This is front-page worthy because it let's us all know that we're not losing our frigging individual minds over this, that it IS a collective problem. The fact that google knew what the problem was and fixed it before it had time to hit the frontpage of/. just goes to show that they are trying and they do care.
Personally, this just renews my confidence in Goog, regardless of what the twats are doing inside the beltway...
You don't really know much about email do you? I suggest you check on IMAP, perhaps POP, and maybe even read up on topics like downloading content from a server onto a client.
Wait, what? You not only have a girlfriend, but she uses gmail on a regular basis?.drachenstern { color: jealous;} **
Are the intermittent problems at seemingly regular intervals or seemingly regular times? Also, do you ever pay attention to which google cluster seems to be resolving for you at the time? (I wouldn't) Lastly, do you use HTTP or HTTPS?
** Being married and all, I'm just playing to the meme... No, I don't know why I felt compelled to share this, but I figure I'm in a peer group, so ya'll'll get it...
Seriously, what's wrong with hiding it in plain sight? Make an ISO file and keep it in a directory of other ISO files with an innocuous name. Much less likely to show up on anybody's radar of "hey, what's this guy doing here" and if you remember to clean your caches often (you don't?) then you're fine.
That's the part I'm particularly curious about. Will they leave any flaws that originally existed, or have they tried to rework the games? I think playing them as originally RTM'd would be superb.
I tend to run 28 when given the opportunity. Granted, I can't get those around me to let me run that schedule, and I am still running the Uni gamut, so I'm not ready to try for freelance work just yet...
Eh, I was playing with a proof, not trying to come up with a competition winner on/., but I would think that since (n,0] is bounded on one end, that it still counts as a bounded set. It can only grow so large. Perhaps I don't know the definition of bounded in relations to PMI. Very likely. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_set I imagine that is the case.
But the point I was aiming for was that any set of primes, is going to be boundless, therefore infinite, therefore it doesn't matter how you try to count them. We know that they are a countable set (ends at 1 or 0 depending on your notation, I say 1 - therefore countable according to my frosh math classes on the subject) so what we don't know is the total number of such numbers.
For that, I say that until we know the largest number, we can never get a count for all the numbers between the largest number and (insert value here, be it -[largest number] or 0 or what have you), even though we can define that set of numbers as countable.
But back to your post, you said that you would argue that my set S is bounded rather than my assumption of unbounded. For that I ask what's the largest number in S? Granted, that makes my proof seem to crumble, as I discussed above, but so if S is bounded then we definitely know that it has a countable number of elements. We can also show that we can always add 1 to the front or end of any base 2 number and have a larger number.
And I have no clue what the original question was, I started the discussion somewhere around the middle and started reading. Such is the Walk Of Shame on/. discussions, to come in in the middle and then have to admit that you don't know what the original question was. I was just going off the GGP, which said that the count was infinite.
I would think that any proof of the count of the number of primes would be refinable to a proof on the count of primes which only exist of 1's in a base 2 counting system. That's what I was aiming for above. So it doesn't matter what base or which set of primes, but that all sets of "all primes of manner x" should be uncountable. Unless we're talking about a specifically limited subset, such as the Fermat Primes I got served on above. (Dang you/. poster, RTFM before thinking... arghhh!)
But I am more interested in seeing people's responses today, not so much on the thinking aspect atm... I can tell it's time for lunch now... ciao
Eh, for the 10*1 thing, I didn't [spell|specify] it clearly enough, I meant 1(0)*1 or 11, 101, 1001, 10001, etc in a grammar format.
As for the counting of the Fermat Primes, I would imagine that since it quit working for after n=4 that that means that it's just a neat trick, but that there's no actual principle involved here.
And now that I've seen enlightenment of the form [Shut mouth|Stop Thinking], [Read response], [Think!] I've just realized that I went off on a WILD tangent. Yay that I still remember my basics on PMI proofs, but it looks like there is no useful information for the fact that given nAgain, I'm not sure what a complete count gives us, other than to say that we can count those primes. But counting what Fermat Numbers are Primes looks like a non-"useful" thing...
Now, I'm putting my brain back in [Listen] mode...
I believe you had to provide a mathematical proof?
