[quote="Prime95"]It is larger than M13466917,[/quote]
[quote="ewmayer"]if Guillermo is very close to reaching 14M, you could wait for that result, and if you match, restart your run from there.[/quote]
[quote="Prime95"]I've resumed the test at iteration 14 million.[/quote]
Well, folks, it looks like our lower bound for guesses of the exponent can be raised to 14000291. :)

Xyzzy was just kidding when he said that it was found on a triple check. :D

:( :( :( :(

I will run another double check if needed :) Got a speedy and stable P4 here. Will sign any NDA if required :D :D :D :D

In the "server reporting a new prime found. ???" thread at [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=644&start=50]http://www.mersenneforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=644&start=50[/url] it was reported by late Wednesday that Guillermo Ballester Valor's run was past 14 million and would finish "in the next few days", that George had restarted his run at the 14 million checkpoint, and that "Next double-check will be done on Friday" (without specifying whose DC it would be).

Extrapolating from that, it looks like my "in the 17 millions" guess might be close or slightly high.

George"
[quote]I'm sorry to continue the drama for a few more days. I'm also somewhat worried that GIMPS may have suffered its first false alarm.[/quote]"

Or worse has suffered a loss of members confidence in the program.
"[quote]Yes, the chance of a false positive from a working program is zero. :[/quote]
Though he says nothin about false negatives.

George refuses to answer any emails, which sounds a little stuck up to me. As if he couldn't possibly be bothered to drop a note back to such blue collar workers.

Rebuttle George?

TTn,

Friendly joshing about rivalry between 15k and GIMPS is one thing -- but that is going too far.
[quote="TTn"]Or worse has suffered a loss of members confidence in the program.[/quote]
Concluding that after only a couple of days of events looks like it was arrived-at from a pre-established negative attitude, not from reality.

[quote="TTn"]Though he says nothin about false negatives.[/quote]
Why should he? It's long been thoroughly discussed that about 1.8% of L-L test results give a residue that is later found to be incorrect. That's why GIMPS does double-checks.

[quote="TTn"]George refuses to answer any emails, which sounds a little stuck up to me. As if he couldn't possibly be bothered to drop a note back to such blue collar workers.[/quote]
He does have a day job, you know.

Exactly when did you send George those e-mails (so that we may see whether you're being unduly impatient)?

- - -

EDIT: If you'll edit out your statements in the preceding post, I'll edit out mine in this one as soon as I find out.

George has answered all questions that we have asked him here on the forms. Which is incredible for a project of this size. No one should lose confidence in the program because of one error. Such errors are inevitable with a high stress algorithm with little to no error tolerence such as the Lucas Lehmer Test. The chances for false negatives have been adressed. I am not certain but I beilive that the documented rate is around 3.5% per test. This is dealt with by making each exponent run through a doublecheck after the first time test has been run. After both tests have been run the chance of a false negative remaining is almost zero.

EDIT It looks like cheesehead answered first.

[quote="TTn"]
George refuses to answer any emails, which sounds a little stuck up to me. As if he couldn't possibly be bothered to drop a note back to such blue collar workers.
[/quote]

You're not going to find much audience around here for stuff like this.

[quote="TTn"]George"
[quote]I'm sorry to continue the drama for a few more days. I'm also somewhat worried that GIMPS may have suffered its first false alarm.[/quote]"

Or worse has suffered a loss of members confidence in the program.
"[quote]Yes, the chance of a false positive from a working program is zero. :[/quote]
Though he says nothin about false negatives.

George refuses to answer any emails, which sounds a little stuck up to me. As if he couldn't possibly be bothered to drop a note back to such blue collar workers.

Rebuttle George?[/quote]

As someone who has been involved in the project since 1996 when everything was done via email - range reservations, results etc - that sort of comment is completely uncalled for.

Perhaps when you have earned your dues - like some of us have, 1100+ exponents tested, 150k+ (not a typo) factors found and oh yes, finding a Mersenne Prime - you can begin to think about making demands.

Until then I suggest you shut up and go learn some humility. This is primarily a board dedicated to Gimps, your constant spamming of all sections and most threads with your advertisements for your project is becoming tiresome.

Why don't you start your own board and go play somewhere else?

george has always been very quick to answer my emails

may hes not answering yours because you lip off to damn much


if you don't like it then don't participate, damn its not like we ask you for membership dues or anything

Moderator time:

Obviously most people feel that TTn's comments were unfair to George and to all the hard work he does to lead this project. But let's try to keep the complaints about TTn's comments civil. Flaming is only going to detract from the purpose of this board, which is to talk about GIMPs in an open, friendly environment.