[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;384677]So? Why should anyone be impressed? Finding a Mersenne prime is
like winning a lottery. Why should others be impressed simply because
one gets lucky??? Why should others be impressed because one spends money to buy a ticket?

Especially when one uses black box code designed and
written by others for which one is too lazy to learn how it works?

It takes virtually no intellectual effort to run black box code that one
does not understand and for which one can't even be [i]bothered[/i] to
understand. If one is somehow proud of this "accomplishment" one
sets the bar very low. I don't see winning the lottery as an "accomplishment".[/QUOTE]

Pavlov says hello :smile:

[QUOTE=Gordon;384775]I've looked at your link, still don't see any [U]Mersenne [/U]primes on there...[/QUOTE]

I don't get it. I agree with ..him... what's so special about finding a new mersenne prime? It's all luck. Why should you be very "different" because you got lucky?

EDIT: Other than satisfaction or accomplishment mostly [I]only [/I]on your part..

[QUOTE=kracker;384782]I don't get it. I agree with ..him... what's so special about finding a new mersenne prime? It's all luck. Why should you be very "different" because you got lucky?

EDIT: Other than satisfaction or accomplishment mostly [I]only [/I]on your part..[/QUOTE]

Because this is a project to find [U]MERSENNE[/U] primes maybe?

By the same token his input into finding the large primes against his name should by necessity then also be discounted as he just "got lucky"?

According to RDS logic if you didn't do the geological survey with equipment you built yourself, mine the ore with equipment you designed and built yourself, smelt it with....

...design the chips with computer chips that you designed and fabbed yourself, built the software with software you entirely designed coded and built yourself...

...using algorithms that don't build on anybody else's work ever in history...

then you deserve no credit or recognition at all :devil:

[QUOTE=Gordon;384819]Because this is a project to find [U]MERSENNE[/U] primes maybe?

By the same token his input into finding the large primes against his name should by necessity then also be discounted as he just "got lucky"?[/QUOTE]

If we're talking about "credit" (for the ten hyperbolillionth :censored: time) then the argument he makes all the time becomes perfectly valid.

The difference between you finding a Mersenne Prime and him finding all his big primes is that you have allegedly provided nothing of use to the software end of it (developing the math, improving the software, etc) where I would assume RDS has contributed a very hefty amount.


[QUOTE=Gordon;384819]
According to RDS logic if you didn't do the geological survey with equipment you built yourself, mine the ore with equipment you designed and built yourself, smelt it with....

...design the chips with computer chips that you designed and fabbed yourself, built the software with software you entirely designed coded and built yourself...

...using algorithms that don't build on anybody else's work ever in history...

then you deserve no credit or recognition at all :devil:[/QUOTE]

This is a grossly evident Straw-Man; misinterpreting (in this case massively exaggerating) the opinion and arguing against the mutated version of his point and not the original point itself.


The real issue is that RDS is confusing "credit" with "achievement" or at the very least assuming that everyone around him is considering them to be the same thing.


If I discover a Mersenne Prime, then of course I should be [B][I]credited[/I][/B] with the discovery. I don't think RDS is arguing the contrary (Bob; if I have misunderstood you in this, I am sorry).

The question RDS poses instead is what the "value" of that credit is. It is of course completely worthless. It isn't an "achievement" in any way.


Consider this: If you discovered a Mersenne Prime, would that go onto your Resume (assuming you're applying in a +/- pure mathematics environment)? "Discoverer of the 49th Mersenne Prime" doesn't really carry much weight.

The strongest mathematics software I even know about is Matlab and it maxes out at 10^308 roughly (2^1024-1 exactly) so I haven't the slightest clue how to write a program to test any Mersennes bigger than M1024. In other words, I couldn't explain what's going on besides the Lucas Lehmer algorithm.

On the other hand, if you put "Developed the code used in Prime95 / mprime which found the largest 11 currently known Mersenne Primes" that would get you [B][I]way[/I][/B] further. That is an actual achievement.

TheMawn-
I think you're comparing Gordon to RDS, while the post you quoted was Gordon asking about the value of Batalov's finds.

Batalov has a few times taken interest in a prime of special type, written software to sieve or generate candidates, and found primes with a significant application of resources. His computation 'credit' is higher than nearly everyone on top 5000, AND he contributes to mathematics or software RDS-style.

(another day, another philosophical diatribe...)
 