Seriously? Ok, here goes. All primes which are comprised of a binary number of the format (1)* {where () denotes an element comprised of one or more characters, and * means to repeat that element 0 or more times} are members of a set of only positive integers. By definition of the set of positive integers only, those numbers are countable. {hint: by definition means not up for debate, right?}
Therefore, there are two sets of numbers present in our pool of positive integers {called Z}, those which conform to the rule { (1)* } and those which don't. So we'll denote the subsets of the major set as S and N. S is all those elements of (1)* type, and N is everything in Z which is not in S. (Oi, where's LaTeX when you need it? To those who would help me format it, no, I'm using strictly Latin ASCII basic characters)
Therefore, if everything in Z is countable (based on our previous definition), then some subset of Z is also countable. This can be proven by PMI. Thus, if S is a subset of Z, it is also countable.
Since the definition of (1)* means a repeating set of 1's, with no upper bound, then we can state that the total number of 1's permissible in the set is unbounded. However, since we know that the number which results from this set is only going to ever be positive (our definition) then we know that the unbounded set is countable. Therefore, the infinite set of numbers in S {which are of the form (1)*} are countable.
To continue onwards, if the set of numbers in S is itself a restriced subset of S, we can still show that any repeating form of 1's with an unbounded number of 1's is countable but infinite.
Ok, so about that prize... What's that? It's an expired Gift Cheque for an entry into the NASA naming contest, from the desk of... Steven Colbert? zOMG, what a waste!
It seems like the number of primes of the form: 11 - three 101 - five 1001 - nine? But that's not prime... 10001 - seventeen 100001 - thirty-three? But that's not prime...
Are less than the number of binary fields of characteristic 10*1, so it's definitely countable, but seeing as how the algorithm only says "insert more zeros", that the number of insertable zeros is infinite. Therefore, while it's countable (only positives), it's still infinite, so there's no way to know what the count of those numbers is, without exhausting all entropy.
How is it that obtaining the count on that is an important concept? I can name infinity, and therefore have given you a count, but I still haven't proven anything...
Or is the question more akin to:
What is unique about the primes in the set defined by (whose first and last binary bit value is a 1, and all other values in binary are zero), that can be extrapolated to show usefulness to finding other primes?
Because it seems like the usefulness of that question on the short version is to say that all binary values of the form 1(00)*01 are prime, and all 1(00)*1 are not prime.
Let's try a few more examples of 1(00)*01, for the sake of completeness: 100000001 = 257 10000000001 = 1025 (not prime) 1000000000001 = 4097 (not prime, try 17)
So naturally we can see that 1(00)*01 is not sufficient.
I'm just stymied what having a count of said primes is going to do for us? It seems like the guys doing work on this have figured out that the pattern is (2^2^n)+1 where n>=1 and integer, so I'm not seeing how this is an unanswered question. The range of those is countable, but infinite.
Wait, what? Are you seriously considering that we don't advise people to do regular routine maintenance on their own vehicles? That's what the drivers of the world did up until the last 20 years or so. If you owned a car, you checked your own fluids, brakes, etc, or you paid someone to do it, regularly. Used to be a time when a person (male or female) would get derided for not knowing how to do basic car maintenance. How many "old guys" do you know that change their own brakes? Now, how many "young bucks"? Most of the people around my age or a little younger don't know how to do basic car maintenance, and this includes changing their own oil, replacing their own brakes, etc. Yes I know how, because my grandfather made me learn on some old rust bucket trucks. I'm glad for that now, because the only hassle when I go for my "annual inspection" is the hassle of pulling out my checkbook and the wait while they "work".
So advocating that we should have mandatory annual inspections on our cars to find the potential glitches is just more of the government doing the jobs that people should do for themselves.
And as for "forcing people to fix those faults saves lives", I only apply that to the lives of the "other parties" in those accidents. For all those who don't have the time to learn how to use the tool that they depend on every day, and would rather sacrifice their own safety for the extra fifteen minutes a week they could be spending on facebook (or whatever), I don't personally care for their safety. _I_ check my own fluid levels, tire pressure, tread depth, and brakes. _I_ monitor my car and watch the indicators so I know when there's a leaky seal on the gas cap big enough to cause a problem. (I've pulled one thing from the inspection that I know that they do that has some relevance. For this one thing alone, I say, perhaps we need better methods of regulation, but annual inspections is that regulation? One could conceivably go 11 months without knowing there was a bad cap, which is a lot of leakage.)
