SoB gets some attention in the press

[ColinT]

See this article at TheInq http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6585

[Mystwalker]

That could explain the 86 new users in the last 24 hours...

[ColinT]

Nothing succeeds like success

[smh]

But the question remains, what is a Sierpinski prime?

[ColinT]

smh:

I have no idea. I just run the project. I was not good with math in HS, 40 years ago. These smart guys here keep taking about k and n. Means nothing to me. I am merely the Minister of Propaganda.

Colin

[Mystwalker]

I think smh wants to point out that there are no Sierpinski primes, as a Sierpinski number is defined by "no n making the formula prime" - nuff said.

[Jwb52z]

It's not impossible for a Sierpinski Prime to exist.

[smh]

Indeed, that was what i was trying to say.

A Sierpinski number is a number K for which no N exists that produces a prime for K*2^N+1

The prime numbers found are probably Keller primes. A Keller prime is the first prime produced with the above formula for each K (thus whe are looking for the lowest N that produces a prime).

Although unlikely, it could be that there exists a prime below one of the discovered ones. Either a number that is not tested, or a computer that produced a wrong result

[jjjjL]

yeah, we saw that article. dave and i aren't too happy about it since the fiction:fact ratio is a tad high. i wish they had bothered to email one of us first to check things. needless to say, we emailed them all the relevant corrections but haven't heard back yet. i'm sure they're busy. i'm not going to worry about it too much and i suggest you do the same... most people will (wisely) use the info from our press releases... not many people go "fact finding" at the inquierer. people who read it know that it's a rumor mill. also, their article while filled with errors, is not slanderous or hurtful in any way so it could be worse.


also, smh does bring up the point that there is a (very, very small) chance that a smaller prime may exist for the recently eliminated k values. his speculation that not every value below the prime n values has been checked is partially correct. or i should say, not all have been checked by SB. in most cases, we started where the last searcher in Keller's project stopped. SB is checking all the n above the reported limit and below the discovered prime. so the only chance a prime exists below the current ones would be if there was a computational error or there was a mistake made by the person who did the previous checking of the lower n values. the case that smh is implying (that we don't check the n below the prime once a prime is found) is not correct. which i might add, isn't his fault since that info definately isn't on the website (like it should be) but until recently, we didn't really need a policy for how to deal with n values below primes once primes are found. i'm definately not complaining... i wish i had more "problems" like that. it's like how when cEM/s values on graphs get so large that they overlap the axis labels: problems i wish i had more of.

that's about it. just wanted to mention that while the inquirer article is rather bogus it is still appreciated since the errors are not slanderous or mean.

also we do test all untested n below the primes found, so serious errors aside, these are Keller primes.


-Louie

[smh]

Ehh, did i say SoB wasn't going to test the N's below the values that produced a prime?

All values below that N are assigned, so i guess most of them will come back. But do you plan to reassign the ones that expire? just wondering.

I don't think the article is too bad either. It doesn't really say a lot about what SoB is doing, nor was it really wrong, but it does bring idle cpu cycles to the project, and thats what the project needs.

I see you still haven't submitted any prime to Chris Caldwell's list. It would be great if that could be done before the next update (which should be due if you look at the long list of submitted primes) so we can exactely see how high our primes are in the list.

[jjjjL]

we did submit them. awhile ago. Chris Caldwell hasn't replied to Dave's emails yet.

we realize his site is the defacto standard for the largest prime records but it's not critical that he lists our primes right away. the numbers are still prime. the discovery dates are still the same.

it may require new prover codes to be made and such so we understand that it will be a lot of work for someone... probably Chris. So whenever he gets back to us is when we'll start working with him to get it all documented. we don't want to pester him too much since he's surly busy already.

-Louie

[mgsevenprime]

Hi.
I'm a newcomer to the forum.

Chris Cladwell does not actualize the database since 22nd November and there lots of primes wainting for the next update.

When he runs their routines and update the files you receive a prover code, and your data will be added to the titans pages.
With the prover code(s) in your hands you can submit your primes, which will be added to the 5000 list in the next time he runs the routines.
You'll receive e-mails in all these phases.
In the meantime between the subsmisison of a prime and their inclusion in the list you can consult

http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/c...mit/proths.cgi

[nuutti]

About prime database: situation is little bit more complicated when you need complicated prover code like SB needs. When you need coplicated prover code then Chris will create onbe by hand and that could take some time. (I have 3 or four different prover codes in different project and only the first one was created automaticly, others chris created by hand)


Yours,

Nuutti

[tqft]

or maybe from here:
http://science.slashdot.org/article....thread&tid=134