Talk:Riesel Sieve

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article says nothing at all! It doesn't say what it is (a BOINC project) or what it does, it just says it's in development. I'll edit it but somebody should definitely make something better.

Added some things, feel free to improve upon what's been added. By the way, curious as to why is this page in WikiProject California? --QTCaptain 07:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to give the article a bit more distance, avoiding "you" etc. Grammar check is needed, as I am no native speaker. 91.32.114.145 16:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discrepancy in Results counts

In the text "Of the 101 Riesel candidates at the start of the project, Riesel Sieve has by 2007-11-15 found 29 primes, others have found 7 primes, and 66 candidates remain:", the numbers "101", "29", and "66" can be found by direct inspection of the project's webpages k stats and prime hall of fame. Note that these numbers don't add up: 29+7+66 = 102. The text is currently resolved by setting the number of out-of-project found primes to "6". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.113.20 (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.rieselsieve.com/about.php says "remaining 101 68" and "Posted 15 Mar 2005". In 2005 there were many more remaining so I guess 68 was added on an unspecified later date. http://stats.rieselsieve.com/kstats.php says "Page Generated: 02-12-07, 20:41:51", and lists 67 values (without claiming they are all the remaining, or that they are remaining at all). http://www.rieselsieve.com/ says a prime has been found for 469949 in a section saying "Posted 15 Nov 2007". 469949 is one of the 67 listed on the page generated 2 weeks later. I would say Riesel Sieve makes so many unclear and contradictory claims that none of them are reliable. Maybe the article should reflect that by giving intervals instead of single numbers determined by an original research evalution of which of their contradictory claims is more likely to be true. PrimeHunter 02:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)