The inimitable RDS
 

[QUOTE=KEP;301294]10^999999+y (y=>1 to y<=5M) is sieved to p=2P with 80310 candidates remaining. The sieving is optimal for y~=2.7M :smile:

Sieving is currently paused and wont resume untill we gets near y=2.7M and will obviously never resume if a PRP is found for y<2.7M ... well let's see what the future holds.

Take care

Kenneth[/QUOTE]

This task is a [b]hopeless[/b] waste of time. You might be able to find the first PRP
greater than 10^6, although what value the computation might have is
beyond me.

But proving it prime is so far beyond what current computers and algorithms
can do that even attempting it is ridiculous.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301324]This task is a [B]hopeless[/B] waste of time. You might be able to find the first PRP
greater than 10^6, although what value the computation might have is
beyond me.

But proving it prime is so far beyond what current computers and algorithms
can do that even attempting it is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

Challenge accepted. The first PRP above 10^6 is 1000003. My computer has proven it's primality. Next time, proof your message please. XD

'Bout time I proved you wrong :)

[QUOTE=c10ck3r;301330]Challenge accepted. The first PRP above 10^6 is 1000003. My computer has proven it's primality. Next time, proof your message please. XD

'Bout time I proved you wrong :)[/QUOTE]

10^6 digits.......

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301324]This task is a [b]hopeless[/b] waste of time. You might be able to find the first PRP greater than 10^6, although what value the computation might have is beyond me.

But proving it prime is so far beyond what current computers and algorithms
can do that even attempting it is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]Not [b]strictly[/b] true.

It may be that the (recursive) factorization of p \pm 1 is possible with current computers and algorithms. The likelihood of that being the case is somewhere between nil and negligible.

The value of the computation, IMO, is bragging rights. Look at me, I won the jackpot!

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;301338]Not [b]strictly[/b] true.

It may be that the (recursive) factorization of p \pm 1 is possible with current computers and algorithms. The likelihood of that being the case is somewhere between nil and negligible.

The value of the computation, IMO, is bragging rights. Look at me, I won the jackpot!

Paul[/QUOTE]

One gets bragging rights if and only if the discoverer used his/her OWN
software.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301343]One gets bragging rights if and only if the discoverer used his/her OWN
software.[/QUOTE]

Well, some people are the brains, others are the muscle. Usually it takes both to get the job done.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301343]One gets bragging rights if and only if the discoverer used his/her OWN software.[/QUOTE]One gets bragging rights by bragging. Whether you think that's justified is beside the point. Whether anyone is impressed by the bragging is similarly dependent on the bragger and the subject about which the bragging takes place.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301343]One gets bragging rights if and only if the discoverer used his/her OWN
software.[/QUOTE]

Oh dear oh dear... Mr. Silverman, I almost didn't consider this worth an answer. I just don't seem able to ever grasp why you have to write this way and make other peoples effort seem redundant or pointless. First of all, not just for me but also for other people (of witch some is not yet born) this will be a challenge worth the effort. For instance we have the whole "Borderprime/Borderprp" collection, wich will benefit from this search. Also if we have a MegaPRP candidate that will return a strong-PRP in any fermbase<=100 then according to some users on this board, if the Rhiemann-hypotheses can be proven correct we will know for sure that we have the lowest possible megaprime. However if no-one ever cared to do such a search for the lowest possible megaprime, we would really never know what numbers to start working on, in order to conclusively state that it is in fact (according to the Rhiemann hypothesis) a PRIME. I care, not because it may be a hard task to prove the PRP actually is prime, but because I'm also curious to see if someday something usefull (as in not pointless) can come out of such a MegaPRP.

If at least nothing usefull or something better (as referred to) comes from the world of math a "strong-MegaPRP" of interest might actually help encourage software developers to extend the limits of current programs like PRIMO, such that a distributed effort can be used to attack the PRP and produce a valid and conclusive solution to tell weather or not the PRP is in fact a prime or a bonifide composite. Eitherway if nothing better comes from math or from software, at least it can work as good entertainment, since these tests is considerably short and will take almost the same time the entire way through the testrange. A test currently will take only 10 hours on a Q6600 and about 4 h 20 m on an I5 K2300.

Last but not least. It is always better to say nothing at all, if you've nothing good to say. I've spend almost 1000 CPU days on this effort (maybe more), so I really don't like the way you influence people who might consider to support the effort, by forinstance calling it a pointless effort. I do believe that even though all of us has a limited timespan in ones duration of life, at least within resonable time, from the time we have the PRP, till someone can answer the question "How to prove it?" is limited and may in fact very well be within most of our lifespans. Eventhough the answer to the question may never come if everyone considers it pointless to try to answer it or limits themself in their attempt to answer :smile:

Weather or not you will support this effort is entirely up to you, but please stop the flaming, because at least to some people this effort has a value.

Take care

Kenneth

[QUOTE=KEP;301357]Oh dear oh dear... Mr. Silverman, I almost didn't consider this worth an answer. I just don't seem able to ever grasp why you have to write this way and make other peoples effort seem redundant or pointless.
[/QUOTE]

Because it takes very little intelligence to run software written by
other people. It deserves very little credit.

[QUOTE]
First of all, not just for me but also for other people (of witch some is not yet born) this will be a challenge worth the effort. For instance we have the whole "Borderprime/Borderprp" collection, wich will benefit from this search. Also if we have a MegaPRP candidate that will return a strong-PRP in any fermbase<=100 then according to some users on this board, if the Rhiemann-hypotheses can be proven correct we will know for sure that we have the lowest possible megaprime.

[/QUOTE]

Your knowledge of the mathematics involved is faulty and on a level
with your spelling. Finding a strong PRP in a single Fermat base does
not prove primality, even if ERH (Extended Riemann Hypothesis) is
correct. And just proving RH does not help at all here. I will bet that
you don't even know the difference between RH and ERH.
[QUOTE]


However if no-one ever cared to do such a search for the lowest possible megaprime, we would really never know what numbers to start working on, in order to conclusively state that it is in fact (according to the Rhiemann hypothesis) a PRIME.

[/QUOTE]

This is nonsensical gibberish.

[QUOTE]
I care, not because it may be a hard task to prove the PRP actually is prime, but because I'm also curious to see if someday something usefull (as in not pointless) can come out of such a MegaPRP.
[/QUOTE]

what has 10^6 digits got to do with anything you suggest that 10^5 or 10^4
digits would not??? Answer: NOTHING

[QUOTE]
If at least nothing usefull or something better (as referred to) comes from the world of math a "strong-MegaPRP" of interest might actually help encourage software developers to extend the limits of current programs like PRIMO,
[/QUOTE]

Extending PRIMO is not going to help find million-digit primes.

You don't seem to get it: Finding an arbitrary million digit prime is [b]SO FAR
OUT OF REACH[/b] that the effort is pointless unless better algorithms
come along.

[QUOTE]
such that a distributed effort can be used to attack the PRP and produce a valid and conclusive solution to tell weather or not the PRP is in fact a prime or a bonifide composite. Eitherway if nothing better comes from math or from software, at least it can work as good entertainment,
[/QUOTE]

If you find it entertaining, go ahead. You'd have a better chance
at winning the lottery.


