> Some time ago we went over this issue on this list. Since all exponents need
> to be checked twice anyway, it is possible to return a doublecheck on an
> number of which the 'original' result is not in yet. As long as it happens
> with a different CPU or different startingnumbers there is nothing at hand.
> Make sure though that not the same work is done twice, since it has not added
> value.
Great. Next time Primenet tells me "Error, this exponent is already
tested" on the exponent I reserved a few months ago, I should be very
happy and tell myself: "Great! Someone have tested the exponent for me,
and will get the credit if it was prime! I should just be happy and keep
testing to verify the nice guys result. The question, if the number was
prime or not have been answered by someone else, but why should I care
about that?"
And when the exponent is released again for double-checking and returned
before my test is finished, I should tell myself: "Good, I'm contributing
to the project by checking the exponent for the third time."
Nah.
Perhaps I should just start picking random numbers from the list of
current assignments, if I think that I can finish them first. As you say,
all exponents have to be tested twice anyway so it can't hurt. Rules are
made for wimps. Also I think that I should pretend to never have been a
part of GIMPS if I find a new Mersenne prime. Just ignoring the rules,
like you.
When a person tells the world which exponents he is testing, and
continously reports his progress, people could at least complain to him
before hijacking the exponents he has been testing for a year with the
dream of becoming a discoverer of the next Mersenne prime. Stealing the
exponent on purpose without even sending him an email is just plain wrong.
This way you encourage him to send false progress reports or results to
keep you away. "Heck, I send in this bogus result to keep people happy
while I continue to check if this is a Mersenne prime. It will always
take some time before someone double check it, so I would probably have
more than enough time to get the real result."
I, at least, would change to another project very quickly if the now very
well coordinated Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search is turned into an
anarchy were people are encouraged to cheat.
Btw.: I've double checked approximately 450 exponents to present, far
more than I've tested for the first time, and have 60 machines double
checking other peoples results as I write this. I think that I'm doing
my fair part of the less exciting double checking.
--
Sturle URL: http://www.stud.ifi.uio.no/~sturles/ Er det m}ndag i dag?
~~~~~~ MMF: http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=BUP399 - St. URLe
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
