The worth or futility of factorizations relating to OPNs
 

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278238]No retraction either. These calculations to extend the lower bound on OPN's are pointless.[/QUOTE]

There you go again. You can't remember what we are talking about.

In post #709 you said the factorization of 811^71-1 was pointless. I challenged that. That is the on-topic part of our discussion. You can't stay on the topic - you keep rambling off into discussions about the OPN search, the glory of pushing the leading edge, and your perceived persecution. I ignored your off-topic meanderings - your views on these things are well known, you said nothing new, I have responded elsewhere. I kept insisting we return to the topic - is the factorization of 811^71-1 pointless? In post #721, in the midst of additional off-topic meandering, you admitted that individual factorings are not pointless. That is a retraction of the only topic I have engaged you in on this thread. Apology accepted for the retraction that was made.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278251]It is one thing to work at the leading edge in order to improve factoring methods and code. It is another just to use the tools written by others to do computations that have little use. [/QUOTE]

Isn't this the obvious and natural result of your work? Why do you push the boundaries? You made this possible. You and Moore's law created the world where factoring 811^71-1 is possible with minimal comprehension. While we live here happily, you are creating the world where factoring even larger numbers with even less comprehension will be possible. In a few years we will be living in that world while you are creating the next one.

[QUOTE=em99010pepe;278254]No one tells me what to run when I pay for my electricity bill. If I run for fun or whatever goal it is my problem, not yours. We don't need someone to tell us what we should run.
Personally I think all factoring projects are bullshit, we should be saving energy but most of us do it for fun.[/QUOTE]

Did you have this same attitude toward your professors in college when they
told you that something was a waste of time? Or that you should focus on
some particular subject as opposed to another?

You can indeed do whatever you please. Go right ahead. It is your
electricity.

And it is my right to suggest that these computations are pointless.

As for all factoring projects being worthless: Your opinion isn't worth very
much; RSA is used by everyone on the Internet. Knowing the state of the
art and continuing to push the state of the art is important so we can
keep track of the security of RSA. [if for no other reason]. The only
real reason why the Cunningham project is useful is that historically it has
been used as a standard for benchmark data for pushing the art.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;278268]And this is the key to the issue. These factorizations are not merely raising lower bounds. They are computations which have either directly aided in new mathematics,
[/QUOTE]

No, they have NOT. The mathematics stands on its own, independently
of any computation.

[QUOTE]
or given an example of that new mathematics in action.
[/QUOTE]

The way to demonstrate the utility of the math would be to apply it to
EXISTING data so see how much value was present in the math itself.
Showing that the math could raise the bound WITHOUT the need for
more computation would enhance its value.

[QUOTE]
They also help us get a better grip on the problem, by giving us more examples on which to make conjectures.[/QUOTE]

Ah. So please tell what conjectures have arisen from these 'more
examples'.

William, you know I love it when you get angry:smile:

David

[QUOTE=akruppa;278269]You were banned for habitually insulting people for several years ("imbecile," "moron," "idiot" to name just a few words you used). The insult against Garo was the straw that broke the camel's neck. If I see an insult worthy of moderation in this thread, I'll act on it, don't worry.

Edit: any further discussion of the worth/futility of these factorizations is to be taken to the Soap Box forum, [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=16235[/url].[/QUOTE]


Technical discussion of the worthiness of research projects is inherently
part of the process. People submit research proposals all the time. Many
are turned down or judged to have little value.

Research best takes place in a free and open forum in which participants
are free to discuss the merits of the research itself. Your banishment
to the soapbox clearly shows YOUR bias and is an anathema to the process.

I have yet to see a cogent reply to my criticisms. Or can it be that
the participants can give no technical justification? Noone has yet
said exactly what they hope to [i]accomplish[/i] or where the value
lies in such purported accomplishment. If they answer that they are
indeed trying to raise the OPN lower bound, they need to say where
the value lies in doing so.

Neither is this forum a techical journal, nor are you a referee here. You voiced your opinion before, repeatedly. We are well aware of it and choose to disagree. You say these postings annoy you? Someone posting something you don't find very interesting on someone else's forum annoys you? Don't you have anything better to do than be the old lady with the spyglass?

[QUOTE=wblipp;278270]There you go again. You can't remember what we are talking about.

In post #709 you said the factorization of 811^71-1 was pointless.
[/QUOTE]

You keep trying to put words in my mouth. I said "pointless"
within one particular post that was part of a SERIES OF POSTS.
You keep assuming that because I only replied to ONE post, I only
referred to one post.

Next time I will add the words "pointless" to EVERY post
to satisfy you. It is redundant, but you seem to want that.

The subject under discussion is whether there is any technical merit
in these endless mundane computations to chase OPNs. You (and others)
keep avoiding this issue. And you keep trying to change the real subject.

[QUOTE=akruppa;278276]Neither is this forum a techical journal, nor are you a referee here. You voiced your opinion before, repeatedly.
[/QUOTE]

And as long as people feel the need to post these results, I will continue
to post my opinion.

[QUOTE]


We are well aware of it and choose to disagree. You say these postings annoy you?

Someone posting something you don't find very interesting on someone else's forum annoys you? Don't you have anything better to do than be the old lady with the spyglass?[/QUOTE]

It works both ways. Don't the people who keep posting these results
have better things to do than to repeatedly:

(1) Blindly keep running software that was the brilliant work of others?
-- while making no contribution to that software except criticizing
how it works?
(2) Keep posting numerical results of little real value?

It is the computer equivalent of "couch potato". Just use the technical
accomplishments of others while making no original contribution to
the art. We all watch TV. Very few know its inner workings. Nor do
we need to know in order to watch. But we don't pretend that our TV
watching has value other than entertainment value. And we don't need
to make internet postings that say 'Hey! Last night I watched the Simpsons!'

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278280]It is the computer equivalent of "couch potato". Just use the technical
accomplishments of others while making no original contribution to
the art. We all watch TV. Very few know its inner workings. Nor do
we need to know in order to watch. But we don't pretend that our TV
watching has value other than entertainment value. And we don't need
to make internet postings that say 'Hey! Last night I watched the Simpsons!'[/QUOTE]I can see you're not one of the Twitterati. You'd be surprised at just how many of such inanities are posted by so many every day.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278273]No, they have NOT. The mathematics stands on its own, independently
of any computation.[/quote]This is demonstrably incorrect. I have made advances in the mathematics directly as a result of doing many, many, many mundane computations. Occasionally, the best way to help others understand those advances is to have them work through a few of those same mundane examples.

Furthermore, I would argue that a paper where an author states an improvement in the mathematics which can finish off a problem with a little easy computation is not complete until those easy computations are done.

For example, using some straightforward heuristics it is easy to show that odd perfect numbers must be divisible by a sixth power of a prime. However, nobody was able to prove it. Working with an undergraduate over the last two years, Ochem and I discovered a way around the previous roadblocks when there is a small prime factor. We also found a way to significantly improve the upper bound on the smallest prime factor using sieve methods. Yet, in my honest opinion, the paper would have been incomplete if we left it at that stage. To finish, we then had my undergraduate researcher do some rather tiresome but necessary computations to show that the smallest prime factor cannot be less than 10^7 (or something like that). In particular, we got rid of an incredibly difficult case, when the smallest factor is 5.