The following is not for anyone in particular.

[YOUTUBE]ShdmErv5jvs[/YOUTUBE]

Let me, too, restate my assumptions:
1. Everyone is free to do what they want for a hobby.
2. After doing a certain hobby for, say, five years, you may get bored to tears.
(Why am I saying this? Because I have been there. You may think that you will happily do TF for many more years and still enjoy it as if it was all new. And good for you, that's fine too. Read on only if, or when you will have reached that boredom point. I am Dilbert-from the future talking to you, Dilbert of today.)
3. You may be afraid, however, that it is too difficult to change your hobby.
4. You may be afraid also that learning too much math (or programming) will change your character. Maybe you will get easily irritable at any slight imperfection of presentation or argumentation (like someone you may know), or maybe you will even go insane like Nash. Don't worry.

[YOUTUBE]OGKPmBtBpBo [/YOUTUBE]

My answer to #4. Yes, it is possible. It is also possible as years go by to become nuts or a jerk while straining your mind with absolutely nothing. Also, Nash's disorder did not stem from math; rather his interest in math stemmed from his disorder that he had since early adolescence.

My answer to #3. Not necessarily difficult, especially if you don't try to take in everything at once. Look. The modern world of programming has been "objectified" and "interfaced". You don't need to debug, crack existing or write your own programs to use them well; but it is best to learn the interfaces in and out, in great detail.
Take NewpGen as if it was Hungarian language and learn every option and use it in a sentence. The same with OpenPFGW and LLR. And srsieve, gcwsieve or course, etc. Each option. Now combine them in ways nobody (or at least very few people) did before. Explore. Enjoy.
Optionally, and maybe only later, check what LLR looks inside. Compile it from source once. Then find what you need to change and change it. Recompile, check that it works, rinse, repeat.

Anyway, what do I mean by combining programs in a new way? Examples: try x^y+y^x primes. What is the right tool? Search the forum, in particular keep an eye on Mark's latest GPU xyyxf sieves.
Take Cullen or Woodall -- they are done to a very high degree of difficulty. Anyway, it might be still a good idea to join (for 25% of the cores, for example) PrimeGrid for them, leave the rest of cores with GIMPS; then leave after a few done WUs (same maybe with TRP - see, they just had two marvelous primes, what's not to like?).
But what's beyond Cullen/Woodalls - there are generalized Cullen/Woodalls, see the special subforum in "And now for something completely different".
Then, for example, what about repunits (base-10 "Mersennes")? There's a project for them too. What's beyond, let's see: near-repunits (one digit away from monotonous repunits) and then quasi-repunits? M.Kamada's site is a trove of information for those.
Where else is fun? Mills' primes? Fermat factors, maybe (but careful - they are very deeply dug as an old gold mine). Generalized Fermat factors, perhaps? There's CRUS. There are aliquots. And more and more.

Or say, you are really well invested in GPUs and not so much in CPU. There are interesting projects for GPUs. Heretically, I will dare to say, that it might be more fun to use the GPU for a potential b^2^20+1 prime, or even the b^2^22+1 (in a world record territory for a long time now. The chances of course are slim. For any single person that is. Don't raise your hopes too high). This is being run in the PrimeGrid. Nobody (almost nobody) LLs Mersennes on a GPU anyway, and if someone switches from TFing billion digit Mps to WR GFNs on PG, GIMPS won't feel a difference for maybe 20-30 years (when it will reach billion digits :smile:) The GFN geneferOCL, especially the latest version, is truly excellent bang for cycle.

[YOUTUBE]7-C1cpG6TLc[/YOUTUBE]

Anyway, to quote the Sunscreen speech, "Do one thing each day that scares you. Sing. Dance."

Or don't. There's always fun in just jealously watching your growing or waning rank on GPU72 or GIMPS.
But that's like the size of the ****s (or as the water boiling that I used previously for some political correctness sake; of course whoever has the bigger boiler will boil more water; if you have any doubts about that, then ...you wasted your time reading this). It's not the size that matters. It's how you use it.

That's just my opinion anyway, I might be wrong, as Dennis used to say.

*A footnote for those who may not know Dilbert as far back as 2000.
Dilbert once invented a machine that bought his future self into 2000.

Multiple tragedies followed:

This is becoming a soapbox thread. Please keep it on topic or move to a new thread in the Soapbox. </mod>