Mersenne Digest Monday, June 14 1999 Volume 01 : Number 577 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 08:51:12 -0400 From: Bryan Fullerton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575 On Sun, Jun 13, 1999 at 11:26:56PM -0600, Aaron Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But hey, this is just my opinion. After I test this little teeny tiny group > of numbers, I won't poach anymore and you can all do whatever, but I still > think it's a good idea to "clean house" every now and then. Agreed. I'm quite comfortable trusting George and Scott will take care of it, though. Bryan - -- Bryan Fullerton http://www.samurai.com/ Core Competency Samurai Consulting "No, we don't do seppuku." Can you feel the Ohmu call? ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 07:22:49 -0600 From: "Aaron Blosser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Mersenne: status of exponents > ### Are we better off with or without these machines? ### > > This is the question people have been asking you and that you have been > avoiding. It seems to me you are of the opinion that if a > machine doesn't meet > *your* standards of processor power or network connectivity, we > should just > tell the guy "hey, thanks, but no thanks, we've got better things > to do than > wait around for you." I haven't avoided the question. In fact, I think I've been quite emphatic that we need to find the work that is best suited to the computer we have. Let's face it, some computers just SHOULD NOT be running first time LL tests, even in the 4M-5M range, and here I'm talking specifically about 486 class machines. Even a P-60 could finish one of those up in less than a year. But for a 486, I'm thinking "factoring...factoring". > I am in no way opposed to reclaiming abandoned exponents, but to > simply start > working on them without contacting the current "owner" when you > have contact > information available is not only irrational but unethical, > regardless of the > nobility of your intentions. But I don't have contact information available. I have their primenet ID which means nothing to anyone but Scott, and I don't feel like bugging him in the form of "Scott, could you email this list of 13 people and ask them "Whassup wit dat?" > Who gets credit for the work is > irrelevant; the > fact is by doing this you are taking away their contribution > (regardless of > whether the number tested turns out to be prime or not) because > *you* didn't > think their machine was good enough for this project. Not really, because even if they finish, well hey, they just did a double-check. > Again just *ask*. It's the polite thing to do. It's the RIGHT > thing to do. > I feel like I have to repeat this because you have not attempted > to explain > at all why you went ahead and started working on the exponents > without asking. Okay, well I just did explain...I don't know who these people are. Aaron ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 07:26:59 -0600 From: "Aaron Blosser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Mersenne: Computer speeds & factoring > > The other (like with Peltier junction coolers) is that they > often generate > > as much heat as they dissipate. > > Often? _Always_! (Second law of thermodynamics. If you find this > is violated, get a patent immediately, you have a prototype > pertpetual-motion machine). Zing! Ya got me! :-) What I meant was that some people, with thermal sensors for their ambient case temp. besides one for their CPU, will see CPU temps drop a bit, but the ambient temp in the case will just skyrocket, and since Peltiers cool a certain amount below ambient temps, at some point even the CPU temp will be higher than before. In many cases, they have to overclock *less* than they did because other components can't take the increased speed (memory, peripherals, etc). Thus the need for even more case fans to rid the excess temps. Aaron ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 06:11:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Ashton Vaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575 - ---Aaron Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How about another option Aaron? You touch anyone's > > exponents...especially mine and I report you to the FBI for stealing? > > DAMNIT....I sure as hell hope the above message was in jest. You > > better not play around with my exponents (or anyone else's for that > > matter) or I'll raise hell on this list. > > Wow! Well, I wasn't kidding, I did grab some exponents and am testing them. > I guess you'll have to call the FBI? > > Obviously, opinions on this matter are VERY extreme! > > As for you Ashton, which of those numbers in my message belonged to you? > Are you still testing it and, if so, why no updates in over a year? > > Let me know and I'll leave you at it, but for goodness sake, if you have a > machine that slow, please consider factoring or double-checking smaller > exponents. It's just as important to do those tests and a slower machine is > much better suited. I don't use a hammer to cut wood, I don't use a > screwdriver to paint my walls, and I don't use a pocket calculator to do FFT > work, but for adding 2+2, it's just fine. Get the drift? Certain tools are > better suited to certain jobs. Find the job that your slower computer is > best suited for and go for it. > > Am I just wrong in thinking this? First of all, no, none of those exponents are mine. I have tons of machines running Prime95 and I'm pretty high up on the list of producers It's just that I think you're way off base on this...and I'm sure other people on this list think the same too. <whine, complain, etc.