The method we used was new, and it was important not only to present the new idea, but to put it into action.

[quote]The way to demonstrate the utility of the math would be to apply it to
EXISTING data so see how much value was present in the math itself.
Showing that the math could raise the bound WITHOUT the need for
more computation would enhance its value.[/quote]The point is not merely to raise the bound. That is just a side benefit of these computations.

[quote]Ah. So please tell what conjectures have arisen from these 'more
examples'.[/QUOTE]Specifically with regards to odd perfect numbers, one conjecture that has arisen is that Euler's special prime might have to be the largest prime divisor (and be raised to only the first power). This is born out by Descartes' spoof odd perfect number, and a large number of other computations where this becomes the most difficult case.

I was also led to conjecture that the OPN problem may be related to the fact that \gcd((p^a-1)/(p-1), (q^b-1)/(q-1)) has very few large prime factors, unless a or b is extremely large.

[quote]I suggest that ALL of you who continue these mundane calculations
change to doing something that will help push the state-of-the-art, or
change to something that has the potential to solve an open problem.[/quote]

The problem is that almost all of those calculations are profoundly unsatisfying in precisely the way that doing calculations which give an admittedly-small amount of new information after a moderate amount of time is satisfying; 'no factor found' causes less happiness than a factor.

Calculations that help push the state of the art require really substantial resources, [b]otherwise they'd already have been done[/b] - RDS is well-aware that the last numbers that I, who have devoted unreasonable resources to having local compute facility, could reasonably personally factor for the Cunningham project were done a couple of years ago.

Maybe I should instead be helping out Cremona and Elkies in finding new elliptic curves with interesting properties; but that's an area in which I spent quite a lot of time and resources finding curves (which formed part of my PhD thesis), and then Elkies or Cremona had a better idea and more resources and were able to push the boundaries out to places I couldn't look. I'm not sure I can usefully contribute to the work to check that 234446 is the smallest conductor of an elliptic curve with rank four - it's taken CPU-decades already, and the data tables themselves are becoming awkwardly large.

[QUOTE=fivemack;278291]The problem is that almost all of those calculations are profoundly unsatisfying in precisely the way that doing calculations which give an admittedly-small amount of new information after a moderate amount of time is satisfying; 'no factor found' causes less happiness than a factor.
[/QUOTE]

Ah. You seem to be saying that people want quick gratification. The
IGG strikes again. They are unwilling to participate in long term
projects unless it gives quick feedback or results.

[QUOTE]
Maybe I should instead be helping out Cremona and Elkies in finding new elliptic curves with interesting properties; but that's an area in which I spent quite a lot of time and resources finding curves (which formed part of my PhD thesis), and then Elkies or Cremona had a better idea and more resources and were able to push the boundaries out to places I couldn't look. I'm not sure I can usefully contribute to the work to check that 234446 is the smallest conductor of an elliptic curve with rank four - it's taken CPU-decades already, and the data tables themselves are becoming awkwardly large.[/QUOTE]

Actually, believe it or not, I am in the process of writing software that will
add to these kinds of efforts. But most people here would not recognize
what a conductor (or j-invariant) is, nor would they be bothered or
have the perserverence to find out. I don't blame them, I would not
expect anyone short of working on a math PhD to participate in such).
I'm currently working on some Heegner point code (and it is rough going, especially when working in fields other than Q).

But there are other elementary computational projects that CAN settle
some open questions (perhaps with a bit of luck). The Sierpinski and
prime-Sierpinski projects are such. So is the Euler-sum project.
We know examples of a 4th power as the sum of 3 4th powers, and of
a 5th power as the sum of 4 fifth powers, but have no examples for
higher powers. I can name others.

And I still fail to see the satisfaction (other than personal amusement) of
these mundane factorizations using code written by others. As I said,
it's like being a couch potato. We all enjoy TV without knowing how
it works (I understand a little of it but not all), but we don't announce what
we watched on TV last night as a source of pride or as if our TV watching
had outside value.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278275]Technical discussion of the worthiness of research projects is inherently[/QUOTE]

Since we've moved to soap box, I'll take the time to laugh in your face at your silliness. I'm personally not attracted to OPNs as a research project. I'm a hobbiest here. The appellation of "Wagstaff's stamp collection" is supposed to be a disincentive, but it catches the essence of why I do this and it encourages me that others share my motivations for factoring. It's an added bonus that a few mathematicians happen to be interested, but not the attraction. Continue droning about "technical research projects" to your hearts content - but it will continue be ineffective because it continues to ignore why we do this.

I am, however, grateful that there are non-hobbiest such as yourself that are advancing the state of the art. I look forward to using those advances for factoring even larger numbers for OPN projects.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278277]You keep trying to put words in my mouth. I said "pointless" within one particular post that was part of a SERIES OF POSTS.[/QUOTE]

If I had thought you only meant that OPN searches are pointless, I would have ignored or deleted the message. Your views on this are well known, and you haven't said anything new on the matter for several years.

You keep trying to weasel out of what you actually said. This was your first post here in a long time. Your usual approach is to entirely quote long posts and respond to a tiny part (a rudeness to the reader), but here you took to the trouble to quote ONLY the particular factorization. I've been careful to ask only about the particular factorization.

[QUOTE=wblipp;278307]Since we've moved to soap box, I'll take the time to laugh in your face at your silliness. I'm personally not attracted to OPNs as a research project. I'm a hobbiest here. The appellation of "Wagstaff's stamp collection" is supposed to be a disincentive, but it catches the essence of why I do this and it encourages me that others share my motivations for factoring. It's an added bonus that a few mathematicians happen to be interested, but not the attraction. Continue droning about "technical research projects" to your hearts content - but it will continue be ineffective because it continues to ignore why we do this.

[/QUOTE]

OK. You want to be a computer couch potato. That is certainly your
priviledge. But even couch potatos do not crow about every show
they watch.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278314]OK. You want to be a computer couch potato. That is certainly your priviledge. But even couch potatos do not crow about every show they watch.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. Today I'll probably factor 30,000 numbers for my OPN database. You won't see any of these. Only the ones of broader interest, like 811^71-1, get shown here.

Wow RDS: That's your second fight on this forum in a very short time. What's with you this month?

and yes: I'm hobbyist...might someday want to point to my contributions to the software. It'll take some real luck to actually do any new math.

[QUOTE=Christenson;278327]Wow RDS: That's your second fight on this forum in a very short time. What's with you this month?[/QUOTE]Perhaps it's the wrong time of the month?

Which reminds me: what's the difference between BSE and PMS?

