Mersenne: M#39 news!
http://www.academicpress.com/inscight/11302001/grapha.htm _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: M#39 news!
Warut Roonguthai wrote: http://www.academicpress.com/inscight/11302001/grapha.htm Look like the cat is out of the bag now - it's 2^13,466,917 - 1. Was this early publication indended? I thought the press release was due only after the independent double check completed, but then they quote Tim Cusak of Entropia, which makes it sound like an official announcement. Or is the official double check finished already? Alex _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: M#39 news!
At 05:47 PM 12/1/2001 +0100, Alexander Kruppa wrote: Look like the cat is out of the bag now - it's 2^13,466,917 - 1. Was this early publication indended? I thought the press release was due only after the independent double check completed, but then they quote Tim Cusak of Entropia, which makes it sound like an official announcement. Or is the official double check finished already? The independent check was supposed to be completed today, so maybe it was. +-+ | Jud McCranie| | | | Programming Achieved with Structure, Clarity, And Logic | +-+ _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: M#39 news!
It looks to me like someone goofed in publishing this, for a few reasons. The article consistently gets the definition of Mersenne numbers wrong. While it does mention something about the expoential 2p, it claims that Mersenne numbers are of the form 2p - 1, that the previous Mersenne prime was 26,972,593 - 1, and the new one is 213,466,917 - 1. Additionally, it doesn't bother to give the length of M39, though it does for M38, and quotes Tim Cusak as saying that he expects the new prime to be confirmed this week by a second test on a supercomputer. This article was clearly posted before the official confirmation was completed. Also, George Woltman said in an email on the 24th that the verification would complete around Dec 6th. Just my 2 cents.. -John Warut Roonguthai wrote: http://www.academicpress.com/inscight/11302001/grapha.htm Look like the cat is out of the bag now - it's 2^13,466,917 - 1. Was this early publication indended? I thought the press release was due only after the independent double check completed, but then they quote Tim Cusak of Entropia, which makes it sound like an official announcement. Or is the official double check finished already? -- John Bafford [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dshadow.com/ _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Re: Factoring benefit/cost ratio
Steve Harris wrote: Actually, Richard's statement that a 'Factored' status is better for GIMPS than a 'Two LL' status is not quite true. It's better for the mathematical community as a whole, but not for GIMPS. GIMPS is looking for primes, not factors, and without skipping over any. Hmmm, I must be having a senior moment. I would swear George said that one way a person could lose credit for a correct LL test is if later factoring finds a factor. Is my feeble brain making this up, or is finding a factor more important than stated above? Gerry -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gerry Snyder, AIS Director Symposium Chair, Region 15 RVP Member San Fernando Valley, Southern California Iris Societies in warm, winterless Los Angeles--USDA 9b-ish, Sunset 18-19 my work: helping generate data for: http://galileo.jpl.nasa.gov/ _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: M#39 news!
I thought it was a bit nasty in the last paragraph. The author doesn't know why people search for Mersenne primes, so it must be stupid. Check the attributions, it was written by someone at Science News. http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/ Bob Farrington 12/1/2001 10:53:47 AM PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nathan Russell wrote: So someone managed to find, or mis-find, the exponent, possibly by speaking with Entropia. I wonder how much of a blow this is to the chance of GIMPS' getting a mention in other newspapers/sites. Shame it's such an amateur article too. Almost anyone on this list could have written a more exciting, more interest-evoking article than that. There's a vague reference to the science whenever there's a gee whizz to be had, but basically the feel of an outsider without much knowledge or interest who just wants to get that headline out and who cares if it screws up anyone else. I would have expected a lot better from Academic Press than that. Perhaps someone here should write a better one for publication on the GIMPS website? (I can't as I'm on business for the next week, and by then it'll presumably be old news.) _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: M#39 news!
