Gordon Spence wrote:
>>> I think we all agree on how it's supposed to work
>>
>> So you agree that there should be no poaching of Primenet
>> assignments -- right?
>>
>> Or by "it", were you not including Primenet?
>
> Having read your entire post half a dozen times to try
> and workout exactly what point you were trying to make,
I was intrigued by your ideas, but saw ambiguity in some statements, so
was seeking clarification of details of your position.
> 1. Personally, I don't see any harm in "poaching" per se,
> I have had it happen to me. That's life and the way it
> goes.
So we do _not_ all agree on how it's supposed to work, right?
> 2. "It" does refer to the GIMPS project.
But my question asked you about inclusion of PrimeNet, not GIMPS, in
your reference. Are you carefully refraining from stating anything
about the PrimeNet assignment system?
>>> they are after all *just numbers*. Nobody owns them and
>>
>> So by "they" and "them" you _do_ mean just the numbers,
>> without any consideration of GIMPS or Primenet - correct?
>
> 3. GIMPS or Primenet or whatever. For the umpteenth time.
> A number is a number. Period. Regardless of whether you
> or anybody else has checked it out or not. It may be (and
> is) officially discouraged,
Do you mean "Poaching PrimeNet assignments may be (and is) officially
discouraged, ..."?
> but as things stand, the "rules of the game" as we are
> playing them (ie the way the check-in system *actually*
> works) allows it to happen.
But the check-in system has no role in preventing poaching, so its
operation has no bearing on whether poaching is _supposed_ to be
allowed. Indeed, the operation of the check-in system seems not to
allow for the possibility of poaching.
> 4. Get it into perspective. The number of times this
> actually happens is miniscule. Out of the millions we
> have checked what are the "poached" items? Dozens, a
> few hundred??
As Mary Conner has pointed out, it's a higher proportion than that.
>> Isn't there something in the current GIMPS/Primenet
>> software along the lines of "if you use our software,
>> you agree to abide by our rules"?
>
> 6. Now go back and read the license.txt file again,
I am _so_ glad you suggested that.
> and this time actually take the time to read and
> understand it.
So I presume you have read and understood the sentence "Every effort has
been made to ensure that you will be assigned an exponent that no one
else has tested or is testing", which shows that it is _intended_ that
PrimeNet assignments be exclusive and that it is _not intended_ that
poaching occur.
And since you've read that, you can no longer honestly claim that
poaching isn't against the rules.
> It specifically excludes liability in the event of
> poaching.
So? That doesn't imply that poaching is okay.
> It does *NOT* say the you mustn't do it.
Actually, the sentence I pointed out above ("Every effort ...") does
imply that assignments are to be exclusive. Since poaching violates that
exclusivity, it is not within the rules for PrimeNet.
> The only rules that you agree to be bound by are those
> in deciding how the cash-prize is split up.
Just because the statement "You agree not to poach" isn't explicitly
there doesn't mean poaching is okay. And since poaching violates the
rules of PrimeNet, as previously pointed out, poaching is not okay.
>> Only the very, very few people who had the luck to
>> choose, or to be assigned, to L-L test a Mersenne number
>> that happened to be prime, along with a small number of
>> others who were directly involved in the verification
>> process, have had the very exclusive chance to
>> demonstrate their discretion during the post-discovery
>> verification phase. None of the other thousands of
>> GIMPS participants have been given even a _chance_ to
>> demonstrate that particular, very exclusive type of
>> discretion. Can none of the latter category be trusted
>> not to poach?
>
> 11. Life is all about luck, or being in the right place
> at the right time. Unfair? Perhaps, reality? Yes. My
> point is that there are a small number of people who we
> know for 100% certain can be trusted to act with
> discretion when "sensitive" information is involved. I am
> sure that everyone else can, but using your own argument
> against you....
That's funny. I don't see where you used my own argument against me. I
_do_ see where you use exaggeration to make it seem that my position is
unreasonable -- starting right there in your very next sentence.
> ...."let's strip everything out of the reports not to aid
> the cheats (poachers)" was the gist of your argument.
No, that's an exaggeration.
I published a _proposal_ to take _some_ data fields out of the _public_
report, _but leave them in all other reports_. My proposal also
solicited other ideas.
> By inference therefore it is quite *obvious* that _YOU_
> do not trust any person involved in this project not to
> poach.
See? Once you exaggerate someone else's words, it becomes easy, even
"*obvious*", to pretend that they are unreasonable, and becomes easy to
falsely attribute untenable opinions to that person.
[snip]
> That's the trouble with climbing into a pulpit to preach
> to others, it often has a habit of swinging back around
> and biting you.
_I_ don't feel bitten.
> And before you go off and waste hours trawling through
> all the masses of data on the project files to try and
> work out if I have ever poached any numbers, I'll save
> you the bother. Yes I have. How many? - can't remember,
> less than 20 or so. Will I do it ever again? - don't
> know.
I hadn't even _thought_ of trawling through files to see whether you had
ever poached any assignments, until I read that last paragraph of yours.
Thank you for your revelation -- I commend your honesty.
Earlier I separately posted my comments ("Mersenne: 80% instead of
100%?") on the contrast between this last paragraph and your previous
claim about trustworthiness of Mersenne prime discoverers.
Richard Woods
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
