Holy new Mersenne prime, Batman! (M47 related)

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by S485122

Speeding up the verification would deprive the more placid people of the funny spectacle of all those who cannot hide their impatience once a possible prime has been reported.

There's another reason why the placid should savor that pleasure while it lasts:

v5 PrimeNet may not display any notice of unverified primes, as v4 does, and therefore George may not announce them on mersenne.org before verification is complete, either.

See the "spotting new primes in v5?" thread in the PrimeNet subforum at http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10590.

[masser]

Originally Posted by ixfd64

It looks like we got mentioned on Scientific American!

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-...-fo-2008-08-28

Phew - that first sentence makes me cringe...

Should this

"...to pick one out among the throngs of mere primes."

be replaced by

"to pick one out among the throngs of mere numbers."

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by masser

Phew - that first sentence makes me cringe...

Should this

"...to pick one out among the throngs of mere primes."

But note that they have "mere" italicized, probably to refer to the special place of Mersenne primes, compared to other primes. So I think they have it right as is.

Cringe instead, if you must, at that sentence's earlier link to the 2002 article "Primes and Crimes" (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=primes-and-crimes).

[Mini-Geek]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

But note that they have "mere" italicized, probably to refer to the special place of Mersenne primes, compared to other primes. So I think they have it right as is.

Yeah, but I think masser meant that we don't search a bunch of primes to find one that's Mersenne (as the article implies), we search a bunch of Mersenne numbers to find Mersenne primes.

[Flatlander]

Another link:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...covered_maybe/

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

Yeah, but I think masser meant that we don't search a bunch of primes to find one that's Mersenne (as the article implies), we search a bunch of Mersenne numbers to find Mersenne primes.

We all know that, but the article is about as (in-)accurate as most general media articles about this subject are. (I would've expected better from Scientific American, though. * sigh *) It's going to take changing a lot more than just one word in it to make any substantial improvement.

As far as one-word changes go, though, I think changing "mere primes" to "mere numbers" there would actually make it _worse_. If "mere" were not there, I'd agree with masser about changing "primes" to "numbers". But the presence of the italicized "mere" signals that the writer intended to convey (however misguided you or I consider this to be) that the Mersenne primes were special in some sense compared to other primes.

If "numbers" is substituted for "primes", then it seems to me that there would be no reason for the writer to have emphasized "mere" by italicization. In "... throngs of mere numbers", the italicization interrupts the flow of words without adding discernable meaning that fits the context, compared to "... throngs of mere numbers" (without italics).

If you want to contend that the writer obviously doesn't understand Mersenne primes, I'll agree. If the sentence were contrasting some non-numbers to numbers, then "... mere numbers" would make sense there, but that's not what the writer is doing. He seems to intend (however misguidedly, as I said) to contrast Mersenne primes with other ("mere") primes, and the current wording reflects that.

[Mini-Geek]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

We all know that, but the article is about as (in-)accurate as most general media articles about this subject are. (I would've expected better from Scientific American, though. * sigh *) It's going to take changing a lot more than just one word in it to make any substantial improvement.

As far as one-word changes go, though, I think changing "mere primes" to "mere numbers" there would actually make it _worse_. If "mere" were not there, I'd agree with masser about changing "primes" to "numbers". But the presence of the italicized "mere" signals that the writer intended to convey (however misguided you or I consider this to be) that the Mersenne primes were special in some sense compared to other primes.

If "numbers" is substituted for "primes", then it seems to me that there would be no reason for the writer to have emphasized "mere" by italicization. In "... throngs of mere numbers", the italicization interrupts the flow of words without adding discernable meaning that fits the context, compared to "... throngs of mere numbers" (without italics).

If you want to contend that the writer obviously doesn't understand Mersenne primes, I'll agree. If the sentence were contrasting some non-numbers to numbers, then "... mere numbers" would make sense there, but that's not what the writer is doing. He seems to intend (however misguidedly, as I said) to contrast Mersenne primes with other ("mere") primes, and the current wording reflects that.

I agree. If we allow two words to be changed it could make the whole thing make much more sense. Change "mere primes" to "composite numbers".

Also, later on, he seems to imply that this must be the 45th, not the 44th, and that since the 44th was so close to 10M digits, this practically must be over 10M and will get the $100,000. Here's that part:

If it checks out, the finding of the 45th Mersenne prime (MP) might qualify for a $100,000 prize offered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation for anyone who a prime number having at least 10 million digits. The 44th MP, discovered in September 2006 by two researchers at Central Missouri State University, clocked in at 9.808358 million digits.

It's not very obvious, but it just seems to me that throughout the article he thinks that this must be the next sequential one and it can't be smaller than M44 or just barely larger.
And why put 9.808358 million digits? If you're going to say precisely how much it is anyway, use a smaller unit, like 9,808,358 digits.

[Wacky]

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

And why put 9.808358 million digits? If you're going to say precisely how much it is anyway, use a smaller unit, like 9,808,358 digits.

Here, I side with the publication. 9.8 is "close to" 10, whereas 9,808,358 is in essentially different units. I many respects, to the reader, it would be like saying "Yesterday's temperature of 103ºF nearly broke the record of 40ºC …" - perhaps accurate, but "apples and oranges" in the presentation.

[Mini-Geek]

Originally Posted by Wacky

Here, I side with the publication. 9.8 is "close to" 10, whereas 9,808,358 is in essentially different units. I many respects, to the reader, it would be like saying "Yesterday's temperature of 103ºF nearly broke the record of 40ºC …" - perhaps accurate, but "apples and oranges" in the presentation.

I wouldn't mind if he said 9.8 million. He said 9.808358 million, which is just ridiculous for the reasons I stated in my last post.
To use a temperature analogy, it'd be like saying the temperature is 0.0003126 million ºK. It's correct, but it's just ridiculous to state it that way.

[Wacky]

So 9.8 million is "OK". What about 9.81 million, 9.808 million, etc.? Where do you draw the line?

I guess that you have "contributed your 0.02 cents to the discussion".

Disclaimer: The above comment is for literary effect only. It should not be construed as a reflection of the value that I place on Mini-Geek's contribution to this discussion.

[Warped]

Originally Posted by Wacky

So 9.8 million is "OK". What about 9.81 million, 9.808 million, etc.? Where do you draw the line?

I guess that you have "contributed your 0.02 cents to the discussion".

Disclaimer: The above comment is for literary effect only. It should not be construed as a reflection of the value that I place on Mini-Geek's contribution to this discussion.

Just as well it's not Zimbabwean cents or we'd need approximately 9.808358 million decimal places to convert to a hard currency!