Re: [PrimeNumbers] bad characterization
> I noted that they have not assumedPlease, David, use more kind words than _plunder_. We must reconciliate both parties not to ignite a new conflict.
> possession of k in [4847,19249,28433,
> 54767,65567,69109] Maybe Payam can
> tell us why, for example, k=4847, was
> not yet plundered?
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:
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.
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.
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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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 SBThis agrees with the other.