[spoiler]One is mad cow disease. and the other is a serious agricultural problem.[/spoiler]

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278295] I'm currently working on some Heegner point code (and it is rough going, especially when working in fields other than Q).[/QUOTE]

Excellent; I've done a bit of work on Heegner points, though I ended up passing the ball to Mark Watkins who ran with it and was able to find explicitly the generators of height a-few-thousand of some carefully-chosen algebraic-rank-1 Mordell curves ... I worked out the equations for four-descent, he did the Heeger calculations on the four-descendent curve and lifted them to the initial one. It's the only time that I've found [b]addition[/b] at high precision to be the limiting factor - I think Mark ended up having to write some code using the very deep internals of Magma.

I cannot recommend working with a workaholic genius as the path to inward happiness, though I wish Mark nothing but the best.

[quote]So is the Euler-sum project.
We know examples of a 4th power as the sum of 3 4th powers, and of
a 5th power as the sum of 4 fifth powers, but have no examples for
higher powers. I can name others.[/quote]

That's also something that I've done; for my MMath I found the smallest number which was the sum of two cubes in five distinct ways, and was other than entirely happy that I could google the number and find that it was the smallest number with that property - though Roger Heath-Brown was willing to accept the dissertation for MMath anyway.

[quote]And I still fail to see the satisfaction (other than personal amusement) of these mundane factorizations using code written by others.[/quote]
I think personal amusement is close to sufficient satisfaction.

Tom

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278295]But there are other elementary computational projects that CAN settle
some open questions (perhaps with a bit of luck). The Sierpinski and
prime-Sierpinski projects are such.[/quote]

I find those significantly less pointful than the OPN work: there's a reasonable argument that the smallest number to satisfy the Sierpinski requirements will be a good deal larger than the largest numbers tested for Mersenne primality.

[QUOTE=fivemack;278367]I find those significantly less pointful than the OPN work: there's a reasonable argument that the smallest number to satisfy the Sierpinski requirements will be a good deal larger than the largest numbers tested for Mersenne primality.[/QUOTE]

The OPN factorizations have NO HOPE of ever yielding the desired result.
That result will have to come from new mathematics. All they can do
is keep raising the (lower) bound, a little bit at a time. Now, if at some
point in time a mathematical result (say) yields the result that if an
OPN exists, it must be less than 10^B for some reachable B, then yes
the computations will be worth pursuing.


The Sierpinski/17 or Bust project can (and eventually will) settle the
conjecture. It is bounded in scope and the computations themselves will settle the conjecture without any new mathematics.

So the choice is endless computation that can never achieve a result
versus computations that will.

[QUOTE=fivemack;278363]
That's also something that I've done; for my MMath I found the smallest number which was the sum of two cubes in five distinct ways, and was other than entirely happy that I could google the number and find that it was the smallest number with that property - though Roger Heath-Brown was willing to accept the dissertation for MMath anyway.
[/QUOTE]

You had Roger as your advisor? Wow. You were extraordinarily blessed.
He is an extraordinary analytic number theorist.

[QUOTE]
I think personal amusement is close to sufficient satisfaction.

Tom[/QUOTE]

I will express an opinion here: Only people with ego problems/low self esteem
should find it necessary to trumpet couch potato work to the Internet.
As I said before, I find some (but not much) TV to be personally amusing.
I don't trumpet the shows that I watch to the net.

I have some very minor new results on NFS that I could publish but won't.
I recognize that they are not important enough. They extend the optimal
sieve region stuff that I did for the line siever to the lattice sieve. I consider
it a trivial extension of what I did earlier, easily derived by anyone who
read my prior paper and of limited importance. Publishing would be a
pointless gesture on MY part. I am not someone who
publishes 'easy stuff' simply to publish another paper. Yet many people
here seem to just repeatedly trumpet their couch potato easy factorizations.

I also realize that you know that many academics do publish as much as
possible just to get published. The depth of the paper does not matter;
merely the total number of papers published. Yech.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278280]And as long as people feel the need to post these results, I will continue
to post my opinion.

[...]
[/quote]

Your "opinion" has the sole effect and, since you are not stupid, I must assume the purpose of starting yet another flame war. I consider that well over the line towards trolling and I will act on it. You think you're the only mathematician here qualified to decide what can and cannot be posted. You are quite wrong there. Since you don't have actual moderator powers, you try to enforce your ideas by sheer obnoxiousness. That has to stop, now.

Whether the computations are mathematically groundbreaking or significant or whatever isn't even the question, another point where you are completely wrong. Mersenneforum is an offspring of GIMPS which is one huge project of blindly running someone elses code. Such computations are not merely welcome here, they are what mersenneforum are based on - you'd think that after seven years here, you would have noticed. If you don't like a forum where people waste their time on such futile trivialities, what are you doing here?? You are most welcome to participate in a forum that better matches your idea of how to spend computational resources. You are not welcome, however, to tell everyone here what they have to do to meet your expectations. No one needs to. Get it out of your head that you can or should exercise authority here. Stop being a control freak.

Occasionally you do post something worth reading, which is the reason why you are still around. Pointers to literature (when they aren't merely "Read my paper" plugs), or dropping the name of the theorem relevant to the question. The thread where you walked science_man_88 through elementary math and turned him into someone who can participate in everyday forum discussion here is a fine piece of work, and I applaud you for it. If you want to display authority, do it by insightful posting - preferably without pointing out yet again that you have scientific publications, you're hardly the only one.

Think about whether mersenneforum is right for you and if it is, take it as what it is, not as what you think it should be, no matter how much you think you've got it right. If you can't help trying to enforce your ideas of what is fit for the forum and what is not, the decision of wheter you stay or not will likely be taken out of your control.

Somewhat dumb question: Suppose, unlike Fermat's famous conjecture, that an odd perfect number does in fact exist and is found by the Odd Perfect hunters. Then what?

This whole business of GIMPS is a lot like astronomy...it's largely useless, but folks get supported for it because the folks that do it create useful skills and inventions that support other things. (Now, possibly not fairly or well enough, as I am sure RDS feels). Remember that P95 is now a test suite for most Intel processors and chipsets, before they ever get seen by mere consumers!

[QUOTE=akruppa;278537] You are not welcome, however, to tell everyone here what they have to do to meet your expectations. No one needs to. Get it out of your head that you can or should exercise authority here. Stop being a control freak.

[/QUOTE]

A [b]moderator[/b] wants to practice censorship because he doesn't like
my suggestions thaqt certain computations are pointless, then calls
[i]me[/i] a control freak??? And tells me that I can not 'exercize
authority'? Since when has expressing an opinion about the value of
certain reserach constituted 'exercizing authority'?

This is total hypocricy. You are trying to ban
the posting of a point of view simply because you don't like that point of
view. Who is the control freak here???

Hypocricy.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278641]A [b]moderator[/b] wants to practice censorship because he doesn't like
my suggestions thaqt certain computations are pointless, then calls
[i]me[/i] a control freak???[/QUOTE]

No. A moderator wishes to keep the group tranquil - which is precisely what moderators are for - and has made the clear observation that your repeated assertions of your opinion are harmful to tranquility. He is not trying to bar you from having your point of view; he is trying to keep the group tranquil, and observes that your repeated loud assertions of your point of view harm tranquillity.

