaper article drawing from the AP source and containing the same error: (The Michigan Daily) [url]http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/12/04/3fcecab6a1fd9[/url]
It would be quite a reasonable mistake to make in this context. Someone would only need to see "2 GHz Pentium 4" and decide to expand it to be more understandable to non-technical readers (unfortunately inserting an error).

Here's another classic error from Ananova: [URL=http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_846050.html]Ananova story[/URL]

This is the bit at fault:
[QUOTE]The new number can be represented as 2^20996011[/QUOTE]Well it made me laugh, but it's sad that they clearly don't understand.

Did we have someone that volunteered to contact organisations and quietly put them right?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Reboot It [/i]
[B]Here's another classic error from Ananova: [URL=http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_846050.html]Ananova story[/URL]

This is the bit at fault:
Well it made me laugh, but it's sad that they clearly don't understand.

Did we have someone that volunteered to contact organisations and quietly put them right? [/B][/QUOTE]
I do not think anyone has taken on that task. Actually, I am very pleased with the reporting accuracy that has occurred and think that things have gone very well. Many times upon reading technical information in any area that I happen to be well informed I will come across slight inaccuracies and ommissions or even serious blunders. For the most part that doesn't disturb me, especially in the cases that I know what meaning was intended.

I have been looking upon these errors we are collecting in a forensic sense. Sort of just taking the pulse of how mistakes have occurred; how well the information about GIMPS is being disseminated; whether reporting is helping the goals of the project or not.

That specific article covered GIMPS, Mersenne Prime numbers, the discovery of the 40th Mersenne Prime, the discoverer and his background. Furthermore it concludes with a wonderful quote from the discoverer, Michael Shafer: "People don't have to be computer whizzes or math whizzes. Anybody can do this project. That's what makes it exciting. We can get so much more work done with networking projects such as this."

So, while I understand your sentiment, I feel much more encouraged than disheartened.

I've sent Ananova an e-mail with the correction just now. Thanks for spotting that one, Reboot It... :smile:

... and the news editor sent me a friendly reply, telling me the story has now been changed; he furthermore informed me that I am not alone in pointing out this error.:lol: