Ultimate EFF Prize Limit of GIMPS

[Mystwalker]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

I would argue that it is not the reader's job to try to discern what is meant.
It is the poster's job to make his/her precise meaning clearly understood by the audience.

I think it's a bit of both.
The poster should really try to make himself understandable. But according to my experience, this is only possible to a certain degree.

Here, we have a multi-(or even poly-?)national board with a huge mix of different cultures, ages, backgrounds etc. All this affects the communication behavior. Hence, it is practically impossible to please everyone alike.
Having said that, this shouldn't be taken as an excuse to simply drop all efforts, just an indication that the poster can make "mistakes", which the reader should ignore and consider "excusable".

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Mystwalker

I think it's a bit of both.
The poster should really try to make himself understandable. But according to my experience, this is only possible to a certain degree.

Here, we have a multi-(or even poly-?)national board with a huge mix of different cultures, ages, backgrounds etc. All this affects the communication behavior. Hence, it is practically impossible to please everyone alike.
Having said that, this shouldn't be taken as an excuse to simply drop all efforts, just an indication that the poster can make "mistakes", which the reader should ignore and consider "excusable".

Yep! Furthermore, not everyone is fluent in English. However, there are
many times when it is CLEAR that the poster has merely tossed out verbiage
with very little thought.

Part of learning any technical subject (not just math) is learning how
to formulate questions.

There are also times when a poster isn't satisfied with a simple yes/no
answer. i.e. I have seen the following:

Q: Can LL be improved?
A: No.
Q: Why?
A: You lack the background to understand why. Go read the following
reference............
Q: You are a &@*&^*)^#! Just answer the ()*&#& question.
Will someone who understands the correct answer please answer WHY?

One can either accept the answer given by an expert, or one can learn
the material required to understand WHY. However, it seems to me that too
many posters want to know WHY without having the required background
to understand WHY.

[Jeff Gilchrist]

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

2. Multi-core processors are definitely on the way in. But a LL test requires serial processing, not parallel at least when considered at the level of testing an individual number.

An LL test does not require serial processing on the level of testing an individual number. See GLUCAS which was used the verify the previous few Mersenne primes using multiple CPUs/cores on a single number.

[alpertron]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Yep! Furthermore, not everyone is fluent in English. However, there are
many times when it is CLEAR that the poster has merely tossed out verbiage
with very little thought.

Part of learning any technical subject (not just math) is learning how
to formulate questions.

There are also times when a poster isn't satisfied with a simple yes/no
answer. i.e. I have seen the following:

Q: Can LL be improved?
A: No.
Q: Why?
A: You lack the background to understand why. Go read the following
reference............
Q: You are a &@*&^*)^#! Just answer the ()*&#& question.
Will someone who understands the correct answer please answer WHY?

One can either accept the answer given by an expert, or one can learn
the material required to understand WHY. However, it seems to me that too
many posters want to know WHY without having the required background
to understand WHY.

Better yet, write on the MersenneWiki your answer (it should also include the references) and then just copy the URL in the response. So you have to write the answer only once. Other people can modify the article to include information that can be understood by people with less math background.

[Mystwalker]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Q: Can LL be improved?
A: No.
Q: Why?
A: You lack the background to understand why. Go read the following
reference............
Q: You are a &@*&^*)^#! Just answer the ()*&#& question.
Will someone who understands the correct answer please answer WHY?

Sad, but true (esp. since this conversation really took place).
May a kindly suggest a small improvement for "A"?
I think it's better to use "That's difficult to explain." instead of "You lack the background to understand why." Although it is definitely not meant offensively, the reader could read it the wrong way.

In some cultures (e.g. Japan, AFAIK), it's frowned upon to directly criticize someone, it's better to circumscribe things there. Alright, the "&@*&^*)^#!" and the "()*&#&" clearly deny such a possibility here.

One can either accept the answer given by an expert, or one can learn the material required to understand WHY. However, it seems to me that too many posters want to know WHY without having the required background to understand WHY.

Unfortunately, there isn't enough time to get that deep into multiple fields. One can argue that mathematics should be considered more important than e.g. the football scores of the last 5 seasons or the discographies of recent music stars, but I came to the conclusion that there isn't even enough time to become and stay firm in more than maybe a dozen (or only a hand-full?) topics of software engineering. Maybe that's a downside of the information society: information overload...