[QUOTE=fivemack;278645]No. A moderator wishes to keep the group tranquil - which is precisely what moderators are for - and has made the clear observation that your repeated assertions of your opinion are harmful to tranquility. He is not trying to bar you from having your point of view; he is trying to keep the group tranquil, and observes that your repeated loud assertions of your point of view harm tranquillity.[/QUOTE]

So you want an academic (or semi-academic) arena in which there is no
controversy. Indeed. You want one in which controversy is forbidden!!!

What an enlightened view!

Its still censorship because you don't like a particular message.

[QUOTE=fivemack;278645]No. A moderator wishes to keep the group tranquil - which is precisely what moderators are for - and has made the clear observation that your repeated assertions of your opinion are harmful to tranquility. He is not trying to bar you from having your point of view; he is trying to keep the group tranquil, and observes that your repeated loud assertions of your point of view harm tranquillity.[/QUOTE]

And of course, the break in tranquility caused by repeated insults toward
ME are conveniently ignored by the moderators.

You are hypocrites.

Pointless discussion. Mr. Silverman should take a walk for a week.

This is not a scientific arena, this is a web forum. Those who would like to discuss academic subjects are welcome to do so, those who wish to discuss mindless computations are likewise. Whether [I]you[/I] like it or not is irrelevant.

Do I qualify for 'couch potato' when I say I enjoy this discussion very much while Prime95 is doing double-check LL tests in the background?

[QUOTE=akruppa;278658]This is not a scientific arena, this is a web forum. Those who would like to discuss academic subjects are welcome to do so,
[/QUOTE]

Clearly [b]not[/b], since the question of whether a computation has value IS
an academic subject and moderators with too much power want to
censor such discussion because it upsets 'tranquility'.


Hypocrites.

[QUOTE=Christenson;278616]Bob:
I think the mods *do* pose a double standard. You get the long end of the stick, with a pass for stuff that would get me tossed, on account of having some math in the literature relevant to GIMPS.

The long post from akruppa tonight on the OPN hunt thread is a case in point....the last person I saw get himself tossed from here (crying Mediocrite!) didn't get anywhere near that much effort from the mods.[/QUOTE]

fivemack said it. They do [b]not[/b] want free and open debate.
They want [i]tranquility[/i] and are willing to resort to censorship
because my opinions upset people.

I quote Ben Franklin:

"Those willing to give up essential liberty for safety are
deserving of neither."

(here, 'safety' is a synonym for 'tranquility')

And of course, they ignore the many insults tossed my way. I wouldn't
mind the insults if we had free an open communication, because then I could reply
in kind. But the thought police don't want that.

Read my first paragraph of posting #23.

[B]The Golden Rule[/B] or [B]ethic of reciprocity[/B] is a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_%28philosophy%29"]maxim[/URL],[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#cite_note-Flew-1"][2][/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics"]ethical code[/URL], or [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality"]morality[/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#cite_note-2"][3][/URL] that essentially states either of the following:
[LIST][*](Positive form): One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#cite_note-Flew-1"][2][/URL][*](Negative/prohibitive form, also called the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Rule"]Silver Rule[/URL]): One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.[/LIST] The Golden Rule is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights"]human rights[/URL], in which each individual has a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right"]right[/URL] to just treatment, and a reciprocal responsibility to ensure justice for others.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#cite_note-3"][4][/URL]

Taken from [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=6400]here[/url].

[QUOTE=akruppa;278669]Read my first paragraph of posting #23.[/QUOTE]

"Your "opinion" has the sole effect and, since you are not stupid, I must assume the purpose of starting yet another flame war. I consider that well over the line towards trolling and I will act on it. You think you're the only mathematician here qualified to decide what can and cannot be posted. You are quite wrong there. Since you don't have actual moderator powers, you try to enforce your ideas by sheer obnoxiousness."


The fact that my opinions have the effect of starting a flame war does not
mean that a flame war is my intent. And I treat your "opinion" that this
is trolling with total contempt. Attempting censorship based on your
"opinion" is a clear abuse of moderator opinion. Furthermore, we have seen
posts that are clearly either trolls (or essays posted by people who truly are
cretins), yet you do nothing about those. It is clear that you do have a
double standard.

And the fact that people may find my opinions "obnoxious" is their problem.
Go read the court decision in Underwood vs. Dudley. The court held
that for example, labelling someone a 'crank' (or other similar insult) was
something that belonged quite properly to the public court of CONTROVERSY
and was not libel in any sense. The fact that my opinion is disliked and
causes controversy is not a reason for moderator abuse of power by
practicing censorship. If people do not like my opinion that certain
computations are pointless, they are free to debate the matter.

Your entire paragraph amounts to: "I have moderator power and
you don't. I can enforce censorship whereas you (meaning me) try to
enforce your ideas by means that others see as 'obnoxious' ".

Talk about abuse of power!!!!!

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278649]So you want an academic (or semi-academic) arena in which there is no
controversy. Indeed. You want one in which controversy is forbidden!!![/QUOTE]

This is not an academic arena; if you want one, I recommend Terence Tao's blog, though it is full of discussions at so elevated a level as to be entirely incomprehensible - I can't even figure out which area of mathematics they are in, I think it's somewhere between analysis and the theory of infinite groups but could readily be entirely wrong.

I am happy with [b]controversy[/b]. But I am unhappy with [b]tumult[/b], and feel it is reasonable to forbid it. You're welcome to have opinions, you're welcome to state them once in the right place, but if a flame war has started (whether you started it or not) then everyone should withdraw until it stops.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278662]Clearly [b]not[/b], since the question of whether a computation has value IS
an academic subject[/QUOTE]

No, it isn't. The question of the probability of a computation resolving a conjecture, or of the ability of a computation to resolve a conjecture, is an academic one. The question of whether people should perform computations which don't have the ability to resolve a conjecture is not an academic one, and you seem incapable of talking about the first question without insulting people who don't share your opinion on the second, causing commotion. So it's best if you talk about neither.

[QUOTE=fivemack;278710]No, it isn't. The question of the probability of a computation resolving a conjecture, or of the ability of a computation to resolve a conjecture, is an academic one. The question of whether people should perform computations which don't have the ability to resolve a conjecture is not an academic one
[/QUOTE]

So you claim. But this is pure opinion.

Bob:
You are sometimes difficult to distinguish from a pure crank. I can't recall your admitting an error. And you do get tumults started quite well, often over small issues of mathematical precision, and never (or almost never) with a smile. The words that have been told to me when I have been in a situation similar to yours are that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I don't always succeed in the applying that.

This forum is, by and large, a hobby forum...admittedly, a very strange and sophisticated hobby, but a hobby nonetheless...we only have 4 or 5 or maybe a dozen "real" mathematicians amongst the regular posters, and they have no illusions that mersenneforum should be like some sort of idealized sci.math. Only you would jump on me for not saying "the extended reals" in conjunction with the definition, the real numbers plus infinity.... anyone else would have simply reminded me that that was the definition and that I should have said it more clearly!

