M43 discovery date - Page 2

M29 · 2005-12-22, 01:24

Hurwitz himself cannot remember which one he saw first.

Paulie · 2005-12-22, 03:29

You can't know the result until it is observed. We now have an example of Schroedinger's "Prime" cat

Voted 16th.

M29 · 2005-12-22, 04:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulie

You can't know the result until it is observed. We now have an example of Schroedinger's "Prime" cat

Voted 16th.

Whan a craft lands on another planet, we don't know it for a number of minutes. Nevertheless, it landed when it landed.

The discovery was made on the 15th. The discovery wasn't known until the 16th.

ewmayer · 2005-12-22, 19:39

Just to muddy the waters further: here's an astronomical example that supports the Dec. 16th dating: the recent discovery of the largest-known Kuiper Belt Object by CalTech astronomer Michael Brown and colleagues:

Quote:

"Brown ... made the discovery with colleagues Chad Trujillo, of the Gemini Observatory, and David Rabinowitz, of Yale University, on January 8.

Brown and Trujillo first photographed the new planet with the 48-inch Samuel Oschin Telescope on October 31, 2003. However, the object was so far away that its motion was not detected until they reanalyzed the data in January of this year."

On the other hand (the one stirring the waters so as to muddy them ;), the discovery of the above planetoid was not at all obvious from looking at the photographs - it required sophisticated post-photographing analysis. In the case of Mersenne primes, we have a precise date on which a computer somewhere printed "M****** is prime!!!" to a data file. So one could also argue that the two instances are not analogous.

E_tron · 2005-12-22, 20:14

I think the discovery date must be dec 15th. Here is why:

The 2003UB313 was discovered from data collected in 2003...

"2003 UB313 was discovered in data from 2003 October 21"
-UB313 scientific paper http://www.gps.caltech.edu/%7Embrown/papers/ps/xena.pdf

..., but was actually discovered on Jan 5th when an intelligent system said it had something.

"This reanalysis found the new planet at 11:20AM PST on January 5th 2005, almost 1 1/2 years after the initial data were obtained. Note that initial reports suggested that the discovery date was January 8th."
-http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/

"2003 UB313 was discovered by the team of Michael Brown, Chad Trujillo, and David Rabinowitz on January 5, 2005 from images taken on October 21, 2003, and the discovery was announced on July 29, 2005..."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_UB313

Here is the analogy:

The data on M43 was collected when PrimeNet first determined that its exponent was prime and therefore the undiscovered prime was added for testing (early 2005 during the server synchronization??).

2003 UB313 was discovered at the time the intelligent system found it (11:20am PST January 5th 2005), so M43 was discovered at the time the intelligent system (prime95) found it (Dec. 15 GMT).

xilman · 2005-12-22, 21:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by E_tron

I think the discovery date must be dec 15th. Here is why:

The 2003UB313 was discovered from data collected in 2003...

"2003 UB313 was discovered in data from 2003 October 21"
-UB313 scientific paper http://www.gps.caltech.edu/%7Embrown/papers/ps/xena.pdf

..., but was actually discovered on Jan 5th when an intelligent system said it had something.

"This reanalysis found the new planet at 11:20AM PST on January 5th 2005, almost 1 1/2 years after the initial data were obtained. Note that initial reports suggested that the discovery date was January 8th."
-http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/

"2003 UB313 was discovered by the team of Michael Brown, Chad Trujillo, and David Rabinowitz on January 5, 2005 from images taken on October 21, 2003, and the discovery was announced on July 29, 2005..."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_UB313

Here is the analogy:

The data on M43 was collected when PrimeNet first determined that its exponent was prime and therefore the undiscovered prime was added for testing (early 2005 during the server synchronization??).

2003 UB313 was discovered at the time the intelligent system found it (11:20am PST January 5th 2005), so M43 was discovered at the time the intelligent system (prime95) found it (Dec. 15 GMT).

By this argument, Neptune was discovered before Uranus. An intelligent system (Galileo) found the planet close to Jupiter in the early 17th century and one of his drawings of it has survived. Needless to say, he thought it was a star and although he found it, he didn't recognize it.