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Yes! Indeed!

Which is exactly why posters must be careful in their use of language.
Mathematics is a language in which it is possible to say precisely what is
meant.

Dr. Silverman, do you mean that voice inflections, facial expressions, gestures, and other body language are a part of the language of mathematics?

If not, what relevance does your posting have to my statement that you quoted?

Wait a minute ... isn't this a case of your failing to make your precise meaning clearly understood by the audience? After all, you "would argue that it is not the reader's job to try to discern what is meant", so why didn't you make your posting clear enough so that I, as a reader, would not have to go beyond the boundaries of my job to try to discern what is meant?

In this forum, all we have is the verbatim text.

When posters fail to be precise in their language it can only be
for one of two reasons:

(1) They lack the competence and/or intelligence to express themselves
precisely.

(2) They are too lazy to bother.

So, which was it in this case?

Do you lack the competence and/or intelligence to express yourself precisely? (This seems unlikely to me.)

Were you too lazy to bother?

Or are you mistaken when you claim that there are only two reasons?

However, if they are too hurried or too lazy to be bothered formulating
their prose in a precise manner, then they deserve contempt and derision
(again, IMO)

So, if you have the competence and/or intelligence (which I think is likely),

and if your statement "When posters fail to be precise in their language it can only be for one of two reasons ..." is correct,

then it seems that according to your own stated criteria, and in your own opinion, you deserve contempt and derision.

Wait! You appear to have agreed to Mystwalker's opinion. Does "Yep!" mean you agree with all of what Mystwalker wrote?

[R.D. Silverman]

[QUOTE=cheesehead]

QUOTE]

Cheesehead, you have chosen the perfect name for yourself.

[Mystwalker]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Wait! You appear to have agreed to Mystwalker's opinion. Does "Yep!" mean you agree with all of what Mystwalker wrote?

I think the "which the reader should ignore and consider 'excusable'" part is included as well...

From what I know, one of your meta-statements is "brute force won't work in a forum" (which I strongly agree with). Now that we're probably on a meta-level and able to discuss "discussing", accusations won't yield a positive result.

[zero33550366]

hi there,

first of all congratulations to GIMPS and Richard E. Crandall,
for their discovery of the 48th mersenne number.

I have a mersenne search idea, to be tested,
for my test, I need all discovered 48 mersenne numbers in binary form,
i.e. for every ((2 to the power n) - 1) prime I need all 48 n's.



if I am right in my postulate,
I would give credit to the ones that provide me with those numbers.


If I am not mistaken the award for each mersenne number discovered is 3000 USD,

if mersenne numbers are proven to be infinite, along with the algorithm to generate all mersenne numbers.

how long does that award stay 3000 USD?
I understand it will require much higher computational power to come up with a new mersenne number test, however this may prove to be a steady source of income for a while for the person that comes up with such an algorithm,
at least until quantum computers are made available.

thanks.

Originally Posted by biwema

Gimps found the last 8 largest primes, so it seems as if it will go on like that.

Fact is, that the number of mersenne primes is limited. It is easily possible that there is no mersenne prime with >10M decimal places less than M45000000.

Now other primalty testing algorithms get more and more efficient.
To find Sierpinskt and Proth primes with LLR (also based on George Woltmans code) is merely 10-15% slower than a LucasLehmer.
After reaching M38000000, it is possible that many people switch to Rieselsieve or Seventeen or Bust to test the smallest 10Mdigit numbers.

Also the Generalized Fermat numbers are getting more and more interesting:
staring around
3441463500^1048576 +1 or
11843670820000000000^524288 +1
gives many candidates with exactly 10 Million digits.

There is some competition around.

Any Predictions?

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by zero33550366

first of all congratulations to GIMPS and Richard E. Crandall,
for their discovery of the 48th mersenne number.

I have a mersenne search idea, to be tested,
for my test, I need all discovered 48 mersenne numbers in binary form,
i.e. for every ((2 to the power n) - 1) prime I need all 48 n's.

Mr. Crandall is no longer with us.
Misc Math bait.

[Flatlander]

He needs them in binary?! I missed that.
I have memorised all the digits if that helps.