ECM question

[VBCurtis]

Instead of banning Bob next time, the gerbils should just replace all of his posts with "I deem you an idiot. Go read my paper." Almost no content will be lost.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

Instead of banning Bob next time, the gerbils should just replace all of his posts with "I deem you an idiot. Go read my paper." Almost no content will be lost.

There is a big difference between being an idiot (i.e. incapable of learning
and thinking) and being WILLFULLY IGNORANT.

The former can't be helped. The latter is a bad CHARACTER FLAW
and is all too prevalent within this forum. It is contemptible.

Maybe when you grow up and obtain a little intellectual discipline (the lot of)
you will understand this.

[rajula]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

There is a big difference between being an idiot (i.e. incapable of learning
and thinking) and being WILLFULLY IGNORANT.

The former can't be helped. The latter is a bad CHARACTER FLAW
and is all too prevalent within this forum. It is contemptible.

Maybe when you grow up and obtain a little intellectual discipline (the lot of)
you will understand this.

Also, being an idiot is a relative thing. Everyone is an idiot on some scale. But is giving up always the same as being ignorant? Different people set up different goals of understanding.

Someone is not satisfied before he can run a program and understand when it can be used.
Someone is not satisfied if he cannot understand the mathematics behind the program.
Someone is not satisfied if he cannot write the program himself.
Someone is not satisfied if he cannot improve parts of the algorithms by himself.
Someone is not satisfied if he cannot improve the (global) knowledge in the mathematics behind.

You set up a different level for the willful ignorance than others. I admire that, but sometimes one has to face the reality: not everyone of us has the potential to understand (relatively) simple mathematics and less potential to solve difficult mathematical problems.

I, for example, am quite confident that I could quite easily understand most of the mathematics behind, but choose not to devote my time to that. I tackle with (harder) problems on other fields of mathematics. I may run programs without fully understanding everything, but I would not sill call the related ignorance a serious character flaw.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by rajula

Also, being an idiot is a relative thing. Everyone is an idiot on some scale. But is giving up always the same as being ignorant? Different people set up different goals of understanding.

Someone is not satisfied before he can run a program and understand when it can be used.
Someone is not satisfied if he cannot understand the mathematics behind the program.
Someone is not satisfied if he cannot write the program himself.
Someone is not satisfied if he cannot improve parts of the algorithms by himself.
Someone is not satisfied if he cannot improve the (global) knowledge in the mathematics behind.

You set up a different level for the willful ignorance than others. I admire that, but sometimes one has to face the reality: not everyone of us has the potential to understand (relatively) simple mathematics and less potential to solve difficult mathematical problems.

I, for example, am quite confident that I could quite easily understand most of the mathematics behind, but choose not to devote my time to that. I tackle with (harder) problems on other fields of mathematics. I may run programs without fully understanding everything, but I would not sill call the related ignorance a serious character flaw.

One can't get a little bit pregnant. If people are unwilling to learn the
theory behind this subject, then STOP ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
(capabilities of) ALGORITHMS. (which is what kicked off this thread)

You can ask questions about how to run the software. You can run code
without full understanding. But when one starts asking about the capabilities
of algorithms and how to select parameters, you have crossed the line
of merely running code.

[bcp19]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

One can't get a little bit pregnant. If people are unwilling to learn the
theory behind this subject, then STOP ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
(capabilities of) ALGORITHMS. (which is what kicked off this thread)

You can ask questions about how to run the software. You can run code
without full understanding. But when one starts asking about the capabilities
of algorithms and how to select parameters, you have crossed the line
of merely running code.

Congrats Bob, between you and David I have decided to stop all GIMPS processing. After all, what is the point of running a program that I don't understand and am unable to create myself? You and David now share the dubious honor of causing the biggest decline in GIMPS processing in recent history (heck, probably the biggest since the project started). 400,000+GHzD per year gone. Between his childishness and your pendantic nature creating mountains out of molehills, I have had enough.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

One can't get a little bit pregnant. If people are unwilling to learn the
theory behind this subject, then STOP ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
(capabilities of) ALGORITHMS. (which is what kicked off this thread)

You can ask questions about how to run the software. You can run code
without full understanding. But when one starts asking about the capabilities
of algorithms and how to select parameters, you have crossed the line
of merely running code.

This is pure BS, Bob. Such things are discussed all the time. That is what a forum is for. If you don't like the question, maybe you could just have a tall, refreshing glass of STFU. Telling people that they should read your paper is beyond pedantic. It is pure, pompous puffery. Your exceptional mathematical accomplishments are just that: exceptional. To insist that others duplicate your course of study is also beyond arrogance. While you obviously get a lot of pleasure out of putting down those who fall short of your exalted state, you could, perhaps forgo a bit of that wanking in the interests of the project. Since you don't, you mainly prove that your entire goal is stupid a$$holiness. This is not a professional journal, nor is it your private playground to be the bully of.

[ewmayer]

Hey, look at the bright side: At least Bob's pompous puffery comes without Youtube link-spam accompaniment.

Bob, if you find yourself using ALL-CAPS and LOUD BOLDFACE as frequently as above, may I suggest it's time to (once again) take a deep breath, and remind yourself that most of our participants - including George and me, among others - are amateurs with respect to the field of number theory?

And yes, that includes no small number of willful ignoramuses, but methinks you often apply that label to anyone not willing to drop everything else right this instant and spend a year-long sabbatical studying your collected papers.

If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to be here.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by bcp19

You and David now share the dubious honor of causing the biggest decline in GIMPS processing in recent history (heck, probably the biggest since the project started). 400,000+GHzD per year gone. Between his childishness and your pendantic nature creating mountains out of molehills, I have had enough.

We will definitely miss your input. Thank you for all the cycles, money and time you contributed.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Hey, look at the bright side: At least Bob's pompous puffery comes without Youtube link-spam accompaniment.

:-)

If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to be here.

Theory:

Mr. Silverman seems to have an addiction to posting here in the manner he does. It's that addiction that forces him to post as he does. Therefore, methods of persuasion that won't work on addiction probably won't work with Mr. Silverman, either. Cold-turkey banning seems to have had some effect for short periods after he's been reinstated.

[cheesehead]

(accidental duplicate post deleted)

[Chuck]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

And yes, that includes no small number of willful ignoramuses, but methinks you often apply that label to anyone not willing to drop everything else right this instant and spend a year-long sabbatical studying your collected papers.

I am a willful ignoramus.

I think Bob behaves like a jerk.