[QUOTE]

Last but not least. It is always better to say nothing at all, if you've nothing good to say.
[/QUOTE]

But I DO have something good to say. I'm trying to dissuade mathematically
ignorant people from pursuing a futile effort. And finding the prime itself adds
no value to mathematics. A new algorithm might, but the prime itself
is a mere numerical curiosity.

[QUOTE]
I've spend almost 1000 CPU days on this effort (maybe more), so I really don't like the way you influence people who might consider to support the effort, by forinstance calling it a pointless effort.
[/QUOTE]

Too bad. I really don't like the way ignorant people pursue hopeless
projects when there are many projects that are NOT hopeless.

Finally, I am qualified to judge the merits of an effort in computational
number theory. You are not. If you think you are you can tell us:

(1) Where you got your math degree
(2) Where you got your graduate degree
(3) What papers you have published
(4) What number-theory or related conferences have invited you to give
talks
(5) What journals have asked you to referee papers. This is perhaps the
most important form of respect that there is from colleagues: That they
believe you sufficiently qualified to referee the work of others.


[QUOTE]
Weather or not you will support this effort is entirely up to you, but please stop the flaming, because at least to some people this effort has a value.
[/QUOTE]

I am not flaming. I am giving a professional evaluation as to the
worth of a computation. It is a sign of your immaturity that you see it
as flaming.

Finally, allow me to ask: If you think one deserves credit for running
code written by others (and for which you did not have the necessary
expertise) do you also think a student deserves credit for plagiarized work?
Because that is what it is. You are taking the intellectual effort of others
that you yourself could not achieve and using those efforts to claim
your own credit for some purely numerical curiousity found by the code.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301376]Because it takes very little intelligence to run software written by other people. It deserves very little credit.
[/QUOTE]

Totally wrong. Discoverer gets all credits even if his role was only to run a computer. He may share credits of his discovery with a programmer, if he wants.



[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301376] And finding the prime itself adds
no value to mathematics.
[/QUOTE]

You forgot to add that it is about mathematics that you represent.


[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301376] Too bad. I really don't like the way ignorant people pursue hopeless projects when there are many projects that are NOT hopeless.
[/QUOTE]

You don't know him and you call him ignorant. Few sentences he wrote cannot be a base for such statement (even if there are mistakes or wrong ideas, which can happen to anybody including you).




[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301376] Because that is what it is. You are taking the intellectual effort of others that you yourself could not achieve and using those efforts to claim your own credit for some purely numerical curiousity found by the code.
[/QUOTE]


Programs were written and distributed for this purposes. For other people to make their own discoveries. So, don't accuse people of crimes they did not commit.

[QUOTE=literka;301381]Programs were written and distributed for this purposes. For other people to make their own discoveries. So, don't accuse people of crimes they did not commit.[/QUOTE]

I wonder if Mr. Silverman wrote the operating system he runs his software on. Or the compiler used to compile it. Or designed and built the CPUs which execute his code. Or designed and built the generator which powers his systems. Or discovered and refines the fuel for the generator. Or, or, or....

[QUOTE=chalsall;301382]I wonder if Mr. Silverman wrote the operating system he runs his software on. Or the compiler used to compile it. Or designed and built the CPUs which execute his code. Or designed and built the generator which powers his systems. Or discovered and refines the fuel for the generator. Or, or, or....[/QUOTE]

Of course...he built his own house, made its electric project, water system, etc. He has a bicycle to generate his own electricity when he is not on the forum messing around. He built his own fridge, plants his own food (he never goes to the supermarket)...and he filters the rain to use it as water...His a genius. We are all ignorants, why can't you guys understand?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301376]
But I DO have something good to say.[/QUOTE]No, Mr. Silverman.

You've been repeatedly informed that you are ignorant about motivation in recreational mathematics, yet you keep butting in where you have no expertise!

[quote]I'm trying to dissuade mathematically ignorant people from pursuing a futile effort.[/quote]You keep demonstrating your incompetence in understanding such things. Please stop -- we've all been quite convinced of your inadequacy here, so your repetitions don't even serve as examples to avoid anymore.

[quote]And finding the prime itself adds no value to mathematics.[/quote]Your postings in the vein of this one add no value to the forum discussion, yet you keep on repeating them.

You are providing your own examples of useless postings!! How do you expect that your doing so would dissuade anyone else from making useless postings?

[quote]A new algorithm might, but the prime itself is a mere numerical curiosity.[/quote]A new insight might be of value, but your repetitions of the same old non-insights are mere annoyances.

[quote]I really don't like the way ignorant people pursue hopeless
projects when there are many projects that are NOT hopeless.[/quote]We don't like the way you keep posting your hopeless diatribes when there are so many other subjects about which you could usefully contribute.

[quote]Finally, I am qualified to judge the merits of an effort in computational number theory.[/quote]You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are unskilled in judging the merit of amateur ventures in computational mathematics, yet you mistakenly and bizarrely rate your ability to do so as much higher than average.

"This bias is attributed to a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognitive"]metacognitive[/URL] inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes." -- [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect[/URL]

[QUOTE=chalsall;301382]I wonder if Mr. Silverman wrote the operating system he runs his software on.
[/QUOTE]

I did not. But I have written pieces of OS in the past. I know how.
The people running these computational codes are clueless as to how
they work.

[QUOTE]

Or the compiler used to compile it.
[/QUOTE]

I have written compilers. Not the particular one I use, but again I know how.

[QUOTE]
Or designed and built the CPUs which execute his code. Or designed and built the generator which powers his systems. Or discovered and refines the fuel for the generator. Or, or, or....[/QUOTE]

You are confusing the use of GENERIC COMMODITIES for which one
actually pays real money to use with custom computational software which
the IGG seems to think they are somehow entitled to. Despite being
clueless about how they work or what they are doing.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301435]I did not. But I have written pieces of OS in the past. I know how.
The people running these computational codes are clueless as to how
they work. *Snip*
You are confusing the use of GENERIC COMMODITIES for which one
actually pays real money to use with custom computational software which
the IGG seems to think they are somehow entitled to. Despite being
clueless about how they work or what they are doing.[/QUOTE]
So let me get this straight...you can write a portion of an OS based on SOMEONE ELSE'S programming language. Sweet.
Also, I thought I should point out that many members of this forum use copies of the software only as a basepoint, modifying certain criteria or altering the way it shifts bits or performs multiplication or or or...
See [url]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=16645&page=3[/url]
post 51 or 63
for one of many examples.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301435]You are confusing the use of GENERIC COMMODITIES for which one actually pays real money to use with custom computational software which the IGG seems to think they are somehow entitled to. Despite being clueless about how they work or what they are doing.[/QUOTE]I'm typing this into a Chrome browser running on a Linux machine. Chrome, along with most of the rest of the software on this system, was compiled with gcc. Another X11 window is displaying progress in the final sqrt stage of a SNFS factorization being performed by msieve / ggnfs.

All of those components (Linux, Chrome, gcc, X11, msieve and ggnfs) have been provided to me on a cost-free basis. All I have put into them is the copying cost, whether DVD or download, and no real money has changed hands. Each of them are items of special-purpose software which address a specific range of tasks, whether running processes, displaying HTML, generating executable binaries, displaying windows or factoring integers.