Now, if the inspectors checked my car's body frame for potential damage, or had some way to inspect the CV joints that I can't, or if they tested the seatbelt locking mechanism or airbag deployment, then perhaps it might be a good idea.
But you really think that government enforced business promotion is a good idea? (Hint: I've not got a state agency run shop that I can take my car to hear for the inspection, they're all done by private enterprise.) Where's the government mandate that people have to purchase my product or service annually? I would charge only 19.95 for my service, instead of 38.45 (or whatever $[bogus number] inspections cost around here)!!! While we're at it, can I get a federal mandate for people to purchase imaginary products from me monthly at rates I randomly set, while not providing a tangible service 1 time in 3? (Hint: I'm lambasting insurance. Not saying it's not important, just, there's that whole aspect of the government forcing me to pay a company for something I probably would never need. I know, that word probably changes the game. I get that. I'm talking about why isn't it a government run institution if they're so adamant about it. But now we're talking socialism, and hell, the gov't can't even run a brothel and sell whiskey to make a profit)
Slashdot Mirror
This is front-page worthy because it let's us all know that we're not losing our frigging individual minds over this, that it IS a collective problem. The fact that google knew what the problem was and fixed it before it had time to hit the frontpage of /. just goes to show that they are trying and they do care.
Personally, this just renews my confidence in Goog, regardless of what the twats are doing inside the beltway...
You don't really know much about email do you? I suggest you check on IMAP, perhaps POP, and maybe even read up on topics like downloading content from a server onto a client.
Really, you sound like a PHB...
No, twitter's always down...
They even made it part of the SLA, and a ritual of passage.
Hell, it has its own meme
Same here - I've heard a lot of others complain about outages, but this was the first to hit me.
I also know about six other people all in the US and all were hit by this bug within 15 minutes or so, for about an hour.
You should look into using https:/// for those transactions, unless you don't use your gmail account for much more than forum-signups...
Wait, what? You not only have a girlfriend, but she uses gmail on a regular basis? .drachenstern { color: jealous;} **
Are the intermittent problems at seemingly regular intervals or seemingly regular times? Also, do you ever pay attention to which google cluster seems to be resolving for you at the time? (I wouldn't) Lastly, do you use HTTP or HTTPS?
** Being married and all, I'm just playing to the meme... No, I don't know why I felt compelled to share this, but I figure I'm in a peer group, so ya'll'll get it...
You and the PP you're quoting seemed to get this part wrong, it's
10Mbps over 802.11b/g, not over some wireless network.
I don't grok this one, and since we can't google punctuation....
Seriously, what's wrong with hiding it in plain sight? Make an ISO file and keep it in a directory of other ISO files with an innocuous name. Much less likely to show up on anybody's radar of "hey, what's this guy doing here" and if you remember to clean your caches often (you don't?) then you're fine.
Did you just post your password on slashdot? nowai bro!
You seriously need to rethink that strategy...
That's the part I'm particularly curious about. Will they leave any flaws that originally existed, or have they tried to rework the games? I think playing them as originally RTM'd would be superb.
In RE: your 93rd rule of slashdot (sig for those who have them turned off):
USB CD-DVD drives are not uncommon... I have two on my desk at work...
But yeah, a dock does make life easier, no?
Ok, while I'm surprised nobody else has done it yet, I can't pass it up...
"Soylent Pork, it's what's for dinner"...
And yes, I do believe I would...
Eh, why not leach off an ac's post-height...
Did anyone else read the headline and have to pause for a moment to figure out if blackmail was some sort of new email threat?
My mind went {blackmail->darkmail->email->wtf!?->/facepalm}
But seriously, blackmail and darkmail are great names for spam....
In other words, the tool you recommend is Etherape?
Any other tools you would use to grab a snapshot?
@the submitter, what about a tool like spiceworks?
wtf? We're you trying to win buzzword bingo? zomg, try again.
Yeah yeah yeah, I understood what you wrote, but now my brain hurts... time to go read the poll and let it recover...
~.00001
I'm just surprised nobody has yet said "ask google to host it"...
You've been waiting a LOOOONG time for that haven't you?
