[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hello, everyone. Wow, there was a lot in the last digest that I thought
> needed commenting on. This prize thread is _almost_ getting as bad, in my
> opinion, as the other, recent, evil thread which I shall not name. I am, of
> course, replying to many different people in this message.
>
> <<P.S. Are archives available past February 1998? >>
>
> The archives, from what I've personally seen, seem to be "broken", and I
> don't think anyone has been running archives for the list since then. This is
> Ptoo Bad for me, because I was depending on the archives to keep my post
> about my 3 Mersenne prime conjectures (#1: That there's a prime around the 4M
> range that we're missing. #2: That the discovered M38, which all we knew
> about was that it was in the 6M range, was actually around 6.9M, which I was
> correct about, and #3: A conjecture about the decamegaprime.), but I guess
> I'll rely on everyone's memories and perhaps (!) their own personal archives.
> I would keep my own, but the digests usually run over 20K, and AOL doesn't
> like to store mails of that size in the regular fashion.
I rigged archives on egroups since june 3
http://www.egroups.com/group/mprime/
> ****
> >What's wrong with having a panel (possibly consisting of previous
> >Mersenne prime discoverers) to evaluate any contenders for this &
> >judge how much, if any, of the fund should be awarded for each
> >improvement?
>
> Sensible idea. The panel could come up with their own set of rules.
> I'm not sure I'd want to be on such a panel unless my vote was
> anonymous ("Sorry, Heloisa, but I think your idea was worth only....").
> ****
>
> I agree wholly with the other person who said that the prize is the
> discoverer's and the discoverer's alone. GIMPS can't have a panel nor any
> other thing to divy up the money. We can _suggest_ things that the winner
> _might_ want to do with the money, but we can't _order_ her/him to do a
> single thing.
>
> <<Landon Noll is disqualified.>>
>
> Why?
>
> <<But they all won't get tested, not for another 20+ years. After the
> 10Mdigit prime, there will be the 100Mdigit prime, then the giga-digit
> prime. GIMPS has been lauded for conducting an orderly search, even
> more so for double checking. Jumping ahead, the search space will once
> again become horribly fragmented -- a giant step backwards into the Cray
> era.>>
>
> Orderly checking is a MUST.
>
> <<I don't know if that's fair or not, I won't get into that. But the
> discoverer of a prime found using GIMPS and/or Primenet would receive all
> the money him/herself and then it's up to him/her what to do with it;
> whether sharing some with George/Scott is something they would do is
> entirely up to them.>>
>
> Correct.
>
> <<Unless George/Scott set some legal mumbo jumbo that ties into use of the
> program/source/services, they're simply not "entitled" to any prize money.>>
>
> Avoiding legal mumbo jumbo is an equal must.
what if they set some clear contractual conditions? Mumbo jumbo isn't
strictly needed.
> <<And it was mentioned before...if George and/or Scott setup such a legal
> contract regarding software usage, there probably would be people writing
> their own software, hoping to get the big cash all to themselves. And the
> whole effort of coordinating who works on what exponents could get messy if
> Scott says that using his Primenet database to check out/in numbers means
> you agree to share prize money with him. People will start grabbing their
> own numbers or setting up competing databases of their own or who knows
> what.>>
No they won't, because the start-up marketing would be too difficult.
As
long as the GIMPS contractual terms are reasonable, there will be no
motivation
to compete.
> This is my fear. Right now, GIMPS is the only major concerted effort to find
> Mersenne Primes, and we ought to keep it that way. This has led to orderly
> searching, and not a mad free-for-all. The prize money should (and must!) go
> entirely to the discoverer, because any attempts to do otherwise will most
> likely lead to this sort of dire fragmentation.
>
> <<And again, the first deca-mega-digit prime may not be a Mersenne
> anyway...who can say? :-)>>
>
> It could be a Fermat prime! *chortle*
>
> <<If that's the case, it is up to that "group" to decide, in some legally
> binding way, how prize money is disbursed. I suppose it's too late to worry
> about such things now, since the $50K prize-winner has been found, but it's
> something to think about, if we choose to go down that perilous road,
> sometime before the $100K winner becomes imminent.
>
> As such, I think the EFF would have to award the money solely to the
> individual since no prior stipulations existed between him and George/Scott
> on how the money would be split.>>
>
> And, as I've said, stipulations would not be a good thing.
>
> <<I agree also...like I mentioned above, setting up legalities will only
> muddle the entire issue and give rise to competing databases and programs.>>
>
> Definitely.
>
> <<Just my $0.02 worth (of course anyone who disagrees with me will be shot!)>>
>
> I liked another thing I once saw. You know those little tags that say "These
> opinions are not those of the So-And-So Corporation"? Peter Gutmann has the
> following tag on his web page:
> ****
> Disclaimer
> Any opinions expressed on this page are not in fact mine but were forced on
> me at gunpoint by the University of Auckland.
> ****
> <<If someone read on George's page "running this software means that you
> lose most of the prize money." They could do one of 3 things:
> (1) Say "Oky-doky" and download/run George's program
> (2) Say "Well, (sensored) you" and continue surfing
> (3) Say "Where can I get another program?" and find the others>>
>
> That would not be a good thing. It's amazing what money will do to people. In
> a way, I almost wish that EFF had never come up with their prizes, so we
> could have avoided all of this unpleasantness.
what's unpleasant about speculative free speech?
> <<George is considering the creation of a non-profit corporation for
> the purpose of dividing the prize money, so the legal issues
> would be addressed. George asked for opinions on how to *distribute*
> the money.>>
>
> I don't think that such a corporation should be created, as it could lead to
> Very Bad Things, including the downfall of GIMPS's long and happy reign over
> Mersenne Primes. I _REALLY_ don't think that this corporation should be made.
Why? GIMPS becomes GIMPSnfp and George continues with his hobby and no
longer
need worry that he will become an accidental tax pauper.
> <<My guess is that making participation to GIMPS/PrimeNet conditional
> on agreeing to share the prize would be A Big Turn-Off.>>
>
> Exactly.
Are you In It For The Money currently?
I've got an idea -- let's set up a fake seti@home client that runs
a randomized seti@home graphical lookalike display but secretly connects
to
entropia for assignments -- Ha!
> A summary of my opinions, so others don't need to respond directly to my
> (unfortunately) long message:
> 1) Prize money should go to one person (or small team): The discoverer.
> 2) A non-profit corporation to divide any prizes must NOT be created.
> 3) Orderly checking of exponents is vital.
> 4) We must make all attempts to not entice others to create competing efforts
> to check Mersenne primes, as it would lead to chaos.
> 5) We need new archives for this list, as the current ones seem to be
> dead/broken/seriously outdated.
> 6) Legal mumbo jumbo must be avoided. I like GIMPS the way it was, before EFF
> prizes, and nothing ought to be changed.
>
> S.T.L.
points one and six seem contradictory. I think we need LMJ to
properly cope with the appearance of the EFF awards, and keep GIMPS
a just-for-fun activity.
________________________________________________________________________
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"All the E-mail you write is copyrighted" -- Brad Templeton
_________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