My point: factoring integers can also be done with GENERIC COMMODITIES, to use your terminology.

I agree with you that one should know how ones commodities work, to some degree or other, and to be able to create ones own version of a commodity in principle. Like you, I've written lesser or greater chunks of compilers, operating systems and factoring software. AFAIK, I've not written anything for a windowing display or web browser (though I've written networking code which reads and/or writes to remote systems). I've no intention of returning to a text-only interface and interfacing to web servers through wget and telnet.

Paul

P.S. This appeared between my typing the first paragraph and submitting my post
[code]prp56 factor: 32298809613931262915054258065935044472582969532921532959
prp92 factor: 26956143622528922629687854445998393760040400388144046976043450874016136060691787667991204273
[/code]
Another small GCW bites the dust.

[QUOTE=xilman;301439]IMy point: factoring integers can also be done with GENERIC COMMODITIES, to use your terminology.

[/QUOTE]

Please name a single company that sells such software. I do not consider
msieve, for example, to be a generic commodity.

[QUOTE]
I agree with you that one should know how ones commodities work, to some degree or other,

[/QUOTE]

Many/most of the cranks who post here are CLUELESS about how the
code works that they are using, and they know even less about the
mathematics.

But of course, they want CREDIT if the black box code that they run
produces something. This is like expecting credit for a college essay
that was written by someone else. I find this attitude to be contemptible.

And of course, in their arrogance, they refuse to listen when an expert
tells them that an attempted computation is futile. Indeed, they seem to
resent it when an expert tells them anything that runs contrary to their
fantasies.

[QUOTE=xilman;301439] Each of them are items of special-purpose software which address a specific range of tasks, whether running processes,

<snip>

[/QUOTE]

This last statement is idiotic. e.g. An operating system is used for MANY
DIFFERENT THINGS. It is not "special-purpose" under any stretch
of the imagination. OTOH, factoring software or prime proving software
has only ONE purpose.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301443]This last statement is idiotic. e.g. An operating system is used for MANY
DIFFERENT THINGS. It is not "special-purpose" under any stretch
of the imagination. OTOH, factoring software or prime proving software
has only ONE purpose.[/QUOTE]

This thread is drifting from its origins. The original post was about
finding a million-digit prime. Such a computation is hopeless without
better algorithms. But, as always, the [b]cranks[/b] herein [b]reject[/b]
expert advice. They run code without understanding how it works and
which is based upon mathematics that they can't be bothered learning.

It is of course their computer time (and electricity costs) to waste.

It is their priviledge to undertake a task which, even if it succeeds,
provides nothing useful to anyone else. If they think that it is "fun",
that is their right.

But expecting "credit" for doing something that has little value and which
they do not understand is both pathetic and childish.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301442]Please name a single company that sells such software. I do not consider msieve, for example, to be a generic commodity. [/QUOTE]I can't, off-hand, think of a single company which sells a web browser. MSFT got into trouble for giving away their browser.

Numerous Linux and BSD distributions include GMP-ECM in their standard distribution packages. It is possible to purchase DVDs of those distributions from a number of re-packaging companies.

TBH, I'm having difficulties interpreting your "company that sells such software". I've difficulty in seeing why either "company" or "selling" is of any great importance.

Please be clear: I'm with you all the way in that credit given for an achievement should be strongly correlated with the amount of effort expended.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301443]This last statement is idiotic. e.g. An operating system is used for MANY DIFFERENT THINGS. It is not "special-purpose" under any stretch of the imagination. OTOH, factoring software or prime proving software has only ONE purpose.[/QUOTE]If I concede that an OS has many uses when looked at closely enough (some operating systems not only run other software components, they also provide them with a file system!) would you concede that factoring and primality proving software may be used for mathematical research, security testing and research, entertainment, hardware stress-testing and performance measurement & optimization?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301442]Many/most of the cranks who post here are CLUELESS about how the
code works that they are using, and they know even less about the
mathematics.

But of course, they want CREDIT if the black box code that they run
produces something. This is like expecting credit for a college essay
that was written by someone else. I find this attitude to be contemptible.

And of course, in their arrogance, they refuse to listen when an expert
tells them that an attempted computation is futile. Indeed, they seem to
resent it when an expert tells them anything that runs contrary to their
fantasies.[/QUOTE]


Suppose that 5 years old girl accidentally starts a program for new Fermat factors and writes parameters without knowing what she is doing. Suppose that after some time computer gives a result. Then she is a legitimate discoverer. Probably she would be quoted in mathematical books not to mention internet.
But according to Silverman she is a crank and she does not deserve any credit. Crank quoted in books and experts not quoted in books.

This is soapbox material.

On one had we have a position that work that advances knowledge and approaches the level of curated peer reviewed published mathematics has value.

On the other hand is the feeling that posting pictures of rocks that smashed into houses or owning the cow that knocked over a lantern also has value (and can also advance knowledge).

Well they are both right; or sometimes right and sometimes wrong. And the meaning of value or the purpose of any human endeavor is a contentious terrain strewn with wreckage and tears.

Amen to that!

Opinions vary. If we look not further away than Mersenne primes, one of them was discovered by two highschool students who - at the time of discovery - had very little knowledge about the math behind. They are still "the discoverers". Of course I would want credit if my computer turns out a hundred-megs digit prime. And in spite of the fact that I have not so much idea what my computer is doing the most of the time, I would want the money too :razz:

Coming back to our smallest million digits number, one should try first to find the smallest 1k, 2k, 5k, 10k digits number, and then talk about millions. This way, he can get "the sense", and then really appreciate the work other people do.

For 1k digits, pari will spit out a nextprime(10^999) in few seconds, as being 10^999+[B]7[/B]. The next one takes longer, the one with the offset [B]663[/B]. Both are proved primes.

But if you want to go to 2k, you will have to sleep in front of the monitor, because behind of 10^1999 is a freaking loooooooong gap. You can use yafu, with "sieverange(10^1999,10^1999+1000,10^8,1)", but still need a couple of trials, as the first 7000 will come empty handed. After about 10-20 minutes the bunch between 7k and 8k stops coming empty, and it will return a "2". You can then play with "testrange(10^1999+7000,10^1999+8000,10^8,20)" for another 20 minutes or so. Both offsets survive and they are [B]7321[/B] and [B]7957[/B]. You may have to print them in a file to see them. So, the next smallest 5 primes (offset smaller then 20k) with 2000 digits are the one with offsets 12127, 14841, 14967, 16569, and 18027. Quite bigger gaps huh? At this score we expect one prime at each 4603 numbers.

One can try to repeat this "performance" for 5k, then 10k. Try giving to yafu someting like "testrange(10^4999,10^4999+20000,10^8,20)" and if you are still awake when it finishes, dare to move to 9999 zeroes behind.
If it does not come out empty.

[CODE]>> testrange(10^4999,10^4999+20000,10^8,20)
ans = 0
>>[/CODE]Yuck! Nothing, nada, niente. We expect one prime in 11 thousands numbers, at this score of 5k digits. It took about 20 minutes. Wasted. Try higher.