Flamsteed found Uranus in the 18th century. He included it in his star catalogue (as 5 Tauri if I remember correctly --- I haven't checked) but failed to recognize it as a planet. The latter is quite inexcusable. If he'd gone back to check his measurements some time later he would have found it had moved in the interim, a behaviour for which the fixed stars are not noted but which planets most certainly are.

Paul

garo · 2005-12-22, 21:36

I think your argument is misleading Paul. Galileo and Flamsteed made mistakes. The computer that has probably found M43 has probably not.

A better analogy to the Neptune/Uranus story would be to credit the first tester who misses a prime due to a faulty test which is subsequently found in a doublecheck.

F960897 · 2005-12-23, 01:26

I voted for Dec. 15 for several reason. This system is designed for little human interaction. The majority of the work afer coding is handled by the server (some call this automation). So this system is designed for the machines to do the work and to report the discovery. We have three major things at play here. The discoverers machine, the server, and the humans. The discoverers machine does the bulk of the work (credit is definantly deserved by the coders who put in the long hours). The machine does the large calculations and writes it results to a file. The software is making an "observation" based an algorithm and is using a file to report its result. This result is then sent to the server who is responsible for telling us humans.

I vote Dec. 15 since we have a basic artificial inteligence system that is capable of making observations about the primality of mersenne numbers, therefore capable of discovering new unknown mersenne primes.

This reminds me of the old saying that if a tree falls in the forrest and nobody is around, does it make a sound? (picture the discovery as the sound) Of course it made a sound, but we can't prove it because the statement is self defeating. To say that we need a human to observe a machines results gives absolutely no hope for december 15 being the discovery date. But to recognize that the number was discovered regardless of observation makes Dec. 15 a good vote for the discovery date.

I do believe that a more accurate view would be to credit both days like so:

On Dec. 15 2005 <unamed discoverer> and his personal computer completed a LL test on the 43rd known mersenne prime which was reported to the PrimeNet server on Dec. 16 to await its verification.

Anyways,
I know who discovered M43 and I would like to congratulate them on a well deserved find. Good luck to all and have a Merry Christmas.

Regards,
Michael Eaton

philmoore · 2005-12-23, 01:52

I still maintain that if the disk had failed prior to communication with the server and the results file was unrecoverable, there would be no discovery. The discovery only happened once humans became aware of the results of the test.

Prime95 · 2005-12-23, 02:45

Digging through the server logs paints an even more complex picture!

The prime was found on 12/15 at 8:43 AM local time.

1) The server was notified immediately, a message logged, but the primenet application must have been down. This was on 12/15 local and GMT time.

2) The server was notified again 6 hours later, a message logged, but again primenet was down. Still 12/15 local and GMT time.

3) The server is notified again 5 hours later. The message logged and an email sent to Scott and the discoverer. This was 12/15 local time and now 12/16 GMT time.

4) The server updates the status report an hour later. ixfd64 notices and posts to the forum. A human now knows M43 has been found, but I doubt any human knows the actual exponent. It is still 12/15 local time and 12/16 GMT.

5) Sometime later either Scott, discoverer, or xyzzy, or some forum member decyphering residues knows the exponent. This most likely is 12/16 local and GMT time.

6) Discoverer reads his email notification. I think this was 12/16 local time, but maybe it was 12/17 - I could ask.

First off, I've always used the discoverer's local time for the discovery date. It just seems to make sense. So I think you can ignore all the GMT comments above.

You could argue that the discovery date is 12/15 because in #1 above the computer uncovered the prime.

You could argue that the discovery date is 12/15 because in #3 above you've past the point where someone surely will find out. Even a crash of the local computer won't keep the find secret.

You could argue that the discovery date is 12/15 because in #4 a human knows it has been found.

You could argue that the discovery date is 12/16 because in #5 a human knows what the exponent is.

You could argue that the discovery date is the date that the computer's owner reads his email notifying him of the find.

This isn't especially important, just an interesting side topic. The poll pretty much split 50/50 on the issue so I'll just have to pick one and go with it!

Comments welcome.