I tend to run 28 when given the opportunity. Granted, I can't get those around me to let me run that schedule, and I am still running the Uni gamut, so I'm not ready to try for freelance work just yet...
Eh, I was playing with a proof, not trying to come up with a competition winner on /., but I would think that since (n,0] is bounded on one end, that it still counts as a bounded set. It can only grow so large. Perhaps I don't know the definition of bounded in relations to PMI. Very likely. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_set I imagine that is the case.
But the point I was aiming for was that any set of primes, is going to be boundless, therefore infinite, therefore it doesn't matter how you try to count them. We know that they are a countable set (ends at 1 or 0 depending on your notation, I say 1 - therefore countable according to my frosh math classes on the subject) so what we don't know is the total number of such numbers.
For that, I say that until we know the largest number, we can never get a count for all the numbers between the largest number and (insert value here, be it -[largest number] or 0 or what have you), even though we can define that set of numbers as countable.
But back to your post, you said that you would argue that my set S is bounded rather than my assumption of unbounded. For that I ask what's the largest number in S? Granted, that makes my proof seem to crumble, as I discussed above, but so if S is bounded then we definitely know that it has a countable number of elements. We can also show that we can always add 1 to the front or end of any base 2 number and have a larger number.
And I have no clue what the original question was, I started the discussion somewhere around the middle and started reading. Such is the Walk Of Shame on /. discussions, to come in in the middle and then have to admit that you don't know what the original question was. I was just going off the GGP, which said that the count was infinite.
I would think that any proof of the count of the number of primes would be refinable to a proof on the count of primes which only exist of 1's in a base 2 counting system. That's what I was aiming for above. So it doesn't matter what base or which set of primes, but that all sets of "all primes of manner x" should be uncountable. Unless we're talking about a specifically limited subset, such as the Fermat Primes I got served on above. (Dang you /. poster, RTFM before thinking... arghhh!)
But I am more interested in seeing people's responses today, not so much on the thinking aspect atm... I can tell it's time for lunch now... ciao
Eh, for the 10*1 thing, I didn't [spell|specify] it clearly enough, I meant 1(0)*1 or 11, 101, 1001, 10001, etc in a grammar format.
As for the counting of the Fermat Primes, I would imagine that since it quit working for after n=4 that that means that it's just a neat trick, but that there's no actual principle involved here.
And now that I've seen enlightenment of the form [Shut mouth|Stop Thinking], [Read response], [Think!] I've just realized that I went off on a WILD tangent. Yay that I still remember my basics on PMI proofs, but it looks like there is no useful information for the fact that given nAgain, I'm not sure what a complete count gives us, other than to say that we can count those primes. But counting what Fermat Numbers are Primes looks like a non-"useful" thing...
Now, I'm putting my brain back in [Listen] mode...
But 4097 is the product of two primes, so that might have some value as well...
1001 * 11110001 = 1000000000001
But can't we predict that about binary numbers?
Lookit 100001 = 33, right? which is 11 * 3, which is 1011 * 11
Ah, I give up, today is not the day for looking for patterns in binary numbers...
I believe you had to provide a mathematical proof?
Seriously? Ok, here goes. All primes which are comprised of a binary number of the format (1)* {where () denotes an element comprised of one or more characters, and * means to repeat that element 0 or more times} are members of a set of only positive integers. By definition of the set of positive integers only, those numbers are countable. {hint: by definition means not up for debate, right?}
Therefore, there are two sets of numbers present in our pool of positive integers {called Z}, those which conform to the rule { (1)* } and those which don't. So we'll denote the subsets of the major set as S and N. S is all those elements of (1)* type, and N is everything in Z which is not in S. (Oi, where's LaTeX when you need it? To those who would help me format it, no, I'm using strictly Latin ASCII basic characters)
Therefore, if everything in Z is countable (based on our previous definition), then some subset of Z is also countable. This can be proven by PMI. Thus, if S is a subset of Z, it is also countable.
Since the definition of (1)* means a repeating set of 1's, with no upper bound, then we can state that the total number of 1's permissible in the set is unbounded. However, since we know that the number which results from this set is only going to ever be positive (our definition) then we know that the unbounded set is countable. Therefore, the infinite set of numbers in S {which are of the form (1)*} are countable.