Of course there are faster sievers out there.

But not much faster.

And before talking about millions, there are 10k, 20k, 30k, 50k...

Hundreds of k.

Five hundreds of k.

You don't need to find primes with so many digits, but just to have an idea how much time one would need.

There is quite easy to sieve 10^999999 range. Few lines in pari, not very fast, but working, eliminating almost all numbers. We expect one prime in 2.3M numbers. That is MILLIONS. You have to sieve at least 5-10 millions, to be sure you don't run in a big gap. On this range, there are enough survivors, even if you sieve to 10^10 (which would take a while!)

I wrote a small PRP test routine. I did not like the powermod or modexp functions in yafu/pari/etc because they do not show the progress. It is just classical modular exponentiation, but counting the passed time and computing the remaining time from it. And printing it on the screen. It is comparable as speed (tried for small inputs, up to 10-20 digits modulus) to yafu and much faster than default Mod(x,n)^(n-1) in pari.

I did this because I wanted to know if I have to wait [B]one hour[/B] or [B]two[/B] or [B]five[/B], for a complete PRP test, assuming I have a sieve-surviving candidate.

Then after about 20 minutes, it says:

[CODE]
... Done: 0.0013%. ETA:[B] 650[/B]:35:32
[/CODE]:ick:

Every PRP test for KEP will be ~3hours on 1 core. He is prepared to spend 40000 times that. When he will have finished, we could all only congratulate him. That's all there is to it.

If we berate everyone who plays <insert whatever here> instead of running Prime95, we will get an ulcer and at the same time will be ridiculed.

Let's repeat with the late Gregory House: "People don't change!" (That's the second most important lesson after "Everybody lies.")

Team of wild horses...
 

[QUOTE=xilman;301338]Not [B]strictly[/B] true.

The value of the computation, IMO, is bragging rights. Look at me, I won the jackpot!

Paul[/QUOTE]
OK So I'm a bit late to this party.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzoiVbLJRSo]Meet you in the kitchen[/url].

x

I have an idea.

Does anyone know some of the living mathematicians that Mr. Silverman has a great deal of respect for? Maybe if we can convince one of them to tell Silverman to stfu about so-called pointless pursuits, we can move on.


There's plenty of hobbies I don't understand even though I respect the fact that people enjoy them. Nascar, stamp collecting, soccer, over-clocking a gaming machine that's already sufficient for all games being sold. I could go on and on. Why Mr. Silverman continuously flames people that don't give a damn about his opinion expect in that they get offended is beyond me.

This forum doesn't have to be 100% democratic, let's make a rule that incendiary posts that call a project pointless aren't allowed unless they feel the premise for the project is wrong. So you can't make fun of prime-finding projects unless their methodology calls composites primes. If people, for instance, want to start at 1 and find all the prime numbers by brute force from there, that's their own frickin business. Unless somebody brings something new to the table like global warming or setting cats on fire because of an open case, just leave the topic alone.

[QUOTE=jasong;301612]Does anyone know some of the living mathematicians that Mr. Silverman has a great deal of respect for? Maybe if we can convince one of them to tell Silverman to stfu about so-called pointless pursuits, we can move on.[/QUOTE]And what makes you think this hasn't already happened?

I can, but won't, provide names of individuals who have done just that.

Paul

[QUOTE=LaurV;301460]Opinions vary. If we look not further away than Mersenne primes, one of them was discovered by two highschool students who - at the time of discovery - had very little knowledge about the math behind. They are still "the discoverers".
[/QUOTE]

On the contrary. I know Curt. He certainly knew more than "very
little knowledge". He is quite sharp.

AND THEY WROTE THEIR OWN CODE.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301641]AND THEY WROTE THEIR OWN CODE.[/QUOTE]I still don't agree with your argument.

So all those F1 drivers should not get any accolades, it should be the car builders? Oh wait, no, maybe the designers? Oh wait again, it should, of course, be the original inventor of the internal combustion engine, right? Or maybe the oil refining company chemists?

Any code monkey can write code. And it might even work as desired. But so what! I can write code to do FFTs and find MPs, but that doesn't mean I necessarily understand the algorithms I would use. I could just simply follow the steps outlined by someone else in some mathematics paper. Just because I write some code does not instantly make me some hero if someone else runs it and finds something important. There is more to it than that. If someone else chooses to run my code and find important things then full props to them for putting in the effort to both run it and keep it going for long enough to generate results. Many many people out there have no such patience to even run a single number though for testing. Writing code is in some ways the easy part. Investing the time and energy required to run that code for extended periods and sticking with it is also a requirement to achieve success.

[QUOTE=retina;301642]I still don't agree with your argument.

[/QUOTE]

You and others just don't get it. They did their own work.
They did not have it handed to them. It takes almost no intelligence
and effort to run code WRITTEN BY OTHERS.

It also means that they took the time and trouble to learn how
the algorithm works. They might not understand the THEORY and
proof behind the algorithm, but they learned enough to code it.

[QUOTE]
Any code monkey can write code.
[/QUOTE]

Grossly false. I suggest that you try implementing NFS.

[QUOTE=xilman;301634]And what makes you think this hasn't already happened?

I can, but won't, provide names of individuals who have done just that.

Paul[/QUOTE]

Actually, the mathematicians that I respect are even more contemptuous
of cranks than I am. Indeed, as has been discussed in this forum, they
find the level of discourse here to be so low that they can't even be
bothered with posting herein.

When was the last time you read a post from A. Lenstra, P. Montgomery,
H. Lenstra, C. Pomerance, H. Cohen, H. Williams, R. Brent, S. Wagstaff,
E. Bach, J. Shallit, N. Elkies, J. Buchmann, R. Crandall, Kleinjung, (need I
go on?) etc. in this forum?


They can't be bothered because they know that the participants herein
are, for the most part, WILLFULLY IGNORANT about this subject. They
also know that most of the participants are not going to listen to
any advice they give (in the same way the participants here ignore
[and [b]resent[/b]!!] my advice).

I, at least, go to the trouble of telling people when they are wasting their
time. They resent being told this information, but c'est la vie.

When I was a tyro in this subject you can be sure that if Sam Wagstaff
(one of my early mentors) told me that a computation was a waste of time,
that I would take his advice. You could be sure that if he told me that I
should read such and such a book or paper, that I would do so.

I was an ignorant amateur once. But to me, being interested in doing
something meant learning enough so that I could do it myself, and not
have code just handed to me. I started by implementing P-1 after
reading Pollard's paper in detail, and studying the multi-precision arithmetic
algorithms given in Knuth Vol II.

I find it totally contemptuous that people can want credit for blindly
taking code written by others and then trying to claim 'credit' for some
numerical result. This especially applies when they can't be bothered to
learn the math and algorithms.

I have hobbies. I am a amateur at almost all of them (except bridge).

I build model trains, for example. I enjoy watching Norm Abrams on "The
New Yankee Workshop'. But when you have an interest in such things, you
want to build things for yourself. I don't expect 'credit' for (say) buying a
piece of furniture made by someone else. I might expect credit for a piece
of furniture that I built myself, even if it is clear that it was built by
an amateur. but [b]I DO MY OWN WORK[/b].

