[QUOTE=DanielBamberger;475772]But I have to agree. Either don't share any information, or share it all. Giving away snipplets will result in mis-information.[/QUOTE]

I thought about this earlier today in fact. I think if it were me, I'd probably do exactly that. Keep the new prime entirely secret and then maybe let the forum folks know a day beforehand that a new one was found, but to wait for the press release for the details.

But this is only my second go-round since working on the site, and I shouldn't second guess anything. I think in the M49 case there were also grumbles about how long it took to make the official announcement.

But consider it in context: The result came in Dec 26 and we're looking at a press release on the 2nd or 3rd... that's only a week.

And then look back at the case of M40 (both the false positive and the real one) from 2003. Just the verification runs alone took longer than that. The actual M40 was spotted on Nov 17th and the verification run finished on Nov 30th. That's nearly 2 weeks. And then the first press release went out Dec 2.

Some people might say that waiting [I]only[/I] a week is amazing. It's all in your perspective.

As a1call said, no serious harm was done. In this case. What would you have done if the number in the Wiki article had been correct? That situation would have been - unfortunate. Editing Wikipedia to remove the (correct) information may be unjustified in this case. As a vivid user of Wikipedia, I would have protested against that edit. And I am pretty sure people would have noticed!

I think that it is TOTALLY understandable to wait until the number is verified by a independent user using different software/hardware.

Once it is verified, however, it should be communicated to the forum. If you want to, you can embargo the news and wait until the official announcement before giving any interviews to the press.

Right now it can only remind me of how the Soviet Union would treat the death of the General Secretary of the Communist Party. They would fret for a few days before announcing it becuase they were unsure of how the populace would react and wanted to have all their ducks lined in a row before sharing the news.

Lets face it. As much as we in this forum love prime numbers and Mersenne Primes we will never, not in a million years, compete in the general news media with a zit in Justin Bieber's face, or the Kardashian twins. Not even with a winner of the Preakness.

So... simply publish it and forget trying to "make news". I bet my brother, wife, daughters and son-in law will never find out about this if I don't tell them.

[QUOTE=a1call;475774]If someone reaches wrong conclusion, so what. We will know after the official news release.:smile:
Wikipedia is editable by masses and everyone knows that. Despite being a good source of information it is not infallible and there are numerous inaccuracies contained within in just about all subjects.
It is probably the source of many widely accepted fallacies such as the term series being associated by sum of series.
Just my 2 cents.[/QUOTE]

I was worried some reporter out there would see a wiki entry and just run with it without doing appropriate follow-up. Worse things have happened.

And yeah, what could be worse than some rag publishing the wrong info and then others pick it up, etc. "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on."

By the time we put out the correct info, the moment is gone and who wants to publish the real story when they already got burned on fake news? They're just as likely to ignore it and not draw more attention.

In short, getting the wrong info out there is a PR nightmare. No matter where it started, it makes the project look bad. The argument then could be made "release now!" but honestly, New Years Eve, or the couple days run up to it, is a terrible time to try and get traction with the press on a story about a new record breaking prime #.

[QUOTE=DanielBamberger;475782]Editing Wikipedia to remove the (correct) information would be unjustified in this case.[/QUOTE]

Even correct information gets removed from Wikipedia if it's unsourced. Adding the new prime requires a citation to an authoritative source, and that hasn't been made available yet.

[QUOTE=rudy235;475783]Right now it can only remind me of how the Soviet Union would treat the death of the General Secretary of the Communist Party.[/QUOTE]

You don't need to look so far for examples of proprietary periods. As an astronomer, those occur to me all the time. Some people find them annoying, and they tend to produce bad press when snippets get leaked. So generally the "no information until all information" policy is assumed. I am quite happy with that. But that's astronomy, not maths.

EDIT:
[QUOTE=GP2;475785]Even correct information gets removed from Wikipedia if it's unsourced. Adding the new prime requires a citation to an authoritative source, and that hasn't been made available yet.[/QUOTE]

Right. But imagine Madpoo's question who did it in this case. (Which, by the way, might just have counted as an authoritive source.)
No need to argue about it. It didn't happen anyway, and it's not central to my point: Don't give away snippets, and there's nothing to worry about.

EDIT 2 (sorry, I feel I have to clarify):
I don't say proprietary periods are inevitable; just that half-releases are bad.

[QUOTE=DanielBamberger;475782]As a1call said, no serious harm was done. In this case. What would you have done if the number in the Wiki article had been correct? That situation would have been - unfortunate. Editing Wikipedia to remove the (correct) information may be unjustified in this case. As a vivid user of Wikipedia, I would have protested against that edit. And I am pretty sure people would have noticed![/QUOTE]

If the exponent had been correct, I would also have just left it, for the same reasons. Imagine my relief to see it was wrong. LOL

Had it been right, I guess I would hope George would just go ahead and put out the press release, but that would have been unfortunate indeed. Nobody would have been ready to run a story on it and it'd still be a couple days before anyone noticed. Stolen thunder.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;475784]In short, getting the wrong info out there is a PR nightmare.[/QUOTE]

Calmness, Grasshopper. :wink:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;475789]If the exponent had been correct, I would also have just left it, for the same reasons. Imagine my relief to see it was wrong. LOL[/QUOTE]

If this ever happens to you: Revert the edit and say it was unsourced. Perfectly fine, for the time being. But don't make a post here confirming that the correct number had been on Wikipedia, because someone might revert your edit and add that very post of yours as the source. Not sure if you want to fight an edit war over it.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;475789]Had it been right, I guess I would hope George would just go ahead and put out the press release, but that would have been unfortunate indeed. Nobody would have been ready to run a story on it and it'd still be a couple days before anyone noticed. Stolen thunder.[/QUOTE]

I am new to this forum and I don't want to be smart-alecky. But it doesn't hurt to prepare for leaks. Call me paranoid, but you might take unnecessary risks.
The giveaways in this thread might be sufficient to find the number.

[QUOTE=DanielBamberger;475796]But don't make a post here confirming that the correct number had been on Wikipedia, because someone might revert your edit and add that very post of yours as the source.[/QUOTE]

Ah.. Please forgive me for my French, but Jesus flying fucking Christ.

What part of 74207281 isn't the correct MP isn't clear?

[QUOTE=chalsall;475800]What part of 74207281 isn't the correct MP isn't clear?[/QUOTE]

Pardon me? (Sorry if I miss the point; but I honestly do.)
EDIT: The number is unclear; maybe you meant the one Madpoo had posted about, then I understand the question.
My answer: I was speculating, and trying to make a point about unnecessary risk.