Predict M52

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by dcheuk

Doesn't that means if curtisc were to join in, if he's on this forum that is, would get 7 guesses lol.

Curtis Cooper does not guess Mersenne Primes, he declares them to be so.

[dcheuk]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Curtis Cooper does not guess Mersenne Primes, he declares them to be so.

lol this makes me laugh so hard.

[GP2]

Curtis Cooper can find factors for Mersenne Primes. That's the only reason he didn't discover even more of them.

[lukerichards]

My guesses, assuming entries are still being accepted

101834393 1st August 2020
113847439 1st September 2020
202303547 - No date supplied

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by dcheuk

Doesn't that means if curtisc were to join in, if he's on this forum that is, would get 7 guesses lol.

Nope. Rule 11 specifies 4.
Had it said "Past discovery of a new Mersenne prime entitles the discoverer to an additional guess" then a case could be made for 7 for curtisc.
(If it had said "Past discovery of a new Mersenne prime entitles the discoverer or co-discoverer to an additional guess"), then Woltman and some others could claim up to 3+17=20 guesses; some of us have been GIMPS participants since before the discovery of M35, and appear in the discovery credits lumped in "et al" of Armengaud, Woltman, et al.)

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by GP2

Curtis Cooper can find factors for Mersenne Primes. That's the only reason he didn't discover even more of them.

So, "Curtis Cooper" is Chuck Norris's GIMPS alias?

[Xyzzy]

Originally Posted by kriesel

So, "Curtis Cooper" is Chuck Norris's GIMPS alias?

https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10870

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Please show me in the rules where a factor found for your guess allows for an new guess. And if it does, why a 60 day wait should not apply?

Wow, that's a bit like a court requiring the accused to prove his innocence.

Claims

1) I claim that because the rules do not expressly prohibit retracting, modifying, or replacing a guess, such actions are permitted.

2) I claim that the specified waits apply only to the cases the rules specify, and do not apply to the case of a guess made in good faith which was initially accepted, do not apply to any guess for which the wait period has already expired, and do not apply to replacement of a guess that has been subsequently made invalid by factorization or other form of verified composite status.

3) I claim that the wait for a date rejected is independent of the wait for an exponent rejected; that a wait if applicable does not apply to both the date portion and the exponent portion of a guess.

4) I claim that a participant may reuse his own guess components (exponent or date) without penalty.


Support

A) Rules were posted for the "Predict M52" game at https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...37&postcount=1

B) No rules supplements, cancellations, modifications, or amendments have subequently been posted, through at least post 51.

C) Rules posted do not state how to handle a guess that is accepted, and then subsequently factored, either by TF or P-1.

D) You accepted all my initial guesses, and posted them in https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...6&postcount=33, documenting the date made as 2018 December 21.

E) Any wait periods attached to the initial guesses expired 60 days after they were made, on February 19 2019.

F) Only 4 of the rules make mention of any wait periods.They are rules 2, 3, 4, and 6.

G) Rule 2's wait for selecting an exponent that is not itself prime does not apply, since both 402143633 and its proposed replacement 402143717 are prime exponents.

H) Rule 3's wait does not apply to the exponent 402143717, since it is a new value not guessed before.

I) Rule 4 is ambiguous and so subject to some interpretation. I think the most probable meaning of "If you guess a number that has known factor, at the time you posted, your guess will be ignored." is: a guess made which has an already-known factor at the time the guess is posted will not be accepted and will not count toward the quota of guesses.
The wait period mentioned in rule 4 does not apply to a replacement guess, but to the initial guess if at all. Nor does it apply in the case where a guess is made, accepted, and subsequently factored.

J) Rule 4 continues, " It can have a 'composite' LL or PRP status (pending a recheck), but not a factor." It's possible to interpret that as meaning "kriesel 12/21/2018 402143633 3/12/2052" is no longer a valid guess or combination of guesses. I myself reported promptly the discovery of the factor during my daily manual results submission
"TF 2019-04-05 factor 104738601786867368806153 for M402143633"
https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...3&postcount=41

K) The wait specified in rule 2 for omission of an exponent does not apply to my entry made in https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...3&postcount=41, because it includes an exponent. "402143717 2052-03-12" It also includes a specific date.