On 1 Dec 2001, at 17:47, Alexander Kruppa wrote: Warut Roonguthai wrote: http://www.academicpress.com/inscight/11302001/grapha.htm Look like the cat is out of the bag now - it's 2^13,466,917 - 1. Was this early publication indended? I thought the press release was due only after the independent double check completed, but then they quote Tim Cusak of Entropia, which makes it sound like an official announcement. Or is the official double check finished already? Umm. If this is true I'm _very_ annoyed about the leakage. My hope is that it _isn't_ true that the exponent is 13466917. Official supporting evidence is admittedly thin, but that Mersenne number has 4,053,946 digits - if that was true, I would have expected George's initial announcement to say over 4 million digits rather than well over 3.5 million digits (which would nevertheless be true!). Of course I could simply be misreading George's mind - possibly if he had said over 4 million it would have narrowed the field sufficiently to make identification easy. But is it _really_ too much to ask people to wait just one more week for the official verification run to complete? Maths isn't like politics, what's true today won't be different tomorrow... I would strongly suggest that procedures are changed so that the next time a Mersenne prime is discovered, no information at all is released except to prior discoverers of Mersenne primes and any others (at George's discretion) who might be in a position to do the official verification run. Incidentally I did reply to a request for information about M39 which appeared on the NMBRTHRY list yesterday morning. I was very, very careful to include no information which has not been released by George in his messages to this list, and I made sure George got a copy of my reply. Irritated Brian Beesley _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
SV: Mersenne: I have a RISC/6000 with AIX 3.1 installed
This might run anything; but I'm probably to stupid to manage to set up anything on it. :-/ Can anyone use this machine as is for any purpose related offcourse to primechruncing? If the system has a C compiler, you can certainly run LL tests using Glucas. No C compiler; not even man-pages. But some cute system called SMIT which can do quite many things. :-) Building Glucas is dead easy. If you don't have a C compiler, you can almost certainly install gcc, though this is more complicated and a lot more work than building Glucas. In any case you would probably find a R6000 AIX binary version of Glucas if you asked, or someone out there with a similar system who would build one for you. I go for both; Does any one has a glucas binary for RISC/6000 AIX? I don't know how fast the system might be, but there is plenty of work even for slower systems. I believe it to be 300 Mhz; And it was at least once some kind of a mainframe. BTW I got it for only $ 15! And _yes_ I got slow machines (an -486 80 mhz requering appr. 9 months to complete a 65 bit factoring). Best regards Torben Schlüntz _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Re: Factoring benefit/cost ratio
Hi Gerry, At 11:03 AM 12/1/2001 -0800, Gerry Snyder wrote: I must be having a senior moment. I would swear George said that one way a person could lose credit for a correct LL test is if later factoring finds a factor. This is because my rather limited reporting software only adds up the LL results in the verified and one-LL-tests databases. Once an exponent is factored it is removed from those databases. Is my feeble brain making this up, or is finding a factor more important than stated above? I prefer a factor to a double-check. But it is hard to quantify prefer in a mathematical formula for computing trial factoring limits. Prime95 uses the formula: cost_of_factoring must be less than chance_of_finding_a_factor times 2.03 * the cost_of_an_LL_test. This should maximize GIMPS throughput. The 2.03 is because we must run two (or more) LL tests to do a double-check. -- George P.S. I'll comment on the M#39 news later. For now lets celebrate our grand accomplishment rather than worry about non-optimal press coverage. _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Re: Factoring benefit/cost ratio
George did say that, and I was aware of his statement, but that still has no effect on the point I was making. George's GIMPS stats also give no credit at all for finding factors, but that doesn't mean he considers finding factors worthless. Steve -Original Message- From: Gerry Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: mer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, December 01, 2001 12:19 PM Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Factoring benefit/cost ratio Steve Harris wrote: Actually, Richard's statement that a 'Factored' status is better for GIMPS than a 'Two LL' status is not quite true. It's better for the mathematical community as a whole, but not for GIMPS. GIMPS is looking for primes, not factors, and without skipping over any. Hmmm, I must be having a senior moment. I would swear George said that one way a person could lose credit for a correct LL test is if later factoring finds a factor. Is my feeble brain making this up, or is finding a factor more important than stated above? Gerry -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gerry Snyder, AIS Director Symposium Chair, Region 15 RVP Member San Fernando Valley, Southern California Iris Societies in warm, winterless Los Angeles--USDA 9b-ish, Sunset 18-19 my work: helping generate data for: http://galileo.jpl.nasa.gov/ _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
