Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PrimeNumbers] bad characterization

Expand Messages
  • Payam Samidoost
    ... Please, David, use more kind words than _plunder_. We must reconciliate both parties not to ignite a new conflict. (1) First of all, you can see my
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 1, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      > I noted that they have not assumed
      > possession of k in [4847,19249,28433,
      > 54767,65567,69109] Maybe Payam can
      > tell us why, for example, k=4847, was
      > not yet plundered?


      Please, David, use more kind words than _plunder_. We must reconciliate both parties not to ignite a new conflict.

      (1)
      First of all, you can see my http://sierpinski.insider.com/4847. It is for more than 10 days I have added the following header to my 4847 page:

      Join
      t h e S e v e n t e e n o r B u s t t e a m
      as they have the most appropriate tool
      for continuing this project



      Before Wilfrid's table was disappeared from his Sierpinski page you could read "reserved for SB" in the 4847 entry, instead of Payam Samidoost.

      Why I have choosen such an strange choice?
      Just remember the philosophy of our work. I was managing the 4847 search to direct it in its most productive way. When the SB have _proved_ their superiority it was my responsibility to redirect all new volunteers to their remarkable project. I have reserved in MY table all the cells for SB up to n=3000000.

      Thus no conflict at all. The k=4847 search is going to progress in its best condition by SB and my page is still meaningful as is representing the latest news about the search for k=4847. Note that the word plunder is not applicable here.

      (2)
      Another reason for why SB have not yet started k=4847 is that its sieve results is still private between I and Joseph. Even Phil have not its recent version which is sieved up to 208G, I think. But now it is a property of SB, and I am going to send it to them.

      (3)
      The main reason, I think, is that these remaining k's have upper computed n limits than the others. Soon all of the k's will be processed by SB, and I think it is the right place.

      Yours
      Payam



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Broadhurst
      Thanks, Payam, for explaining the status of k=4847. ... This agrees with one of the premises in my question. ... This agrees with the other. David
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 1, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks, Payam, for explaining the status of k=4847.
        > Note that the word plunder is not applicable here.
        This agrees with one of the premises in my question.
        > Soon all of the k's will be processed by SB
        This agrees with the other.
        David
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.