I will, sometimes, use mathematical software written by others, but only
after I have

(1) learned how it works
(2) coded at least a crude implementation of my own.

For example, I use the CWI post-processing suite. However, I had my
own complete implementation of NFS up and running before CWI wrote their
software. I use their tools because they are more efficient and because I
did not have the time to implement the improved algotithms myself. But
you can be damn sure that I took the time to learn how those algorithms
work.

The cranks herein do [b]NOT[/b] do their own work. They take code
written by others that they can be bothered understanding. They
make no effort to learn this subject, but they want 'credit'. It is
pathetic. It is as if they want to be 'amateur carpenters' while not
actually building anything for themselves.

And the suggestiion that I should 'stfu' is totally childish as well.
"Hey everyone! We don't like what the teacher is saying, so let's keep
him from saying it". Suggesting censorship because you don't like
my message is just plain juvenile..////

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301646]I have hobbies. I am a amateur at almost all of them (except bridge).[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301646] Suggesting censorship because you don't like
my message is just plain juvenile..////[/QUOTE]

to use your own phrasing against you, suggesting censorship because you don't like a cranks idea is just plain juvenile.

This level of focused criticism is wrong.

Very little persuasion is occurring; there is intractable dissension. Forcing groupthink or excluding diversity is a horrible outcome if achieved (regardless of intent).

This type of conversation is most useful if restricted to discussions of the positions -- not expanded to criticism of the people holding them.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301646]Actually, the mathematicians that I respect are even more contemptuous of cranks than I am. Indeed, as has been discussed in this forum, they find the level of discourse here to be so low that they can't even be bothered with posting herein.[/quote]That may be the case. I'm pretty sure of it personally. However, that's not the point I raised.

The question is, and I've raised it with you in email in the past, why do you continue to use your approach to dissuade others from attempting to gain entertainment from running code which they neither wrote nor understand? The evidence is strongly in favour of the premise that your approach is woefully inefficient at furthering your objectives. I submit that other approaches could well serve you better. An analogy from integer factorization might be forever using trial division despite having been repeatedly informed by others more successful in the field that (for example) ECM is likely to be more effective.

As cheesehead put it:

[QUOTE=cheesehead;301420]No, Mr. Silverman.

You've been repeatedly informed that you are ignorant about motivation in recreational mathematics, yet you keep butting in where you have no expertise!

You keep demonstrating your incompetence in understanding such things. Please stop -- we've all been quite convinced of your inadequacy here, so your repetitions don't even serve as examples to avoid anymore.

Your postings in the vein of this one add no value to the forum discussion, yet you keep on repeating them.

You are providing your own examples of useless postings!! How do you expect that your doing so would dissuade anyone else from making useless postings?

A new insight might be of value, but your repetitions of the same old non-insights are mere annoyances.

We don't like the way you keep posting your hopeless diatribes when there are so many other subjects about which you could usefully contribute.

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are unskilled in judging the merit of amateur ventures in computational mathematics, yet you mistakenly and bizarrely rate your ability to do so as much higher than average.

"This bias is attributed to a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognitive"]metacognitive[/URL] inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes." -- [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect[/URL][/QUOTE]We're discussing motivation, not mathematics. You've explicitly stated on a number of occasions that you do not understand the motivation of some forum participants and yet you seem to make no effort to improve your understanding and keep posting essentially the same material from a position of ignorance.

You, rightly and laudably in my view, urge others to learn more mathematics and computer science and offer to help those who are willing to learn. I suggest that you should take your own advice and learn more about psychology and rhetoric. There are many sources of literature, formal and informal, and there are a number of people willing to help those who are willing to learn.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301646]
And the suggestiion that I should 'stfu' is totally childish as well.
"Hey everyone! We don't like what the teacher is saying, so let's keep
him from saying it". Suggesting censorship because you don't like
my message is just plain juvenile..////[/QUOTE]No, it is not censorship. You repeatedly post that others should not use particular algorithms because they are (very likely) useless at solving the problem at hand, and that they should go away and learn more efficient techniques. Others here repeatedly post here about your demonstrably poor skills at persuasion and that you should go away and learn more efficient techniques.

You are no more forbidden from posting your diatribes than the others are forbidden from posting asinine pseudo-mathematics. The responses are in a similar vein: go away and come back when you might stand a chance of success. Just as you and others are prepared to help the mathematically-challenged, if they are prepared to learn, I and others are prepared to help you become less persuasively-challenged if you are prepared to learn from us. Again, I've made that offer privately to you on a number of occasions in the past and can remind you of them (also in private) if you wish.


Paul

So, all those famous mathematicians don't post on this forum, because
[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301646] They also know that most of the participants are not going to listen to any advice they give (in the same way the participants here ignore [and [B]resent[/B]!!] my advice).
[/QUOTE]
So at least, they understand the futility of their action and they stopped wasting their time for a futile activity.
How do you call "persisting in doing the same action again and again and expecting each time a different result?"

[QUOTE=xilman;301656]That may be the case. I'm pretty sure of it personally. However, that's not the point I raised.

The question is, and I've raised it with you in email in the past, why do you continue to use your approach to dissuade others from attempting to gain entertainment from running code which they neither wrote nor understand? The evidence is strongly in favour of the premise that your approach is woefully inefficient at furthering your objectives.
[/QUOTE]

But it does have successes. I have succeeded in getting the crank who
started all this to leave the forum. I count driving away cranks as a
success.

I quote a couple of sentences from his note to me: (errors included)

"tyrans (sic) like you can just roam the threads and talk absolutely tasteless and offensive without any serious sanctions against your kind"

"I've just had it with your kind of users, who is not only inpolite, but apparently such skilled that you obviously should run for president"


In other words, I am a tyrant because I try to tell others that what
they are doing is hopeless. And any attempt to tell such people that
they need to learn about what they are doing is "tasteless and offensive". This is very immature. A professional giving advice about hopeless tasks
should NOT be viewed as "offensive". And the idea that an expert should
be "sanctioned" for telling people what they don't want to hear is totally
ludicrous.

These people have a f*cking attitude problem.

I wonder if they responded to their teachers the same way???

And the last sentence I quoted clearly shows resentment towards me
because I am an expert.

KEP said he is leaving. I count that as a win. Teachers should have
the right to bounce students with bad attitudes from the classroom.

As long as ignorant people try to claim credit for results that they
obtained from the work of [b]others[/b] rather than through their own
efforts, I am going to respond.

Think of me as Don Quixote. I may be tilting at windmills. I may be
ineffective. But as long as I feel that my message is important, I will
continue to post it regardless of whether people listen. And the rare
successes make it worthwhile to me.

[QUOTE=xilman;301656]
No, it is not censorship. You repeatedly post that others should not use particular algorithms because they are (very likely) useless at solving the problem at hand, and that they should go away and learn more efficient techniques. Others here repeatedly post here about your demonstrably poor skills at persuasion and that you should go away and learn more efficient techniques.

[/QUOTE]

I strongly doubt that the problem is just "my techniques at persuasion".

As I see it, these posters have a f*ucked up attitude and that [b]any[/b]
attempted persuasion by [b]anyone[/b] will have a similar effect.

