Bad Reporting or I Just Don't Get It?

By -
An interesting trend is for amateurs to use their own computers to discover prime numbers. I don't have a link, but some young guy found one sometime within the last year, and now some guy has found the newest, biggest prime. (I saw this story linked at LRC.)

I wonder what other sorts of applications are out there for this type of thing. With the advance of the Internet, and computing power in general, I bet we'll see more and more of this outsourcing of computation. Sorta like Ronald Coase's explanation for the optimal size of the firm--it wouldn't have made sense for NASA in the '70s to farm out computations to private individuals to run on their calculators, but it will become more and more feasible for organizations to delegate chunks of computations to people to run on their PCs.

Anyway, this quote from the article troubled me:


It took experts five days to work out that Dr Nowak's new number was indeed bigger than the previous biggest prime, discovered last May by an American. His number has 7,816,230 digits.

Does this seem right? I could believe that it would take five days for experts to determine that Nowak's claimed number is indeed prime, but I find it difficult to believe that it takes mathematicians five days to determine which of two numbers is bigger. If any knowledgeable reader out there wants to set me straight, feel free.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more