And if you think free speech truly applies to this forum, it might behoove you to re-read the user agreement, which almost certainly gives the moderators the sole discretion to decide what is inappropriate for the forum.

What is actually accomplished here, certainly for me, is a sense of social community -- that is, contact with like-minded people. The people (nominally engineers) I work with from day to day have zero idea of or interest in what a mersenne prime is, and hardly remember what a derivative is. Mersenneforum is a welcome alternative, a place to do things because I want to rather than I have to.

The problem is that R.D. Silverman's opinions are confrontational, aimed at discouraging others from helping in our projects, and often patently false. When he says that factorizations are pointless, he neglects to tell the reader that those factorizations are a part of peer-reviewed, professionally published mathematics papers. They may play a very minor role, in that the authors could have instead said "If we desired, we could do some straightforward computations, and we estimate that a bound of .... could be established." Instead, the papers can read "We'd like to thank so-and-so for helping push the computations to their reasonable limit. The bounds we find are..." or "Thanks to the diligent efforts of so-and-so, these computations helped us finish proving the following result..."

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278641]A [b]moderator[/b] wants to practice censorship because he doesn't like
my suggestions thaqt certain computations are pointless, then calls
[i]me[/i] a control freak??? And tells me that I can not 'exercize
authority'? Since when has expressing an opinion about the value of
certain reserach constituted 'exercizing authority'?

This is total hypocricy. You are trying to ban
the posting of a point of view simply because you don't like that point of
view. Who is the control freak here???

Hypocricy.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps. You are most often right on the side of math. When it comes to civil discourse, you should take some of the medicine that you prescribe to others and take a lesson or two. It is the role of the moderators to allow fair exchange of ideas by ensuring that coercion does not prevent participants from voicing their opinion.

You stand on a platform high above many with respect to your level of knowledge and confidence from experience. The expectation that moderators hold against you should be much higher with respect to self restraint unless you enjoy roasting ants with a magnifying glass. It is, perhaps, why some may pick on you to [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y"]argue with you for the sake of argument[/URL].

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;278744]The problem is that R.D. Silverman's opinions are confrontational[/QUOTE]



[QUOTE]judge = Prime95
jury = mods
defendant = anyone else but RDS
prosecution = RDS

judge: how do you plead
defendant: not guilty.
judge: state your case.
prosecution: they're guilty because ...... and they don't do it the way I would.
defendant: objection your honor !
judge:sustained, jury how do you find.
jury : not guilty.
prosecution ( to jury): if you walk out of here without overturning the verdict I'll ______ you![/QUOTE]

seems to be what I find seeming to happen, sometimes it happens for a reason ( like in my case of acting stupid). others it just seems RDS wants to play the role of judge directing the case.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;278744]The problem is that R.D. Silverman's opinions are confrontational, aimed at discouraging others from helping in our projects, and often patently false. When he says that factorizations are pointless, he neglects to tell the reader that those factorizations are a part of peer-reviewed, professionally published mathematics papers.
[/QUOTE]

If you refer to the Ochem [b]paper[/b] (not papers), it as you point out
would have stood on its own WITHOUT the factorizations. It was quite
publishable without the added computation.

The reverse is not true.

Indeed. Speaker purely as a referee the paper would have had [i]more[/i]
value if we could have seen how far the new mathematics could have pushed
the bound [i]without any new computation[/b]. That is to say, let the
math stand on its own.

"The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers". The math in that
paper added insight. The new computations did not add any insight.

[QUOTE=imwithid;278766]Perhaps. You are most often right on the side of math. When it comes to civil discourse, you should take some of the medicine that you prescribe to others and take a lesson or two.
[/QUOTE]

Between this and Christenson's reply I am convinced. This forum is a
politically correct [i]social club[/b] for hobbyists. Tranquility is more
important to you than academic discipline or integrity. So be it.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278772]Between this and Christenson's reply I am convinced. This forum is a politically correct [i]social club[/b] for hobbyists. Tranquility is more
important to you than academic discipline or integrity. So be it.[/QUOTE]

Just wondering RDS...

Have you ever been laid?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278771]If you refer to the Ochem [b]paper[/b] (not papers), it as you point out
would have stood on its own WITHOUT the factorizations. It was quite
publishable without the added computation.

The reverse is not true.[/quote]I refer to that paper among others.

By "the reverse is not true" are you claiming that the paper did not benefit from the computations, or that the paper couldn't be written merely by performing computations?

The first claim would be silly. The second doesn't even make sense, since the computations were only performed after the mathematics had been put in place.

[quote]Indeed. Speaker purely as a referee the paper would have had [i]more[/i]
value if we could have seen how far the new mathematics could have pushed
the bound [i]without any new computation[/b]. That is to say, let the
math stand on its own.[/quote]You seem to have a strange view that computations add nothing to mathematics. We don't argue with your claim that there is more value to pure theory, rather we reject your claim of "pointless."

Consider Catalan's conjecture. Preda Mihăilescu gave a beautiful proof, but it would have been incomplete without a few computations. Subsequently, he was able to remove some (but not all) of those computations from the proof. Both results are good, the second improved the first. But none of the computations were ever "pointless."

The four-color theorem, as it currently stands, *requires* lots and lots of computations. I agree it would be great if we had a proof which minimized them. But if you were to say that such computations are "pointless" would be incendiary and wrong. Similarly, saying that people helping Ochem (and others) to flesh out their papers by performing factorizations is "pointless" is incendiary and wrong. The result might not be as important as the 4-color theorem or the Mihăilescu theorem, and may only demonstrate how much better the new mathematical ideas are in utilizing available computational power, but the computations are still enjoyable and add to professional papers.

[quote]"The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers". The math in that
paper added insight. The new computations did not add any insight.[/QUOTE][b]One[/b] of the purposes of computing is insight. [b]Another[/b] is simply to finish off some unfinished cases that the general theory suggest can be done by a simple computation.

And again, you made a patently false claim. In the aggregate, these computations do, have, and will continue to provide insight. I've given you specific examples.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278772]Between this and Christenson's reply I am convinced. This forum is a
politically correct [i]social club[/b] for hobbyists. Tranquility is more
important to you than academic discipline or integrity. So be it.[/QUOTE]

Great, you've got it.

If this message indicates that you're leaving, goodbye; if it indicates that you're won over to the way of tranquility and wish to join our social club in the spirit in which it is intended, welcome.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278772]Between this and Christenson's reply I am convinced. This forum is a
politically correct [i]social club[/b] for hobbyists. Tranquility is more
important to you than academic discipline or integrity. So be it.[/QUOTE]

One can have both without turning this into an either-or case. There is much room in the middle. One can strive for higher academic standards, however, that will not be achieved by berating others into submission. Notwithstadning, I try by refraining from posting what you would consider nonsense.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278772]Tranquility is more important to you than academic discipline or integrity.[/QUOTE]These not mutually exclusive. We can have both at the same time. Can't we?

