The worth or futility of factorizations relating to OPNs

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by Brian Gladman

Nobody is asking for anything to be shut down. But if people cannot be sensible and ensure that they are publishing factorisations that are noteworthy, others will then waste their time by looking at a thread that might contain something of interest only to find that it doesn't. I would, however, be happy to see two threads - "Found a Noteworthy Factor - Post It Here" and "Found a Nondescript Factor - Post It Here" so I and others would know which thread to ignore.

And, of course, if this forum is truly _all_ about mindless and routine factorisations, it seems clear that those of us who want to push the state of the art forward are wasting our time here.

I have no problem with people using state of the art but I believe if I've watched the thread about OPN close enough it's not just that he said pointless it's also how many times he's said it and that the facts that certain places only accepted certain result types from certain types of factoring didn't matter because if it's not state of the art factorization ( even if it sounds as though he made the breakthrough that allowed it to happen) it's pointless and repeating that is almost forcing beliefs though I won't go that far because repeating anything enough times is on that line. RDS sounds as though he thinks most of the forum should have to block him instead of him blocking most of the forum. just like with the borg any resistance in any other form is futile.

[Brian Gladman]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Why? The factorizations are posted on a thread titled "Odd Perfect Related Roadblocks 2". All they have to do is look at the title and not enter the thread.

Just look at the title of the thread. They are usually descriptive enough to allow you to judge whether the factorization would be "noteworthy" according to any standard you wish.

That's the point - they are very often NOT descriptive enough and I have often wasted my time as a result.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Brian Gladman

That's the point - they are very often NOT descriptive enough and I have often wasted my time as a result.

Could you give an example of a recent thread title that was not descriptive enough for you?

[fivemack]

We have a perfectly serviceable 'gratuitous factors thread' which I would be more than happy to see gratuitous factors reported in; if you want 'gratuitous OPN factors' I'm more than ready to create one and move the reports to it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have some place to put messages of the form 'look, I have done this thing, it took me three weeks', though I agree they'll mostly be of moderate to low general interest; it's part of the whole social club aspect of this group.

If someone makes an actually-interesting discovery about odd perfect numbers it's sure to be announced in a thread of its own.

[fivemack]

Originally Posted by philmoore

I don't see mere obnoxiousness as a valid reason for banning

On the contrary, obnoxiousness is pretty much the only valid reason for banning.

[pinhodecarlos]

[Brian Gladman]

Originally Posted by fivemack

We have a perfectly serviceable 'gratuitous factors thread' which I would be more than happy to see gratuitous factors reported in; if you want 'gratuitous OPN factors' I'm more than ready to create one and move the reports to it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have some place to put messages of the form 'look, I have done this thing, it took me three weeks', though I agree they'll mostly be of moderate to low general interest; it's part of the whole social club aspect of this group.

If someone makes an actually-interesting discovery about odd perfect numbers it's sure to be announced in a thread of its own.

The Gratuitous Factors thread is just fine - exactly what we need and already in existence too!

[Brian Gladman]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Could you give an example of a recent thread title that was not descriptive enough for you?

I am sorry but I don't remember where they were when I felt disappointed by their existence.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by Brian Gladman

I am sorry but I don't remember where they were when I felt disappointed by their existence.

Are you trying to fill a vacuum?

David

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by fivemack

On the contrary, obnoxiousness is pretty much the only valid reason for banning.

Hi Phil,
I think you may not have realized how long RDS persisted
in berating folk (notably William, Tom and Alex),
who stoically attempted to reason with him.
See post #1 here to get a hint of the "previous".
Paul and I have attempted to bring some levity to the
proceedings.
Many others have voiced their disapproval of his
(seemingly ingrained) attitude problem.

A week or so in the cooler will do him good.

David

[Christenson]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Could you give an example of a recent thread title that was not descriptive enough for you?

I could have, but I reported it to the mods, and they proceeded to split off the part that didn't pertain to the title...it was the one about FFT multiplication, and maximus had proposed a new method...so I was just SOOOO UPSET!! (Not!)