May I suggest that YOU try dissuading them? See if you have any better
luck. Are you willing to try? The next time I see a similar thread in which
someone should be dissuaded, I will send you a private note, and let you
try.

Dunning & Kruger also applies here.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301646]
I find it totally contemptuous that people can want credit for blindly
taking code written by others and then trying to claim 'credit' for some
numerical result. This especially applies when they can't be bothered to
learn the math and algorithms.
[/QUOTE]


It was always so that credits for discovery belong to discoverer. This is one of the principles nobody should deny.
When Columbus returned home, many jealous people denied to give credits for his discovery. Because he confused America with India, because he did nothing to improve sailing etc. Fortunately there are people thinking soberly.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301662]I strongly doubt that the problem is just "my techniques at persuasion".

As I see it, these posters have a f*ucked up attitude and that [b]any[/b]
attempted persuasion by [b]anyone[/b] will have a similar effect.

May I suggest that YOU try dissuading them? See if you have any better
luck. Are you willing to try? The next time I see a similar thread in which
someone should be dissuaded, I will send you a private note, and let you
try.

Dunning & Kruger also applies here.[/QUOTE]Sure I'm willing to try, as long as you don't (possibly) make things harder for me by trying yourself.

I don't promise to succeed but I do promise to try.

Paul

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301659]But it does have successes. I have succeeded in getting the crank who started all this to leave the forum. I count driving away cranks as a
success.[/QUOTE]Perhaps your value function is at odds with mine.

I count it as a success when I convert a crank into a learner or, at the very least, someone less cranky and better educated.

I don't deny that your approach sometimes succeeds by my value function and that my approach sometimes fails. Sometimes trial division finds a small factor and ECM fails to find a large one. A difference between integers and people is that using trial division on an integer doesn't make it any more difficult to find a factor by ECM whereas driving someone away usually precludes the possibility of subsequently using a possibly more effective approach.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301659]KEP said he is leaving. I count that as a win. Teachers should have the right to bounce students with bad attitudes from the classroom.[/QUOTE]I'm sure I read somewhere on the forum of someone railing against people who flatly refuse to learn their subject.

On the subject of MersenneForum postings, how many more times do we have to repeat that [B]this is not your classroom[/B], whether you wish it to be or not? If you wish to teach people, please go ahead but that activity in itself does not make the forum your classroom.


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;301671]Perhaps your value function is at odds with mine.

I count it as a success when I convert a crank into a learner or, at the very least, someone less cranky and better educated.

I don't deny that your approach sometimes succeeds by my value function and that my approach sometimes fails. Sometimes trial division finds a small factor and ECM fails to find a large one. A difference between integers and people is that using trial division on an integer doesn't make it any more difficult to find a factor by ECM whereas driving someone away usually precludes the possibility of subsequently using a possibly more effective approach.[/QUOTE]

The O.P. clearly is unwilling to take any advice at all. He wants what he
wants. I strongly doubt whether any approach toward persuading him
to do something different or to LEARN about what he is doing would work.

He is, IMO uneducable.

And, if others in the forum felt my blunt approach was ineffective I saw
no indication that they were willing to try a more gentle approach.

No one said (in their own choice of vernacular): "Bob is blunt, but he is also
right. What you are attempting is futile"

If I see MORE EFFORT on the part of others to try to teach people such
as the O.P. in this thread that what they are doing is wrong-headed,
then I will back off. Let's see if their "gentle" approach is any more
effective. You claim I have a weak background in psychology. What I
know of human nature suggests that noone else will be effective with
such people, no matter how they try.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301674]No one said (in their own choice of vernacular): "Bob is blunt, but he is also right. What you are attempting is futile"
[/QUOTE]

Earlier in the thread you wrote
[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301324]This task is a [b]hopeless[/b] waste of time. You might be able to find the first PRP greater than 10^6, although what value the computation might have is beyond me.

But proving it prime is so far beyond what current computers and algorithms
can do that even attempting it is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]I told him

[QUOTE=xilman;301338]Not [b]strictly[/b] true.

It may be that the (recursive) factorization of p \pm 1 is possible with current computers and algorithms. The likelihood of that being the case is somewhere between nil and negligible.

The value of the computation, IMO, is bragging rights. Look at me, I won the jackpot!
[/QUOTE]In case you didn't understand my response the first time around I will try to rephrase it.

Bob is correct: proving primality is hopeless. The value of the computation is that it allows you to claim that you performed the computation.

In hindsight, perhaps I should have made it explicit that "The [b]only[/b] value is ..." but in my dialect of English using the definitive article implies uniqueness. If I'd wished to allow that there may be other values I would have written "[b]A[/b] value is ..."

Understand it now?

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;301677]



Bob is correct: proving primality is hopeless. The value of the computation is that it allows you to claim that you performed the computation.
[/QUOTE]

He did not listen to you either. Which proves my point.

He was a crank with a bad attitude and a lack of respect for the
expertise of others.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301659]But it does have successes. I have succeeded in getting the crank who
started all this to leave the forum. I count driving away cranks as a
success.

[/QUOTE]

I don't know how you can consider that a success. If your (laudable) goal is to educate people then you have demostratably not succeeded here - he is going to continue doing what he's doing, just not on this forum.

If your (IMO, not laudable) goal is to berate and drive folks away (regardless of why), then you have brillantly succeeded.

It's lose-lose: you either haven't succeeded at a laudable goal or you have succeeded at an un-laudable one. In the process, you've wasted a bunch of people's time (moderators, your own, etc.).

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301680]He did not listen to you either. Which proves my point.

He was a crank with a bad attitude and a lack of respect for the
expertise of others.[/QUOTE]


He was kind and was trying to explain what he was doing. But this is not most important. He wrote how much time he spent for his research. But it did not mean anything for you. You are blindfolded. You don't feel any respect for somebody's work. You wrote that his work was worthless. This shows that you are a novice, since watching progress gives always some experience even if there are not results. I don't feel any respect for you.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301680]He did not listen to you either. Which proves my point.

He was a crank with a bad attitude and a lack of respect for the
expertise of others.[/QUOTE]I don't draw that conclusion. The evidence is fully consistent with the hypothesis that he listened to me, considered my argument and found it unconvincing. That's fine by me. It gets boring being omniscient and omnipotent all the time.

That, though, is not the point. I quoted one of your posts which made a specific claim. I then quoted one of mine which, in my view, provided explicit evidence that your claim was erroneous. I note that so far you have not addressed that particular issue.

[QUOTE=bsquared;301681][QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301659]But it does have successes. I have succeeded in getting the crank who
started all this to leave the forum. I count driving away cranks as a
success.

[/QUOTE]

I don't know how you can consider that a success. If your (laudable) goal is to educate people then you have demostratably not succeeded here - he is going to continue doing what he's doing, just not on this forum.

If your (IMO, not laudable) goal is to berate and drive folks away (regardless of why), then you have brillantly succeeded.

It's lose-lose: you either haven't succeeded at a laudable goal or you have succeeded at an un-laudable one. In the process, you've wasted a bunch of people's time (moderators, your own, etc.).[/QUOTE]Bob, there are a number of people here who believe that you are a crank who is essentially clueless at social intercourse and who makes no attempt to learn from those who are capable and willing to teach you. You give them the impression that you are uneducable, have a bad attitude and no respect for the expertise of others. Would it be a success if you were to be driven away?

