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

Re: Sixteen or Bust

Expand Messages
  • gchil0
    Hi, ... prime is, ... human ... prime is. One could equally well argue that with your wonderful software (and many others), you have taught the computer how to
    Message 1 of 34 , Dec 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      > A computer cannot identify a prime. A computer doesn't know what a
      prime is,
      > it can just print or send a message. A prime is identified when a
      human
      > reads this message, because until now, only a human knows what a
      prime is.

      One could equally well argue that with your wonderful software (and
      many others), you have taught the computer how to identify a prime.
      Now, a human merely gives a computer a list of numbers he wants
      checked, and the computer identifies the primes among them and gives
      the human the list. It's certainly possible for the computer to
      upload the list to a public website automatically and for some random
      visitor to be the first human to see the identified primes. The title
      of "discoverer" IMHO should be shared among the people who taught the
      computer how to identify primes (software authors), the people
      involved in selecting the original list of numbers for the computer to
      check for primality (including the sieving software authors), and the
      people who took the time to install and run the software.

      > If Stephen Gibson was notified that his hardware found a PRP by
      someone
      > else, he cannot be the discoverer. The discoverer is the first human
      that
      > checked (or will check?) the primality by running the proof on a
      computer.

      While he did not actually prove the number is prime, he was involved
      in selecting the numbers (1 in this case) to be tested for primality,
      and he presumably took the time to install the SOB client. Therefore
      he is entitled to be one of the discoverers of the prime.

      > These sorts of searches are totally depersonalized :o(

      Only if we begin to give the credit to the machines.

      Greg
    • Ken Davis
      Hi All, I must say that it distresses me greatly to see such rancour amongst such great minds. I never realised that people were reserving( proclaiming
      Message 34 of 34 , Dec 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi All,
        I must say that it distresses me greatly to see such rancour amongst
        such great minds.
        I never realised that people were reserving( proclaiming exclusive
        right to) ranges of k's, n's or whatever.
        I thought the idea was to make it known that you were searching a
        particular area so that other people didn't waste CPU cycles redoing
        work.
        My decision to select n!11-1 to search based on the fact that it was
        marked as free was not so much that it was marked as free but that I
        was sure that I wasn't redoing someone elses work.
        With !n there are an infinite number of choices so I didn't have to
        tread on any toes.
        With only 17 sierpinski K available, and as is obvious from SOB,
        100's of willing searchers how could we expect one person to be able
        to search one K for what could be years.
        Again I state I am currently searching n!11-1 (n=1-200000) n!11+1 (1-
        200000) and n!2(30000-50000). I have 13 machines searching various
        ranges some top-down but intend to complete all 3 ranges (including
        redoing 35K of numbers which were done with my p4). If somone thinks
        it is worth their time also tesing within theses ranges the so be it.
        I DON'T own them, there just numbers!
        cheers
        Ken
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.