[QUOTE=retina;278781]These not mutually exclusive. We can have both at the same time. Can't we?[/QUOTE]

I have no sign of the latter in the last 7 years that didn't come from me.
All of my attempts met with resistence, hostility, and resentment.

Did you ever wonder why so [b]few[/b] leading experts post here?
Have you seen what happened to sci.math over the last 20 odd years?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278804]All of my attempts met with resistence, hostility, and resentment.[/QUOTE]

Might that be because of you?

Be responsible for the listening into which you are speaking.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278804]I have no sign of the latter in the last 7 years that didn't come from me.[/QUOTE]

okay define mathematical integrity for me, and 2 I think part of the problem with being cutting edge is:

{R.D. Silverman's knowledge} [TEX]\cup[/TEX] {newcomer's knowledge base} is {R.D. Silverman's knowledge}

this leads to nothing new.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278679]
The fact that my opinions have the effect of starting a flame war does not
mean that a flame war is my intent. And I treat your "opinion" that this
is trolling with total contempt. Attempting censorship based on your
"opinion" is a clear abuse of moderator opinion. Furthermore, we have seen
posts that are clearly either trolls (or essays posted by people who truly are
cretins), yet you do nothing about those. It is clear that you do have a
double standard.
[/quote]

I expect you to know the effect of such postings by now; everyone else does. A posting with content "Pointless." in no way qualifies as academic discourse which you claim to promote. It was a simple troll. If anyone else on the forum should ever get as disruptive as you have been ever since you joined, I'll probably do something about them, too. They have a way to go to get there, though.

[quote]
Go read the court decision in Underwood vs. Dudley.
[/quote]

This forum is not a court of law, either. How do you keep coming up with those ridiculous comparisons? I won't sue you for libel, merely ban you, if you keep trolling.

[quote]
Your entire paragraph amounts to: "I have moderator power and
you don't. I can enforce censorship whereas you (meaning me) try to
enforce your ideas by means that others see as 'obnoxious' ".

Talk about abuse of power!!!!![/QUOTE]

As it happens, yes, I do have moderator power, and handling repeat trolls squarely fits the job description. Having the nerve to moderate you is not hypocrisy or a power-trip, but over-due.

[QUOTE=akruppa;278828]This forum is not a court of law, either. How do you keep coming up with those ridiculous comparisons? I won't sue you for libel, merely ban you, if you keep trolling.
[/QUOTE]

might be my fault for describing what I feel goes on like a court readout.

Science Man, whatever is going on here with Mr Silverman has very little to do with you specifically and your humorous little transcript. It has a lot to do with Mr Silverman's absolutist approach to truth and rigor....and his underlying anger with all of us, and probably the whole world, which seems to drive the absolutism.

Although RDS doesn't seem to see it, truth, even mathematical truth, is a direction. It can be encouraged or discouraged, all by the way in which things are presented. I happen to agree that figuring out M48 is probably meaningless mathematically, unless RDS gets mad and proceeds to find a proof that there are no more, or that there are infinitely more, or that all mersenne primes satisfy some obscure condition on their exponent. But he discourages me when I find out that one of his favorite authors has multiple books on number theory and I ask which would be best to study out of and the PM gets ignored. He discourages when a whole post is called wrong with an epithet when a simple addition (hey! this is the definition of the extended reals) to a post would have made it *really* right, and the post was mostly right in the first place.

Others are discouraged with one-word epithets like "Nonsense!", or "Gibberish", or "Horse Manure!" instead of something like:"On the contrary, suppose X,Y, and Z hold, as they do for WWW?", or "What *exactly* do you mean by the xyzzy set? Does it include zero? infinity? quaternions? polynomials?" or a simple "You aren't making complete sense...the definition of octonion is too imprecise...try X".

And no, I don't expect a community of total math experts here....if you want that, you need to enlist the mods to help keep the math threads that are interesting to experts relatively easily separated from the vast majority, just like sci.math.research attempted to do once upon a time, about 1995, in the days of Ludwig Plutonium and "time has inertia" and MPQS. That's how the new, unrelated posts on the end of the FFT multiplication thread got moved, at least in part because I requested it of the mods, nicely.

If you want to see the difference, look up the last crank that got himself banned that I am aware of....JohnFullspeed...in
[url]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=15999[/url]
I'll be honest: it was clear Mr Fullspeed had a mathematical screw loose from the beginning, but I imagine that he is roughly in the same position with respect to me mathematically as I am and will probably remain with respect to Mr Silverman. I tried to gently push him to be clearer and more correct, and LaurV joined me. I may not have succeeded completely, but the practice was worthwhile. The only other way to avoid a negative outcome of that thread was for me to say nothing.

I realise that this is not a democracy, and my opinions carry little if any weight, but for what they are worth, I greatly value RDS' mathematical contributions to the forum and would be saddened to see him leave. I also see little prospect of getting him to change his ways.

My preference, therefore, is he not be banned and that we continue to tolerate his behaviour, as we have these past several years.

I'd like to second what Mr. P-1 writes. We are talking about someone who makes enormously valuable contributions to this forum. Beyond that, I find any public discussion of these issues distasteful: it should be conducted in private between the moderators and those directly involved.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;278910]I'd like to second what Mr. P-1 writes. We are talking about someone who makes enormously valuable contributions to this forum. Beyond that, I find any public discussion of these issues distasteful: it should be conducted in private between the moderators and those directly involved.[/QUOTE]Believe it or not, a great deal of this sort of thing is discussed in private. Every now and again it flares up in public.

[QUOTE=xilman;278913]Believe it or not, a great deal of this sort of thing is discussed in private. Every now and again it flares up in public.[/QUOTE]

Did you ever wonder why

Lenstra/Lenstra/Kleinjung/Montgomery/Pomerance/Crandall/Wagstaff/Williams/Cohen/Buchmann/Odlyzko/Elkies/Coppersmith etc. (all more talented than I)

do not and have never participated here? Some of them used to participate
in sci.math.

I suggest that this group give some serious thought to this question.

Keeping one's powder dry
 

[QUOTE=Christenson;278866]If you want to see the difference, look up the last crank that got himself banned that I am aware of....JohnFullspeed...in
[URL]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=15999[/URL]
I'll be honest: it was clear Mr Fullspeed had a mathematical screw loose from the beginning...[/QUOTE]
I hope you saw Ernst's post in another thread (see below)*
[QUOTE=Mr. P-1;278902]I also see little prospect of getting him to change his ways.
My preference, therefore, is he not be banned and that we continue to tolerate his behaviour, as we have these past several years.[/QUOTE]
e.g. As in this thread?
[QUOTE=Brian-E;278910]Beyond that, I find any public discussion of these issues distasteful: it should be conducted in private between the moderators and those directly involved.[/QUOTE]
Well said, but whose fault is that?
[QUOTE=xilman;278913]Believe it or not, a great deal of this sort of thing is discussed in private. Every now and again it flares up in public.[/QUOTE]
A rare occurrence.

