The worth or futility of gratituous factorizations

[bsquared]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

And I don't see the collaborations as being "beyond them". It is no
more difficult to install and run the collaborative software than what
they are doing. It does not take (as you put it) "most of their energy"
to participate in a collaborative effort. Just fire it off and forget about it.

Obviously not; but clearly (at least I thought so) that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to your repeated assertions that people should understand the code they are running, for example by writing their own. Very few people have the time and energy to do this, and it isn't necessary to derive some enjoyment from running the code.

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

BTW, I would think that some of the people here would be offended
by being told "Don't try to implement anything; it is beyond you" or
"Don't participate in a collaborative project; it is beyond you"

Where did I say that, exactly?

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

I think the whole things is better explained by IGG. These people lack
the long-term patience needed for a large collaborative effort and want
instead "quick feedback".

So what? Show them the motivation and I think people would jump at the chance. You just can't make RSA768 the equivalent of the Apollo program. Until then, you will get hobbists doing what they like and I see nothing wrong with that.

Furthermore, you are judging people by what they do here. Here, mersenneforum, a tiny aspect of their lives. It does not necessarily reflect, at all, on who they are or what they do elsewhere. Can you see why people would think you are being insulting when you make judgements like that?

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Factorisations may well not be a competition, but surely the competitive side of softball was not what bsquared's amateur softball analogy was intended to express?

If not competition, then why the comment about "getting waxed by
professionals"? If they are there for pleasure and don't care about
winning/losing, then I would think it would be great fun to have
a game with pros.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by bsquared

Obviously not; but clearly (at least I thought so) that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to your repeated assertions that people should understand the code they are running, for example by writing their own. Very few people have the time and energy to do this, and it isn't necessary to derive some enjoyment from running the code.



Where did I say that, exactly?

I quote:

"You want everyone to elevate themselves to a (in your worldview) higher caste or more nobel set of peers by striving to participate in things beyond them."


"things beyond them". Your words

[bsquared]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

If not competition, then why the comment about "getting waxed by
professionals"? If they are there for pleasure and don't care about
winning/losing, then I would think it would be great fun to have
a game with pros.

So that's where the analogy breaks down. Fine - I tried. But I'm dissapointed if that's all the attempt you will make to understand what I wrote.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Really?.

What Dr. Silverman fails to understand is that some of us do what we do just because (we personally consider) it is fun.

:

Agreed. It is fun. I watch TV for fun. But I don't need to announce,
"Hey everyone! I watched JAG last night".

If done for fun why is it necessary to announce every single trivial
result??

Contrawise. The need to announce the result shows that they want
(as suggested elsewhere) "bragging rights".

I don't brag about watching TV.

[bsquared]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

"things beyond them". Your words

Yes, writing NFS is beyond them. I'll be as clear as you want me to be on that point. It is beyond most everyone on this planet, me included. I don't think anyone will disagree with or be offended by that. But I'm not the one insisting that everyone implement it prior to running the code and then browbeating them for not trying.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by bsquared

So that's where the analogy breaks down. Fine - I tried. But I'm dissapointed if that's all the attempt you will make to understand what I wrote.

Failure to agree is not the same as failure to understand.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

If not competition, then why the comment about "getting waxed by professionals"? If they are there for pleasure and don't care about winning/losing, then I would think it would be great fun to have a game with pros.

Just wondering...

What is your web site's URL?

What is it coded in? Perl, PHP or C (or raw HTML)?

Do you have a web presence?

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by bsquared

Yes, writing NFS is beyond them. I'll be as clear as you want me to be on that point. It is beyond most everyone on this planet, me included. I don't think anyone will disagree with or be offended by that. But I'm not the one insisting that everyone implement it prior to running the code and then browbeating them for not trying.

yeah I get what you mean, it's like:

you don't have the intelligence to do it->join something non-trivial from my world view-> no, I don't want to join -> so try coding it first then join.

this becomes a self-defeating loop of fights.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by bsquared

Yes, writing NFS is beyond them. I'll be as clear as you want me to be on that point. It is beyond most everyone on this planet, me included. I don't think anyone will disagree with or be offended by that. But I'm not the one insisting that everyone implement it prior to running the code and then browbeating them for not trying.

The main issue here is not "everyone implementing NFS".

Rather, it is doing trivial stuff when participating in a large collaborative
effort is no more difficult.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by bsquared

I'm arguing that people would sometimes rather interact with their peers (people of similar capability/resources) then be an also-ran in a larger effort - there can be greater satisfaction in doing so. (edit: Brian-E understood me right)

If they were an "also-ran", then I would agree. But in NFSNET, for
example, everyone is EQUAL. Even Bruce, who does a large chunk of
the work does not get his name put on the marquee. The attribution
for a result is just "NFSNET". Similarly for SoB and some other projects.
Go to the SoB web site. In its stats it just lists e.g. number of primality
tests for each number. Noone is named and it does not say "Johnny did
40%, Susie did 15% and Joe did 2%". All of the contributors are EQUAL.
The Goldbach project was the same when it was active. All it did
was mention the largest bound that had been achieved.

Could that be the reason they don't participate? i.e. because they
don't get named?