Orgasmic Troll · 2005-12-23, 05:07

Okay, since mathematical discovery relies on the ability to prove the result and convince others in the mathematical community that the result is true, I think that discovery needs to be from the point that someone who understands why the algorithm proves a candidate is prime sees verification that it is prime. If a janitor walked by and saw the printout "XYZ is prime" but doesn't understand it, all they have discovered is a printout saying "XYZ is prime" .. if he had stumbled across someone's screensaver that said "12345 is prime" (and believed it) they wouldn't have discovered that 12345 is prime and thus wouldn't be able to convince the mathematical community of the truth that XYZ is prime.

Although I guess, philosophically, GIMPS has never proven a number to be prime, just proven the candidates to be EXTREMELY likely to be prime. (Suppose cosmic rays interfered with the computer and all the double-checks in such an extraordinarily coincidental way that all of them erroneously reported a candidate as prime), however, the probability that GIMPS has reported a composite candidate as prime is so laughably low that it is convincing to the mathematical community, so I think my argument still holds.

View Poll Results: What should be the official discovery date of M43?
Dec. 15	28	52.83%
Dec. 16	25	47.17%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

2005-12-22, 03:29	#13
Paulie Aug 2002 223 Posts	You can't know the result until it is observed. We now have an example of Schroedinger's "Prime" cat Voted 16th. Last fiddled with by Paulie on 2005-12-22 at 03:35

2005-12-23, 01:26	#19
F960897 Dec 2005 2² Posts	Idea I voted for Dec. 15 for several reason. This system is designed for little human interaction. The majority of the work afer coding is handled by the server (some call this automation). So this system is designed for the machines to do the work and to report the discovery. We have three major things at play here. The discoverers machine, the server, and the humans. The discoverers machine does the bulk of the work (credit is definantly deserved by the coders who put in the long hours). The machine does the large calculations and writes it results to a file. The software is making an "observation" based an algorithm and is using a file to report its result. This result is then sent to the server who is responsible for telling us humans. I vote Dec. 15 since we have a basic artificial inteligence system that is capable of making observations about the primality of mersenne numbers, therefore capable of discovering new unknown mersenne primes. This reminds me of the old saying that if a tree falls in the forrest and nobody is around, does it make a sound? (picture the discovery as the sound) Of course it made a sound, but we can't prove it because the statement is self defeating. To say that we need a human to observe a machines results gives absolutely no hope for december 15 being the discovery date. But to recognize that the number was discovered regardless of observation makes Dec. 15 a good vote for the discovery date. I do believe that a more accurate view would be to credit both days like so: On Dec. 15 2005 <unamed discoverer> and his personal computer completed a LL test on the 43rd known mersenne prime which was reported to the PrimeNet server on Dec. 16 to await its verification. Anyways, I know who discovered M43 and I would like to congratulate them on a well deserved find. Good luck to all and have a Merry Christmas. Regards, Michael Eaton

2005-12-23, 02:45	#21
Prime95 P90 years forever! Aug 2002 Yeehaw, FL 7,537 Posts	M43 discovery date (again) Digging through the server logs paints an even more complex picture! The prime was found on 12/15 at 8:43 AM local time. 1) The server was notified immediately, a message logged, but the primenet application must have been down. This was on 12/15 local and GMT time. 2) The server was notified again 6 hours later, a message logged, but again primenet was down. Still 12/15 local and GMT time. 3) The server is notified again 5 hours later. The message logged and an email sent to Scott and the discoverer. This was 12/15 local time and now 12/16 GMT time. 4) The server updates the status report an hour later. ixfd64 notices and posts to the forum. A human now knows M43 has been found, but I doubt any human knows the actual exponent. It is still 12/15 local time and 12/16 GMT. 5) Sometime later either Scott, discoverer, or xyzzy, or some forum member decyphering residues knows the exponent. This most likely is 12/16 local and GMT time. 6) Discoverer reads his email notification. I think this was 12/16 local time, but maybe it was 12/17 - I could ask. First off, I've always used the discoverer's local time for the discovery date. It just seems to make sense. So I think you can ignore all the GMT comments above. You could argue that the discovery date is 12/15 because in #1 above the computer uncovered the prime. You could argue that the discovery date is 12/15 because in #3 above you've past the point where someone surely will find out. Even a crash of the local computer won't keep the find secret. You could argue that the discovery date is 12/15 because in #4 a human knows it has been found. You could argue that the discovery date is 12/16 because in #5 a human knows what the exponent is. You could argue that the discovery date is the date that the computer's owner reads his email notifying him of the find. This isn't especially important, just an interesting side topic. The poll pretty much split 50/50 on the issue so I'll just have to pick one and go with it! Comments welcome.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Predict discovery date of the 1st 100M digit prime	retina	Lounge	47	2019-09-07 15:46
First pre-impact discovery for NEO search!	cheesehead	Astronomy	42	2013-11-22 04:54
TPS Discovery Rally: January 14-16	Oddball	Twin Prime Search	27	2011-01-17 07:00
My new discovery!!	Merfighters	Lounge	3	2010-04-07 11:46
Exciting discovery - but not sure what it means!	chopinbrain	Lounge	1	2005-09-13 03:31