David

(*) Ernst dubbed him "John Full[SPOILER]Retard[/SPOILER] more like".
Bob responded "I would get banned if I were to
post anything like that".
I would like to think this was an attempt at humour.

[QUOTE=xilman;278913]Believe it or not, a great deal of this sort of thing is discussed in private. Every now and again it flares up in public.[/QUOTE]
There's no problem with believing that. I have the greatest respect for you and various others who are never involved in causing it to flare up.

Missed the post
 

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278914]Did you ever wonder why

Lenstra/Lenstra/Kleinjung/Montgomery/Pomerance/Crandall/Wagstaff/Williams/Cohen/Buchmann/Odlyzko/Elkies/Coppersmith etc. (all more talented than I)

do not and have never participated here? Some of them used to participate
in sci.math.

I suggest that this group give some serious thought to this question.[/QUOTE]

Sorry Bob.
Try Spoonerizing the title

David

[QUOTE=Brian-E;278917]There's no problem with believing that. I have the greatest respect for you and various others who are never involved in causing it to flare up.[/QUOTE]

Paul is made of asbestos, but when it comes to pouring petrol...

David

PS Fawlty Towers clip to follow if I find it :smile:

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278914]Did you ever wonder why

Lenstra/Lenstra/Kleinjung/Montgomery/Pomerance/Crandall/Wagstaff/Williams/Cohen/Buchmann/Odlyzko/Elkies/Coppersmith etc. (all more talented than I)

do not and have never participated here? Some of them used to participate
in sci.math.

I suggest that this group give some serious thought to this question.[/QUOTE]

my guess is that you think it's because they don't lock up cranks and throw away the key here.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;278921]my guess is that you think it's because they don't lock up cranks and throw away the key here.[/QUOTE]

It is clear that people here do not care about my opinions.

I was asking what YOU think.

[QUOTE=Mr. P-1;278902]I realise that this is not a democracy, and my opinions carry little if any weight, but for what they are worth, I greatly value RDS' mathematical contributions to the forum and would be saddened to see him leave. I also see little prospect of getting him to change his ways.

My preference, therefore, is he not be banned and that we continue to tolerate his behaviour, as we have these past several years.[/QUOTE]

If people do not like to see my posts, there is a very simple mechanism!

Put me on your ignore list.

Or are people objecting to the mere fact that I say things that they don't
like, EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T SEE THEM????

No Dis intended SM
 

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278923]...think.[/QUOTE]
?
I vaguely remember what that means.

PS I hope you are happy with regaining 5th spot
in the "Number of Posts" ranking.
Watch out!
I feel a few YouTube clips coming on ;)

David

Big Brother
 

I suspect this thread is being moderated with some care ATM.

Perhaps this explains the number of CROSS posts.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278804]I have no sign of the latter in the last 7 years that didn't come from me.
All of my attempts met with resistence, hostility, and resentment.

Did you ever wonder why so [b]few[/b] leading experts post here?
Have you seen what happened to sci.math over the last 20 odd years?[/QUOTE]

The experts don't post here because the level is low. So be it. If the level gets by itself to a point where experts turn up, great, we will love them and cherish them and call them Arjen - but irritating the people who are here, in the unlikely hope of attracting experts, doesn't seem a good idea.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278924]Or are people objecting to the mere fact that I say things that they don't like, EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T SEE THEM????[/QUOTE]

Yes, we are objecting because experience from all over the Internet is that the presence of invisible people in conversations derails them horribly; and that the 'so kill-file me' argument is almost always made only by the incorrigible.

See you in December.

OMG
 

[QUOTE=fivemack;278932]
See you in December.[/QUOTE]

How will I survive the next 2 weeks?

David

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278924]
Or are people objecting to the mere fact that I say things that they don't
like, EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T SEE THEM????[/QUOTE]

And this from the guy who says postings to the OPN thread irritate him and must stop. Go ahead, call us hypocrites again.

If you like to reply, since you are banned: [email]akruppa@gmail.com[/email]

[QUOTE=akruppa;278952]... you are banned[/QUOTE]:shock:

I'm gonna miss RDS's posts. :sad: I didn't always agree with them but they were sometimes insightful, sometimes grating and other times condescending but overall still interesting from the perspective of social interaction study. Ooh, the amateur psychologist in me is just dying to say more but shall refrain.

[QUOTE=akruppa;278952]...you are banned...[/QUOTE]

Just to clarify, is this a time-limited ban? Or is it open-ended/permanent?

[QUOTE=fivemack;278932]
See you in December.[/QUOTE]
-

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;278924]If people do not like to see my posts, there is a very simple mechanism!

Put me on your ignore list.

Or are people objecting to the mere fact that I say things that they don't
like, EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T SEE THEM????[/QUOTE]

easy way to avoid the conflict you don't want is to ignore people you think are doing pointless things instead of commenting with comments like : pointless which are usually in themselves pointless to make as people do as they like, regardless.

[QUOTE=Mr. P-1;278960]Just to clarify, is this a time-limited ban? Or is it open-ended/permanent?[/QUOTE]It's the five minute argument.

For the time being, anyway.


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;278976]It's the five minute argument.

For the time being, anyway.


Paul[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but I can't go on arguing unless you pay me.....

[QUOTE=science_man_88;278966]easy way to avoid the conflict you don't want is to ignore people you think are doing pointless things instead of commenting with comments like : pointless which are usually in themselves pointless to make as people do as they like, regardless.[/QUOTE]

Already.

Mr. Silverman seems to want a certain type of forum that differs from mersenneforum.org in several ways.

He's been invited to start a subforum that's only for folks willing to follow his rules. He hasn't taken that invitation.

IIRC he's been invited to go off and start his own forum, entirely separate from mersenneforum.org, that he can run however he wants -- he hasn't done that either.

He's content to freeload on mersenneforum.org (perhaps because of its established name/fame?), without taking any of the suggestions that would allow him to have what he wants ... or, rather, would allow him to have what he [I]claims[/I] he wants.

This suggests that what Mr. Silverman [I]really[/I] wants has nothing to do with posters having done their homework or phrasing their questions in proper mathematical terminology, but instead satisfies his psychological desire to remain in a situation just like the one he has already had here, berating his inferiors, safe in the comfort of being a bmoc (Definition #1 here: [URL]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bmoc[/URL]).

[QUOTE=retina;278954]:shock:

I'm gonna miss RDS's posts. :sad: I didn't always agree with them but they were sometimes insightful, sometimes grating and other times condescending but overall still interesting from the perspective of social interaction study. Ooh, the amateur psychologist in me is just dying to say more but shall refrain.[/QUOTE]

Seconding Brian-E and Mr P-1....but have no fear, I think RDS will be back...for all the reasons given by Mr Cheesehead....