Any of the supermods would find it essentially trivial to drive you away through a task which would take them a few seconds at most.

I have spent quite a lot of effort over the years attempting to protect you from such an outcome. The fact that you are still posting here may be evidence that I'm having a modicum of success.

:drama:I suspect that nobody succeeded here, in the particular case.

What probably happened is that after a "1000 CPU-days of sieving", the contestant finally ran one PRP test. And it returned composite (ohhh! the shock!). He ran another, and another. He ran a hundred. Still no prime! Then he finally saw that he needs to run several tens of thousands of tests more. So he quit, right there. But could he admit that he didn't think it through thoroughly from the start? That he didn't have commitment to many years of doing this? No way! Surely, it is the other people who are cruel and whose attitude made him quit. He will rather be a martyr and he will go out with a bang. "Goodbye, cruel virtual world! I will commit virtual seppuku and you cruel virtual people will be very, very sorry! And it's all because of the evil [I]tyran[/I]. It's either him or me!"

There's an interesting historical anecdote where [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=206838#post206838"]he was being John Malkovich[/URL]! The world was cruel then, and the world is still cruel now, 2+ years later. He played both sides of the field and he didn't win.


P.S. To his argument that "this strong megaPRP will be very valuable for this-and-that tests" - there are four excellent [URL="http://www.primenumbers.net/prptop/prptop.php"]mega-decimal-digit PRPs[/URL] already to choose from and undoubtedly there will be more; the repunit project is long overdue, for example.

[QUOTE=Batalov;301686]:drama:I suspect that nobody succeeded here, in the particular case.

What probably happened is that after a "1000 CPU-days of sieving", the contestant finally ran one PRP test. And it returned composite (ohhh! the shock!). He ran another, and another. He ran a hundred. Still no prime! Then he finally saw that he needs to run several tens of thousands of tests more. So he quit, right there. But could he admit that he didn't think it through thoroughly from the start? That he didn't have commitment to many years of doing this? No way! Surely, it is the other people who are cruel and whose attitude made him quit. He will rather be a martyr and he will go out with a bang. "Goodbye, cruel virtual world! I will commit virtual seppuku and you cruel virtual people will be very, very sorry! And it's all because of the evil [I]tyran[/I]. It's either him or me!"

There's an interesting historical anecdote where [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=206838#post206838"]he was being John Malkovich[/URL]! The world was cruel then, and the world is still cruel now, 2+ years later. He played both sides of the field and he didn't win.


P.S. To his argument that "this strong megaPRP will be very valuable for this-and-that tests" - there are four excellent [URL="http://www.primenumbers.net/prptop/prptop.php"]mega-decimal-digit PRPs[/URL] already to choose from and undoubtedly there will be more; the repunit project is long overdue, for example.[/QUOTE]




Don't laugh in a situation like this. He came in a good will to share experience after doing a terrible job. May be he was wrong, but he did not deserve to be called crank. When he said "bye" he heard "one crank less". This is not what civilized people are doing. That's not funny at all.

Was I laughing?

Did you read his diatribe how Five-or-Bust (or a part of it) was a [I]waste[/I] of time? Did you feel any hint of irony? Five-or-Bust is now a successfully completed project (well, except for the now-impossible prime tests).
__________________

P.S. [I]Anecdote[/I] in English language is not the same word as in Russian (and possibly in Polish). Anecdote means 'an interesting story about a real incident or person'. Not necessarily funny. (Otherwise 'humorous anecdote' would have been a tautology.)

[QUOTE=Batalov;301693]Was I laughing?

Did you read his diatribe how Five-or-Bust (or a part of it) was a [I]waste[/I] of time? Did you feel any hint of irony? Five-or-Bust is now a successfully completed project (well, except for the now-impossible prime tests).
__________________

P.S. [I]Anecdote[/I] in English language is not the same word as in Russian (and possibly in Polish). Anecdote means 'an interesting story about a real incident or person'. Not necessarily funny. (Otherwise 'humorous anecdote' would have been a tautology.)[/QUOTE]


Sorry, I had a felt your irony as you were describing Kep's work. This is the worst thing to do - to laugh of somebody's work even if it was waste of time.
But I could be wrong, so ignore this post, please.

[QUOTE=xilman;301685]Bob, there are a number of people here who believe that you are a crank who is essentially clueless at social intercourse and who makes no attempt to learn from those who are capable and willing to teach you. You give them the impression that you are uneducable, have a bad attitude and no respect for the expertise of others. Would it be a success if you were to be driven away?

Any of the supermods would find it essentially trivial to drive you away through a task which would take them a few seconds at most.

I have spent quite a lot of effort over the years attempting to protect you from such an outcome. The fact that you are still posting here may be evidence that I'm having a modicum of success.[/QUOTE]

One of my goals is to keep this forum from turning into sci.math.

Once upon a time (back in the 80's and early 90's) sci.math was
a teriific place to discuss mathematics. Gradually (endless September
had a big role) it became INUNDATED with cranks, trolls, loons,
religious Zealots, anti-Einstein nuts, etc. etc.

The way to keep this from becoming sci.math is to drive out the cranks
and those with an unwillingness to learn.

And I see ZERO evidence that the "gentle" approach that you and others
take is any more effective at getting the cranks, trolls, and uneducated
who post herein to listen to you than they listen to me. They don't listen
to you either.

[QUOTE=Batalov;301686]

There's an interesting historical anecdote where [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=206838#post206838"]he was being John Malkovich[/URL]! The world was cruel then, and the world is still cruel now, 2+ years later. He played both sides of the field and he didn't win.


[/QUOTE]

Aha! I was not aware of the prior thread. It seems that both axn
and Serge tried to teach him in a thread 6 years ago. Maybe you think
that they took an 'anti-social' approach as well? Perhaps they were 'mean'
to him as well?

KEP treated them with the same disdain and lack of respect as he did me
in the recent thread. He accused them of not understanding what
he was doing. (a frequent reply from cranks when experts tell them
they are wong: accuse of the expert of 'not understanding')

People claim my approach does not work. But the prior thread is strong
evidence that the "be nice" approach does not work either with cranks.
They want what they want. They will do what they do. And anyone
who tries to give an honest assessment of their work or tries
to dissuade them instantly becomes a 'tyran' (sic), and an asshole.


KEP was not an amateur. Amateurs have at least some interest in
taking the advice of experts and in learning the rudiments of the
mathematics and algorithms behind what they are doing. KEP was
just a totally ignorant jerk who was convinced that he knew it all,
and was unwilling to listen to others. Classic Dunning & Kruger.

The ONLY thing to do with such people is to get them to leave.

Had I been aware of the prior thread I would have been even more
direct.

David Gerrold once wrote an essay "Don't ask me to read your
fucking manuscript". He had a number of interesting observations.

(1) It might take a page or two of reading a written piece to determine
that its author knows how to write, but it only takes a paragraph to
learn that they don't.

