Are the recent advancements for GIMPS (VDF, Gerbicz check, Jacobi check) worth publishing?
 

[QUOTE=chalsall;554270]Which, in your opinion, is more useful?

Doing a DC will point out borderline kit, but I think Aaron's years-long SDC effort has cleared out most of the known noise.

How trusting are you of the PRP-proof mechanism (I presume, based on the extensive collaboration and peer-review, quite)?

The call, of course, is yours. And if I may please say, this has been truly awesome to observe!

Agile in Action; almost a case-study. :tu: :bow:[/QUOTE]

Peer reviewed on the forum yes. Is the application of VDF for prp testing enough of a new development to be worth publishing? A peer review for publication in a journal would add a lot of confidence to our results.

[QUOTE=kriesel;554277]Since the LL DC is lagging several years behind LL first time testing, the identification of borderline or reliably-unreliable kit may come years too late. Unless there are enough error codes caught in the prime95 /mprime result's errors field. Which does nothing for Mlucas, CUDALucas, clLucas, gpuowl runs.[/QUOTE]

In my world, all data is interesting.

But, as you suggest, some might not be worth collecting in the bigger calculus (economic tradeoffs, expediency, etc).

henryzz question really perked up my ears. Is this seminal? Worth formally publishing?

It's worth bearing in mind that this isn't the only advancement we have had recently. The Jacobi checks for LL and Gerbiz test for prp are also newish. Maybe a paper reviewing all of these advancements would be in order.

[QUOTE=henryzz;554292]It's worth bearing in mind that this isn't the only advancement we have had recently. The Jacobi checks for LL and Gerbiz test for prp are also newish. Maybe a paper reviewing all of these advancements would be in order.[/QUOTE]Indeed. Paul (Xilman) or someone else with a low Erdos number needs to be involved. Also, if small bits of minor work on the paper could be handed out so us non-math mortals can get named that would be great. Most of us can generate graphs from given data sets, or run some simple stats. Early beta testers (v30.1) might get a nod.

[QUOTE=henryzz;554292]Maybe a paper reviewing all of these advancements would be in order.[/QUOTE]

A new tagline: "GIMPS. We're not just Geeks; a few of us are also occasionally seminal.

(:smile:)

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;554301]Indeed. Paul (Xilman) or someone else with a low Erdos number needs to be involved. Also, if small bits of minor work on the paper could be handed out so us non-math mortals can get named that would be great. Most of us can generate graphs from given data sets, or run some simple stats. Early beta testers (v30.1) might get a nod.[/QUOTE]

Define low Erdos number. With a couple of publications in Medical Statistics, I believe I have gotten down to 5. There are people on this forum with far lower and much more maths experience than me.

[QUOTE=henryzz;554304]Define low Erdos number. With a couple of publications in Medical Statistics, I believe I have gotten down to 5. There are people on this forum with far lower and much more maths experience than me.[/QUOTE][URL="https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=4910"]Paul is 2.[/URL] I think that is about as close as can be hoped for.

[QUOTE=henryzz;554304]Define low Erdos number. With a couple of publications in Medical Statistics, I believe I have gotten down to 5. There are people on this forum with far lower and much more maths experience than me.[/QUOTE]

The point being...

Perhaps this is worth formally writing up.

We have a lot of talent here, which could be brought to bear.

No need to compare how large or small our numbers are. Simply, who can (and is willing) to help?

1) literature review is a must before even trying to publish
2) search on [url]https://www.scopus.com/home.uri[/url] for medium to highest impact journals

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;554307]1) literature review is a must before even trying to publish[/QUOTE]

Presumption this has already been done.

Also, in Engineering Journals, simply detailing how something was done successfully (even if leveraging on prior art) is considered valuable.

[QUOTE=chalsall;554308]Presumption this has already been done.

Also, in Engineering Journals, simply detailing how something was done successfully (even if leveraging on prior art) is considered valuable.[/QUOTE]

Sometimes papers are on hold for months for peer review, goes back and forth for corrections (peer reviewers and editors) , so you will always need to get in touch with high qualified people on the subject to have guarantees that what you want to publish is new, hence my comment on the literature review.

I can provide any academic paper if you make me a list of DOI’s.