I have to say that based on what I have read in these threads, I don't feel that banning RDS is right. Perhaps he made other, more incendiary posts which were deleted by the moderator(s), and the banning was in response to these, but if so, I would ask the moderator or moderators to clarify. I do feel that RDS has been persistently obnoxious on this particular issue, but as a result, we have some interesting observations by William and some well-written posts by Pace about the interplay between computations and mathematical thought that have quite effectively refuted Mr. Silverman's argument in my opinion. I don't see mere obnoxiousness as a valid reason for banning and, in the absence of any more serious charges, appeal to the moderators to lift the ban.

I too feel that the ban on RDS is a big disappointment and would like to find a way of removing it.

I would plead with Bob to simply ignore posts that he sees as pointless since the one sure way of guaranteeing that they will continue is to comment on them in a disparaging way.

I would also plead with people who post 'routine' factorisations to instead send them _privately_ to those who need them. If someone truly believes a factorisation is noteworthy and hence deserves posting, I believe its specific significance should then be spelt out as a part of the post.

And, of course, it would make sense for the moderators to act against the repeated posting of 'routine' factorisations published here without good reason.

[QUOTE=Brian Gladman;279273]I would also plead with people who post 'routine' factorisations to instead send them _privately_ to those who need them. If someone truly believes a factorisation is noteworthy and hence deserves posting, I believe its specific significance should then be spelt out as a part of the post.

And, of course, it would make sense for the moderators to act against the repeated posting of 'routine' factorisations published here without good reason.[/QUOTE]

As Alex pointed out, these are the forums for the GIMPS project. Basically its all about mindless computation and routine factorisation and primality testing. I don't agree that the "Found a factor? Post it here" thread should be shut down. People who are uninterested can just ignore it, or, if their initials are RDS, complain endlessly about it.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto[/url]

[QUOTE=Mr. P-1;279275]As Alex pointed out, these are the forums for the GIMPS project. Basically its all about mindless computation and routine factorisation and primality testing. I don't agree that the "Found a factor? Post it here" thread should be shut down. People who are uninterested can just ignore it, or, if their initials are RDS, complain endlessly about it.[/QUOTE]

Nobody is asking for anything to be shut down. But if people cannot be sensible and ensure that they are publishing factorisations that are noteworthy, others will then waste their time by looking at a thread that might contain something of interest only to find that it doesn't. I would, however, be happy to see two threads - "Found a Noteworthy Factor - Post It Here" and "Found a Nondescript Factor - Post It Here" so I and others would know which thread to ignore.

And, of course, if this forum is truly _all_ about mindless and routine factorisations, it seems clear that those of us who want to push the state of the art forward are wasting our time here.

[QUOTE]Nobody is asking for anything to be shut down. But if people cannot be sensible and ensure that they are publishing factorisations that are noteworthy, others will then waste their time by looking at a thread that might contain something of interest only to find that it doesn't.[/quote]Why? The factorizations are posted on a thread titled "Odd Perfect Related Roadblocks 2". All they have to do is look at the title and not enter the thread.

[quote]I would, however, be happy to see two threads - "Found a Noteworthy Factor - Post It Here" and "Found a Nondescript Factor - Post It Here" so I and others would know which thread to ignore.[/quote]Just look at the title of the thread. They are usually descriptive enough to allow you to judge whether the factorization would be "noteworthy" according to any standard you wish.

[quote]And, of course, if this forum is truly _all_ about mindless and routine factorisations, it seems clear that those of us who want to push the state of the art forward are wasting our time here. [/QUOTE]If one defines "state of the art" narrow enough, that doesn't happen on this forum. It only happens in peer-reviewed mathematical papers. If someone then writes up code to use those ideas, and that code is put to use to actually factor numbers, it is a fair bet that most of those numbers will be nondescript according to the definitions of some. (And quite useful, to the projects in which the factorizations are being utilized.)

[QUOTE=Brian Gladman;279281]Nobody is asking for anything to be shut down. But if people cannot be sensible and ensure that they are publishing factorisations that are noteworthy, others will then waste their time by looking at a thread that might contain something of interest only to find that it doesn't. I would, however, be happy to see two threads - "Found a Noteworthy Factor - Post It Here" and "Found a Nondescript Factor - Post It Here" so I and others would know which thread to ignore.

And, of course, if this forum is truly _all_ about mindless and routine factorisations, it seems clear that those of us who want to push the state of the art forward are wasting our time here.[/QUOTE]

I have no problem with people using state of the art but I believe if I've watched the thread about OPN close enough it's not just that he said pointless it's also how many times he's said it and that the facts that certain places only accepted certain result types from certain types of factoring didn't matter because if it's not state of the art factorization ( even if it sounds as though he made the breakthrough that allowed it to happen) it's pointless and repeating that is almost forcing beliefs though I won't go that far because repeating anything enough times is on that line. RDS sounds as though he thinks most of the forum should have to block him instead of him blocking most of the forum. just like with the borg any resistance in any other form is futile.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;279282]Why? The factorizations are posted on a thread titled "Odd Perfect Related Roadblocks 2". All they have to do is look at the title and not enter the thread.

Just look at the title of the thread. They are usually descriptive enough to allow you to judge whether the factorization would be "noteworthy" according to any standard you wish.[/QUOTE]

That's the point - they are very often NOT descriptive enough and I have often wasted my time as a result.

[QUOTE=Brian Gladman;279290]That's the point - they are very often NOT descriptive enough and I have often wasted my time as a result.[/QUOTE]Could you give an example of a recent thread title that was not descriptive enough for you?

We have a perfectly serviceable 'gratuitous factors thread' which I would be more than happy to see gratuitous factors reported in; if you want 'gratuitous OPN factors' I'm more than ready to create one and move the reports to it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have some place to put messages of the form 'look, I have done this thing, it took me three weeks', though I agree they'll mostly be of moderate to low general interest; it's part of the whole social club aspect of this group.

If someone makes an actually-interesting discovery about odd perfect numbers it's sure to be announced in a thread of its own.

[QUOTE=philmoore;279130]I don't see mere obnoxiousness as a valid reason for banning[/QUOTE]

On the contrary, obnoxiousness is pretty much the only valid reason for banning.

:piggie:

[QUOTE=fivemack;279300]We have a perfectly serviceable 'gratuitous factors thread' which I would be more than happy to see gratuitous factors reported in; if you want 'gratuitous OPN factors' I'm more than ready to create one and move the reports to it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have some place to put messages of the form 'look, I have done this thing, it took me three weeks', though I agree they'll mostly be of moderate to low general interest; it's part of the whole social club aspect of this group.

If someone makes an actually-interesting discovery about odd perfect numbers it's sure to be announced in a thread of its own.[/QUOTE]

The Gratuitous Factors thread is just fine - exactly what we need and already in existence too!

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;279299]Could you give an example of a recent thread title that was not descriptive enough for you?[/QUOTE]
I am sorry but I don't remember where they were when I felt disappointed by their existence.

Miss you Bob
 

[QUOTE=Brian Gladman;279311]I am sorry but I don't remember where they were when I felt disappointed by their existence.[/QUOTE]

Are you trying to fill a vacuum?

David