To continue onwards, if the set of numbers in S is itself a restriced subset of S, we can still show that any repeating form of 1's with an unbounded number of 1's is countable but infinite.
Ok, so about that prize... What's that? It's an expired Gift Cheque for an entry into the NASA naming contest, from the desk of ... Steven Colbert? zOMG, what a waste!
It seems like the number of primes of the form:
11 - three
101 - five
1001 - nine? But that's not prime...
10001 - seventeen
100001 - thirty-three? But that's not prime...
Are less than the number of binary fields of characteristic 10*1, so it's definitely countable, but seeing as how the algorithm only says "insert more zeros", that the number of insertable zeros is infinite. Therefore, while it's countable (only positives), it's still infinite, so there's no way to know what the count of those numbers is, without exhausting all entropy.
How is it that obtaining the count on that is an important concept? I can name infinity, and therefore have given you a count, but I still haven't proven anything...
Or is the question more akin to:
What is unique about the primes in the set defined by (whose first and last binary bit value is a 1, and all other values in binary are zero), that can be extrapolated to show usefulness to finding other primes?
Because it seems like the usefulness of that question on the short version is to say that all binary values of the form 1(00)*01 are prime, and all 1(00)*1 are not prime.
Let's try a few more examples of 1(00)*01, for the sake of completeness:
100000001 = 257
10000000001 = 1025 (not prime)
1000000000001 = 4097 (not prime, try 17)
So naturally we can see that 1(00)*01 is not sufficient.
I'm just stymied what having a count of said primes is going to do for us? It seems like the guys doing work on this have figured out that the pattern is (2^2^n)+1 where n>=1 and integer, so I'm not seeing how this is an unanswered question. The range of those is countable, but infinite.
Wait, what? Are you seriously considering that we don't advise people to do regular routine maintenance on their own vehicles? That's what the drivers of the world did up until the last 20 years or so. If you owned a car, you checked your own fluids, brakes, etc, or you paid someone to do it, regularly. Used to be a time when a person (male or female) would get derided for not knowing how to do basic car maintenance. How many "old guys" do you know that change their own brakes? Now, how many "young bucks"? Most of the people around my age or a little younger don't know how to do basic car maintenance, and this includes changing their own oil, replacing their own brakes, etc. Yes I know how, because my grandfather made me learn on some old rust bucket trucks. I'm glad for that now, because the only hassle when I go for my "annual inspection" is the hassle of pulling out my checkbook and the wait while they "work".
So advocating that we should have mandatory annual inspections on our cars to find the potential glitches is just more of the government doing the jobs that people should do for themselves.
And as for "forcing people to fix those faults saves lives", I only apply that to the lives of the "other parties" in those accidents. For all those who don't have the time to learn how to use the tool that they depend on every day, and would rather sacrifice their own safety for the extra fifteen minutes a week they could be spending on facebook (or whatever), I don't personally care for their safety. _I_ check my own fluid levels, tire pressure, tread depth, and brakes. _I_ monitor my car and watch the indicators so I know when there's a leaky seal on the gas cap big enough to cause a problem. (I've pulled one thing from the inspection that I know that they do that has some relevance. For this one thing alone, I say, perhaps we need better methods of regulation, but annual inspections is that regulation? One could conceivably go 11 months without knowing there was a bad cap, which is a lot of leakage.)
Now, if the inspectors checked my car's body frame for potential damage, or had some way to inspect the CV joints that I can't, or if they tested the seatbelt locking mechanism or airbag deployment, then perhaps it might be a good idea.
But you really think that government enforced business promotion is a good idea? (Hint: I've not got a state agency run shop that I can take my car to hear for the inspection, they're all done by private enterprise.) Where's the government mandate that people have to purchase my product or service annually? I would charge only 19.95 for my service, instead of 38.45 (or whatever $[bogus number] inspections cost around here)!!! While we're at it, can I get a federal mandate for people to purchase imaginary products from me monthly at rates I randomly set, while not providing a tangible service 1 time in 3? (Hint: I'm lambasting insurance. Not saying it's not important, just, there's that whole aspect of the government forcing me to pay a company for something I probably would never need. I know, that word probably changes the game. I get that. I'm talking about why isn't it a government run institution if they're so adamant about it. But now we're talking socialism, and hell, the gov't can't even run a brothel and sell whiskey to make a profit)