L) None of the rules posted at the outset explicitly prohibit replacement of a guess subsequently deemed invalid, such as by factoring. Nor do they prohibit replacement for any other reason, such as the participant changed his mind.

M) Rule 6 states in part "You may post 3 guesses (for each number and date)." Whatever that means. The parenthetical part makes it less clear.
Does it mean a participant can post
1) 3 attempts max per guess slot allowed, to get a guess approved, and a lifetime total of 3 (or 4) guesses accepted
2) 3 (or 4) guess values total, whether any are accepted or not
3) 3 (or 4) exponents and for each such exponent up to 3 tries to get an associated date accepted
4) 3 (or 4) date guesses and for each date guess posted 3 tries to get an associated exponent accepted
5) 3 simultaneously active guesses at any time, which may consist of an exponent, a date, or both, that currently meet the requirements for valid guesses. Guesses invalidated by subsequent events are removed from the participant's quota and may be replaced at the participant's initiative.
6) 3 simultaneously active guesses at any time, which may consist of an exponent, a date, or both, that when guessed, met the requirements for valid guesses. If any are no longer valid, as a result of events subsequent to making the guess, too bad for you, now they're disqualified from being a winning guess
7) 3 simultaneously active guesses at any time, which may consist of an exponent, a date, or both, that when guessed, met the requirements for valid guesses. If any are no longer valid, as a result of events subsequent to making the guess, too bad for you, now they're disqualified from being a winning guess
8) blends of some of 3) and some of 4), eg guess one is an exponent, guess two is a date, to which later a date and an exponent are added until accepted, and guess 3 (and perhaps 4) is tbd later
9) You may post up to 3 guesses per post. Future guesses replace past guesses. If you break the rules in your guesses, delays will be imposed before you can try again to fill or modify the guess slots on which the rules were violated. For example, if in a post, the first and third guesses follow the rules, but the second does not, you must wait 60 days to try to fill or modify slot two. During that time slot two is empty/null. Or still has the old value (Which is it?)
etc) there are probably more

N) Rule 6 says in part, "If all exponents up to your number have had a first time test (or DC), you may select another, after a 60 day wait." Since the premise does not apply to the "402143633 3/12/2052" guess, that 60 day wait requirement is not applicable on that basis.

O) The previous game was "Predict M51", https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=22879 There, precedent was established, for guesses with only month and year date predictions, or no date at all, and they were not objected to or invalidated or penalized in any way.
https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...3&postcount=12 included a date guess of "in April 2021". Multiple others also expressed dates in only month/year fashion.

P) There is precedent, in this game, for reuse of guesses from earlier. See for example https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...54&postcount=5

Q) It's my understanding that in civil law, gaps or flaws in a written agreement or contract count against the entity that prepared the agreement. In this case that disadvantaged entity would be the author of the rules, you, uncwilly.

R) The forward pass was used in American football before the rules were revised to expressly allow it, and the innovation changed the game massively, for the better, including reducing the injury and fatality rate.


Triviality

Let us consider what happens if post 41 is deemed a violation of the rules such as they are. Uncwilly seems to think that the rules don't allow replacing an exponent because of factoring. So 402143633, now factored, would remain as a guess, unable to be dislodged until decades of primality verification progress reaches it, or the game ends with discovery of M52. 402143717 would be blocked from becoming a guess, until the earlier of m52 is discovered and the game ends, or my lowest exponent guess 88318673 is surpassed by primality verification in approximately 2029. So the ~1ppm chance of calling a Mersenne prime would be lost for the duration. But 402143717-402143633 = 84 = ~209ppb, so the probability of M52 falling nearer it than another guess is hardly affected at all. The predicted date, 2052 March 12, might also be deemed invalidly submitted, either by association with the rejected exponent submission, or by its being identical to a past guess. So presumably the prior submission would still be in effect. Which is 2052 March 12. So no difference there. Conversely, to have accepted the guess and entered it in a spreadsheet as an edit would take around 30 seconds.