(2) People are not looking for a true critique of their work. They are
looking for confirmation that whatever gibberish they have written is
worthy of high praise. If he (Gerrold) ever gave an honest critique,
the person who submitted the manuscript instantly would become
hostile toward him. Regardless of how 'nice' he was in his response,
they became hostile if they didn't like what he said.

(3) People might ask for a critique, but they really have no idea of the
time commitment it takes for a professional author to read a script.
He compared to others asking him to read their script with people asking
the house painter to come paint his living room for free.


The same thing happens here. I need to read only a few sentences
of so-called technical discussion to determine that the writer has no
clue as to what he is doing. And invariably, they react with hostility
to a honest critique.

And then all the other people in this forum jump on the "Bob's being rude, Bob is mean" bandwagon as a response to my professional appraisal.

This is a forum for discussion of mathematics. If you don't want professional
follow-on discussion then DON'T POST. Or else post in the 'misc math
thread'. Or perhaps the admins here will actually take my advice and
set up an 'amateur math forum' where cranks can post without worrying
about receiving any criticism. Indeed, I promise to stay out of it.

I hope that the admins will similarly promise to MOVE crank threads,
or any thread where it is clear that the the poster does not understand
the material OUT of the math sub-forum and into the 'amateur' forum.

I also wish there were a mechanism to keep cranks restricted to the
misc math sub-forum.

Indeed. Batalov and axn KNEW this guy was a nut case. KEP's post should
have been moved to 'misc math' as soon as it appeared based on his
PRIOR DISDAIN.

[QUOTE=xilman;301685]Bob, there are a number of people here who believe that you are a crank who is essentially clueless at social intercourse and who makes no attempt to learn from those who are capable and willing to teach you.
[/QUOTE]


There is NO EVIDENCE that your "be nice" approach is any more effective
at getting cranks to listen tham my approach is. Indeed, Serge's and
axns prior experience with KEP showed that the 'nice' approach DOES NOT
WORK with such people.

[QUOTE]
You give them the impression that you are uneducable, have a bad attitude and no respect for the expertise of others.
[/QUOTE]

If you refer to the so-called 'psychological expertise' claimed by a number
of people, I must ask: when/where did they get their psych degree?
If you refer to the math expertise of others, I listen all the time to
people who know more than I do. Re-read the list of mathematicians
that I posted. You can be sure that when they tell me something, I
listen and learn from them.

Convince me that the 'nice' approach works in getting cranks and
the willfully ignorant to take advice.

When someone with expertise in psychology suggests an approach
to handling cranks that actually is shown to work, you can be sure
that I will adapt that approach.

[QUOTE=literka;301692]Don't laugh in a situation like this. He came in a good will to share experience after doing a terrible job. May be he was wrong, but he did not deserve to be called crank. When he said "bye" he heard "one crank less". This is not what civilized people are doing. That's not funny at all.[/QUOTE]

I agree entirely with this sentiment.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301718]There is NO EVIDENCE that your "be nice" approach is any more effective
at getting cranks to listen tham my approach is.[/QUOTE]

No there isn't. But this is making the assumption that getting 'cranks' to go away in a huff is a reasonable and positive thing to do. I find them very significantly less troublesome than your forum-damaging vehemence in their direction.

mersenneforum.org isn't sci.math in its heyday; it was never sci.math in any way at all. If you want something reasonably reminiscent of sci.math in its heyday, go to [url]http://mathoverflow.net[/url], go to Terence Tao's blog ... there are quite a number of places where there are real mathematicians doing hard conceptual things rather than software development, you'll probably feel more at home there.

Or start your own blog, post about the papers you've read and found interesting, see what sort of comments you get; in your own blog you can be as restrictive as you like to cranks.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301715]Or perhaps the admins here will actually take my advice and
set up an 'amateur math forum' where cranks can post without worrying
about receiving any criticism. Indeed, I promise to stay out of it.[/QUOTE]

The admins did. Some time ago. It's called mersenneforum.org.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301646]
[and [b]resent[/b]!!] my advice).
[/quote]
That's because you shove it down their throats. "Advice" is not the same thing as "order". There is nothing mandatory about needing to accept advice; you need to learn that others have a right to listen to your advice, consider it, and not accept it. No one has said your advice isn't valuable -- it certainly is -- but when people say "Thank you for your time and advice, but I'm going to continue anyways" that does NOT mean that you should continue posting your advice. They've made their decision, that the more you repeat your advice the less likely they are to accept it. (See my post in the other thread.)

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301659]But it does have successes. I have succeeded in getting the crank who
started all this to leave the forum. I count driving away cranks as a
success.[/quote]Again, not good, as has been discussed.
[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301659]
In other words, I am a tyrant because I try to tell others that what
they are doing is hopeless. [/quote] You are a tyrant because you don't let others reject your advice, silly as that may be. A quote, definition 2:
[url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyrant[/url]
[quote]2
a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power[/quote]
Giving your advice is a wonderful thing, however YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO FORCE PEOPLE TO ACCEPT YOUR ADVICE. Your continued attempts to force your view on them is what leads to the label tyrant, which for these reasons is a deserved label.
[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301659]
And the last sentence I quoted clearly shows resentment towards me
because I am an expert.[/quote] They resent you because you give your advice, which they (not wisely perhaps, but well within their rights) do not accept; then you continue to flaunt that you are an expert, that your advice is valuable, and doing everything possible to demonstrate your superiority. People don't like that, and will resent you for it. (These paragraphs apply to a lot more than just forums of mathematics, or even forums in general.)
[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301659]Teachers should have
the right to bounce students with bad attitudes from the classroom.[/quote] I'll repeat it for the thousandth time, because the message has not been recieved: [B]THIS IS NOT YOUR CLASSROOM. THIS IS NOT A CLASSROOM OF ANY SORT UNTIL THE PERSON LOOKING FOR HELP ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT IS[/B] (and thus becomes the student). Conversely, until a thread is acknowledged as a classroom, you have every right to withhold advice and help.


Almost all of this post (and my other post in the sister thread) is a rephrase of what cheesehead posted, and the "not a classroom" business is equivalent to "they can choose to not accept your advice, and [B]you must accept that[/B]" or at least, you [B]should[/B] accept that, much as others [B]should[/B] accept your advice.

[LIST][*]Hello, my name is Cool Hand Luke and I am an alcoholic.[*]"What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men."[*]Is this where the jiǎntǎo (检讨) is being held? I brought popcorn.[*]Today, we have a special screening of Leiningen Versus the Ants (spoiler: the ants lose)[*] "No one can eat 50 eggs."[/LIST]

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;301324]This task is a [B]hopeless[/B] waste of time. You might be able to find the first PRP
greater than 10^6, although what value the computation might have is
beyond me.

But proving it prime is so far beyond what current computers and algorithms
can do that even attempting it is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-1qW2xAU4"]Lookin' for Trouble?[/URL]

You've come to the right place

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhF_ofoNX3o&feature=related"]Only Joking[/URL]

So you'll have to settle for [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxHcx7FO8nI"]Done too much[/URL]

The Incorrigible

Found it!
[url=url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ6yAYHsHqg]Stuck on you[/url]

Team of Wild Horses USW

Please feel free to take this personally
 

You are a [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD_CSgIkd_k"]Star[/URL]