mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2004-03-17, 21:25   #1
jobhoti
 
Apr 2003

5 Posts
Default Double-checking milestone?

I noticed that GIMPS has double-checked all exponents up to 8,000,000. Why hasn't this milestone been noted on the status page?
jobhoti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-03-18, 09:45   #2
jinydu
 
jinydu's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Hopefully Near M48

2×3×293 Posts
Default

I think its because there's little time to update that. There are worse problems that I know, such as one banner that says something like: "There are 38 of them [Mersenne primes] known in the universe
jinydu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-03-18, 19:30   #3
jobhoti
 
Apr 2003

5 Posts
Default There's time.

That page gets updated every week though...
jobhoti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-03-19, 01:59   #4
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·641 Posts
Default

... by a guy who does lots of work for GIMPS each week and should be forgiven if occasionally he fails to make note of a milestone just as soon as it occurs. The milestone will still be there to be noticed next week or the week after ... :)
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-03-19, 09:46   #5
garo
 
garo's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE

AC516 Posts
Default

I think it is George's policy not to mention million marks if they occur close to a Prime find. The 8,000,000 mark occured very close to the finding of M40 so it was not noted.

I must say that I disagree with this policy. But it's not a big deal.
garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-03-20, 00:51   #6
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

1E0C16 Posts
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by garo
I think it is George's policy not to mention million marks if they occur close to a Prime find. The 8,000,000 mark occured very close to the finding of M40 so it was not noted.
I disagree with your derived rule (the 8,000,000 DC mark occurred at least a couple of months after the M40 find, didn't it?), but instead of stating my own empirically-derived rule, let me point out that there may be a much more ominous explanation!

Carefully reexamine the latest two entries in the GIMPS Milestones table:

"March 9, 2002: All exponents below 12,000,000 tested at least once.
November 17, 2003: Prime M(20996011) is discovered!"

Note the temporal irregularity!

The below-12,000,000-tested-at-least-once milestone has occurred before the below-10,000,000-tested-at-least-once milestone (July 19, 2002)!

It looks like what may have happened is that the GIMPS Milestones table has been caught in a time-space eddy outside the normal flow of our universe, with future and past consequences we can only imagine!

George may at this very moment
(whatever that means in this context) be engaged in a titanic struggle to prevent this space-time rift from spreading beyond the GIMPS Milestones table, and thus has little spare energy for adding further milestones. Let's all give him a break for now. :)

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2004-03-20 at 01:01
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-03-20, 05:00   #7
jobhoti
 
Apr 2003

5 Posts
Default

Granted, space-time rifts are not as simple to fix as dates on a website. However, surely George, being the genius he is, has already fixed said space-time rift and, due to the time-gap-continuum generated from the quantum-time energy gap, he's got PLENTY of time to add the double-checking milestone. (Perhaps, a dozen or so millenia.) This, or he's just lazy - like any true genius.

As for policy, I agree with garo. This double-checking milestone should be added to the list despite any temporal adjacency to the ol' four-zero.

Last fiddled with by jobhoti on 2004-03-20 at 05:00
jobhoti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-03-20, 18:18   #8
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

9,187 Posts
Default

The milestones should be more of a log. function. As things progress they should be father (numerically) between them. So maybe George is holding off till DC hits 10M and L-L hits 15M , those would be real milestones
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-03-20, 23:28   #9
Maybeso
 
Maybeso's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Portland, OR USA

2×137 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly
The milestones should be more of a log. function. As things progress they should be farther (numerically) between them. So maybe George is holding off till DC hits 10M and L-L hits 15M , those would be real milestones
Isn't the amount of work to LL exponents 2p to 4p more than double that for p to 2p?
If so, a constant gap between milestones already involves an ever-increasing effort.
Or are you trying to allow for improving technology and more members? (And bigger farms )
Maybeso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-03-21, 00:29   #10
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

9,187 Posts
Default

The later. Moore's law and all.
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-03-21, 17:44   #11
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly
... till DC hits 10M and L-L hits 15M , those would be real milestones
Hmm ... wouldn't they really be exponentstones?

Indeed, aren't you proposing exponentlogstones?

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2004-03-21 at 17:48
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Double checking gd_barnes Riesel Prime Search 66 2021-01-06 21:19
What about double-checking TF/P-1? 137ben PrimeNet 6 2012-03-13 04:01
Double checking Unregistered Information & Answers 19 2011-07-29 09:57
Double-checking with PFGW rogue Conjectures 'R Us 70 2010-11-16 20:58
Any glory in double checking? Quacky Lounge 5 2003-12-03 02:20

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:08.

Mon Jan 18 07:08:28 UTC 2021 up 46 days, 3:19, 0 users, load averages: 1.83, 2.15, 2.05

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.