Other matters

While we're on the subject and focusing on rules, the ruling was unjust and incorrectly arrived at, in https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...7&postcount=27 where a participant gave a vague specification of dates, using the same month-of-year and year, and omitting day-of-month in all cases, and you arbitrarily assigned the first day of the month to each. Rule 3, as you quoted there, emphasis mine here: "You can not guess a number (or date) [BOLD]that has already been guessed.[/BOLD]. If you do guess a number or date that [BOLD]has already been submitted[/BOLD], this will count against you and impose a wait as in rule 6." That text is more consistent with the interpretation "previously" than with "simultaneously in the same post". There is no rule that specifies date guesses must be a specific unique day of the year. There is no rule that specifies a month/year date guess will be interpreted as first-day-of-month/month/year. Rule 2 says "No ranges" but appears to be entirely about the exponent not the date. There is no rule that states that dates submitted simultaneously must be distinct. Declaring simultaneously posted guesses to be sequential, so that some can be deemed to follow another, so as to invalidate them and create an opportunity to penalize the participant with wait periods, smacks of barratry at best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law)
It also violates your own rule. The three guesses in the same post had not "already been submitted" when the post containing them was being drafted, so they were in fact permissible under rule 3 and NOT subject to a wait penalty. The single post was parsed as if it had been made in three separate posts, to maximize penalties in a way not justified by the rules.

Additionally, in https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...09&postcount=9, you, uncwilly, rejected an expression and imposed penalties. Rule 2 excludes ranges. No rule excludes algebraic expressions. There was no rule violation, so no justification for a penalty. If you want to receive only base ten integer constant forms for exponent, say that in a rule, at the outset.

In law and in sports, ex post facto rulings are frowned upon. It is fundamentally unfair to make an act illegal after the action is done, trapping the hapless actor with retroactive negative consequences for an action permissible when he chose it and performed it. (Under such a legal theory, someone enjoying a beer in a tavern before Prohibition passed or went into effect could have been prosecuted once it went into effect.)

This thread is posted under "Fun Stuff/Lounge". It's supposed to be fun. For the participants doing the guessing.

Clear rules, and fair and faithful application, would promote that. I propose the rules be rewritten entirely, for clarity and completeness, for "Predict M53", if a new game round is initiated in the future. I further propose that the person applying the rules is not the person
writing them. (Do not mistake the preceding two sentences as volunteering for either role.)

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by kriesel

Wow, that's a bit like a court requiring the accused to prove his innocence.

Claims

1) I claim that because the rules do not expressly prohibit retracting, modifying, or replacing a guess, such actions are permitted.

Someone has a lot of time on their hands.

While the rules specifically do not state that a person may or may not change a guess, the conditions are spelled out when a guess does 'expire'. The intent is clear that once you guess, you are stuck with consequences of it until it expires or if it is bad guess, you must live with the penalty.

2) I claim that the specified waits apply only to the cases the rules specify, and do not apply to the case of a guess made in good faith which was initially accepted, do not apply to any guess for which the wait period has already expired, and do not apply to replacement of a guess that has been subsequently made invalid by factorization or other form of verified composite status.

Guesses that are of exponents with known factors demonstrate that the guesser has not done due diligence, thus the waiting period penalty. Same for numbers that have a proven composite status via LL or PRP. Even if your number is later proven composite, nothing in the rules invalidates the guess (as it was valid at the time guessed) just because the number was proven composite. You may still be closest to the found prime.

3) I claim that the wait for a date rejected is independent of the wait for an exponent rejected; that a wait if applicable does not apply to both the date portion and the exponent portion of a guess.

Date guesses expire based upon date. However invalid date guesses (those already guessed) invalid the whole of the guess (same way with invalid exponent guesses). A guesser may chose to guess the dates and exponents independent of each other (as a separate line or group). If guessed independent of each other any single piece is invalid at the time of the guessing, this preserves the other.

4) I claim that a participant may reuse his own guess components (exponent or date) without penalty.

When a date or exponent guess becomes passe, after the 60 day wait, the other component may certainly be reused (subject, of course, to it being currently valid.)

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by kriesel

B) No rules supplements, cancellations, modifications, or amendments have subequently been posted, through at least post 51

Actually they were amended by edit (to include PRP and to clarify about the wait periods.).

C) Rules posted do not state how to handle a guess that is accepted, and then subsequently factored, either by TF or P-1.

That is not needed. The main purpose of the no known factor rule is to demonstrate the the guesser is not doing so completely blindly (without some research.) It also keeps the possibility that the number will be the actual new prime.