2005-12-22, 01:24	#12
M29 Dec 2003 A4₁₆ Posts	Hurwitz himself cannot remember which one he saw first.

2005-12-22, 20:14	#16
E_tron Sep 2002 Austin, TX 3×11×17 Posts	I think the discovery date must be dec 15th. Here is why: The 2003UB313 was discovered from data collected in 2003... "2003 UB313 was discovered in data from 2003 October 21" -UB313 scientific paper http://www.gps.caltech.edu/%7Embrown/papers/ps/xena.pdf ..., but was actually discovered on Jan 5th when an intelligent system said it had something. "This reanalysis found the new planet at 11:20AM PST on January 5th 2005, almost 1 1/2 years after the initial data were obtained. Note that initial reports suggested that the discovery date was January 8th." -http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/ "2003 UB313 was discovered by the team of Michael Brown, Chad Trujillo, and David Rabinowitz on January 5, 2005 from images taken on October 21, 2003, and the discovery was announced on July 29, 2005..." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_UB313 Here is the analogy: The data on M43 was collected when PrimeNet first determined that its exponent was prime and therefore the undiscovered prime was added for testing (early 2005 during the server synchronization??). 2003 UB313 was discovered at the time the intelligent system found it (11:20am PST January 5th 2005), so M43 was discovered at the time the intelligent system (prime95) found it (Dec. 15 GMT).

2005-12-22, 21:36	#18
garo Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 5314₈ Posts	I think your argument is misleading Paul. Galileo and Flamsteed made mistakes. The computer that has probably found M43 has probably not. A better analogy to the Neptune/Uranus story would be to credit the first tester who misses a prime due to a faulty test which is subsequently found in a doublecheck.

2005-12-23, 01:52	#20
philmoore "Phil" Sep 2002 Tracktown, U.S.A. 2137₈ Posts	I still maintain that if the disk had failed prior to communication with the server and the results file was unrecoverable, there would be no discovery. The discovery only happened once humans became aware of the results of the test.

2005-12-23, 05:07	#22
Orgasmic Troll Cranksta Rap Ayatollah Jul 2003 281₁₆ Posts	Okay, since mathematical discovery relies on the ability to prove the result and convince others in the mathematical community that the result is true, I think that discovery needs to be from the point that someone who understands why the algorithm proves a candidate is prime sees verification that it is prime. If a janitor walked by and saw the printout "XYZ is prime" but doesn't understand it, all they have discovered is a printout saying "XYZ is prime" .. if he had stumbled across someone's screensaver that said "12345 is prime" (and believed it) they wouldn't have discovered that 12345 is prime and thus wouldn't be able to convince the mathematical community of the truth that XYZ is prime. Although I guess, philosophically, GIMPS has never proven a number to be prime, just proven the candidates to be EXTREMELY likely to be prime. (Suppose cosmic rays interfered with the computer and all the double-checks in such an extraordinarily coincidental way that all of them erroneously reported a candidate as prime), however, the probability that GIMPS has reported a composite candidate as prime is so laughably low that it is convincing to the mathematical community, so I think my argument still holds.