D) You accepted all my initial guesses, and posted them in https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...6&postcount=33, documenting the date made as 2018 December 21.

They were valid at the time. Nothing in rule 6 (or any other rule) has made them invalid. Therefore they stand.

E) Any wait periods attached to the initial guesses expired 60 days after they were made, on February 19 2019.

The waits regarding the initial act of guessing were not invoked. Rule 6 wait does not apply, as it does not come into play.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by kriesel

J) Rule 4 continues, " It can have a 'composite' LL or PRP status (pending a recheck), but not a factor." It's possible to interpret that as meaning "kriesel 12/21/2018 402143633 3/12/2052" is no longer a valid guess or combination of guesses. I myself reported promptly the discovery of the factor during my daily manual results submission
"TF 2019-04-05 factor 104738601786867368806153 for M402143633"
https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...3&postcount=41

The prohibition applies at the original time of the guess (as rule 4 covers the guessing process, rule 6 is about the expiration or demise of guesses.)

K) The wait specified in rule 2 for omission of an exponent does not apply to my entry made in https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...3&postcount=41, because it includes an exponent. "402143717 2052-03-12" It also includes a specific date.

Neither of which has been made passe via the mechanisms in rule 6.

L) None of the rules posted at the outset explicitly prohibit replacement of a guess subsequently deemed invalid, such as by factoring. Nor do they prohibit replacement for any other reason, such as the participant changed his mind.

We shan't be having willy-nilly changing of guesses.

M) Rule 6 states in part "You may post 3 guesses (for each number and date)." Whatever that means. The parenthetical part makes it less clear.
Does it mean a participant can post
1) 3 attempts max per guess slot allowed, to get a guess approved, and a lifetime total of 3 (or 4) guesses accepted
.....

Let me make this clear. A person may chose to guess: solely dates, solely exponents, exponents linked to dates, or exponents and dates that are not linked. If they guess only dates, they may only have 3 active guesses. If they guess only exponents, they may only have 3 active guesses. If they guess linked exponents and dates, they may only have 3 active guesses. If they guess unlinked exponents and dates, they may have 3 exponent and 3 date guesses active. If they initially guessed only dates or exponents, they may added the other at a later time. This added guesses are unlinked. Linked guesses are expired/made passe/etc. when either part expires. The 60 day wait applies. Any portion that would be part of a valid guess at the end of the 60 day wait (or when the guesser actually makes the guess) may be reused (i.e. if the exponent is now below the confirmed DC's, the date may be reused, or if the date has passed, the exponent may be reused {as long as the item being reused is currently a valid guess}).

N) Rule 6 says in part, "If all exponents up to your number have had a first time test (or DC), you may select another, after a 60 day wait." Since the premise does not apply to the "402143633 3/12/2052" guess, that 60 day wait requirement is not applicable on that basis.

And since it does not apply, you are stuck with your guess. Live with it.

O) The previous game was "Predict M51", https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=22879 There, precedent was established, for guesses with only month and year date predictions, or no date at all, and they were not objected to or invalidated or penalized in any way.
https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...3&postcount=12 included a date guess of "in April 2021". Multiple others also expressed dates in only month/year fashion.

Rule 2, a month is treated as a range. I will take the first day of the month as the guess, unless the last day of the month would allow someone else to be closer and thus win. "or we may take the worst case of the range as the choice"
BTW, the rules can be changed for each new game. We are not bound by past games (new rules have been added over time or rules have been changed.)

P) There is precedent, in this game, for reuse of guesses from earlier. See for example https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...54&postcount=5

As long as they make the exponent and/or date explicit in this thread (I am not going to look up their old guess, nor just roll over the old ones), they can repost their foolish guesses if they wish. Masser specifically restated previous guesses as noted in the first post.

Q) It's my understanding that in civil law, gaps or flaws in a written agreement or contract count against the entity that prepared the agreement. In this case that disadvantaged entity would be the author of the rules, you, uncwilly.

This is not covered under civil law. It is a frivolous game with no signed contracts nor actual compensation or consideration. It is only slightly more rigorous than Calvin Ball (q.v.).

My recent posts are considered official rulings and the rules will be interpreted as such, as stated in the first post.