> George, (or someone else!) could you please explain to Aaron why he is off base of this one.....something along the lines of "Ashton has the right to set his machine to do whatever kind of work he wants it to do. It's a fun project. Don't go around annoying people, etc., etc. blah, blah." It's just not fair to take exponents that other people are working on (in the hopes of being the co-discoverer of M39) and have them find a "Exponent already tested" when their machine checks in two months....especially after some of the exponents you listed seemed to be more that 50% complete. Is it just me or are you just not thinking straight this past week? (Compared with your regular postings, they seem to be far more illogical!) Thanks! Ashton _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 07:40:25 -0600 From: "Aaron Blosser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575 > First of all, no, none of those exponents are mine. I have tons of > machines running Prime95 and I'm pretty high up on the list of > producers It's just that I think you're way off base on this...and I'm > sure other people on this list think the same too. <whine, complain, > etc.> George, (or someone else!) could you please explain to Aaron why > he is off base of this one.....something along the lines of "Ashton > has the right to set his machine to do whatever kind of work he wants > it to do. It's a fun project. Don't go around annoying people, etc., > etc. blah, blah." Well, I knew opinions would be varied on this matter...I've seen many "for" and many "against". I think what people react to the most is that I am taking it upon myself to grab certain exponents, whereas if Scott or George were to do it, they'd be more in favor of such "housecleaning". I suppose it's an indication that *I* am perhaps not as trustworthy as George and/or Scott, and there are certainly reasons why people would think that! :-) > It's just not fair to take exponents that other people are working > on (in the hopes of being the co-discoverer of M39) and have them find > a "Exponent already tested" when their machine checks in two > months....especially after some of the exponents you listed seemed to > be more that 50% complete. Is it just me or are you just not thinking > straight this past week? (Compared with your regular postings, they > seem to be far more illogical!) Sheesh, well it has been a rough past week... :-) Call it "testing the waters". I'm good at that. To my knowledge, the issue of poaching numbers has never been discussed (on the list anyway), so at least we got to talk about it. We now know that some people are a bit bothered by numbers that will take 2 years to finish, and some people could care less. What we do with that knowledge is to find a happy balance, I guess. Let's see if the "ever trustworthy" Scott and George have any comments on the matter...maybe something along the lines of the automated emails sent to the REALLY slow (over a year for one number) computers. Aaron ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:41:45 -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [none] At 11:26 PM 6/13/99 -0600, Aaron Blosser wrote: >> This is supposed to be fun, and your behaviour makes it the oposite. I >> don't want to stand guard over my exponents, sending in false progress >> reports to make you stay away from them. > >Hey, whoa. I'm not asking anyone to send in false status reports. I *real* >status report every now and then would do. In fact, a status report at >least every 6 months seems quite prudent, don't you think? > >And personally, I think that if a test will take over a year to complete, >you're probably better off doing factoring tests or double-checks, or maybe >some other (integer based) distributed computing project altogether. I like >GIMPS personally, but I'm not about to run Prime95 on my 486-75 laptop >except maybe for factoring assignments. > >I know that factoring means you won't find the next record breaking prime, >but so what? I try to run factoring assignments on my computers on the >"recommended" 10:1 ratio... 1 factoring assignment for every 10 LL tests. > >Factoring is every bit as important to GIMPS as anything else. We're now >doing first time LL tests in the 7M range...I can recall not too long ago >when I would get factoring assignments in that same range, and I like >knowing that I could use some of my slower machines to "pave the way" as it >were. > >I'm not out to do all this just to get in the top-100 list...you could take >away all my accumulated CPU time (though the others in my team madpoo might >not like that) and that'd be fine because I'd still know that I'm >contributing. > >Some people post to this list being upset that the work they turned in >hasn't shown up in the primenet status lists yet. I know that this is a >valid motivation for some people, but I do think they're missing a bigger >picture. We have thousands of people all tied together into one huge, very >well organized system. Scott and George have done wonders with putting this >altogether. I merely suggest that we try to clean up some of the bits that >ultimately will fall through the cracks. As I said before...exponents like >the ones that were pointed out earlier are a very rare exception to the >rule...but those exceptions must be dealt with to keep the coherency of >GIMPS intact. > >But hey, this is just my opinion. After I test this little teeny tiny group >of numbers, I won't poach anymore and you can all do whatever, but I still >think it's a good idea to "clean house" every now and then. > >Aaron > >________________________________________________________________ >Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:25:53 -0400 To: "Aaron Blosser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Jud McCranie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575 Cc: "Mersenne@Base. Com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:26 PM 6/13/99 -0600, Aaron Blosser wrote: +----------------------------------------------+ | Jud "program first and think later" McCranie | +----------------------------------------------+ ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:39:30 -0400 From: Jud McCranie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Windoze joke At 06:09 AM 6/14/99 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >The reason it took so long is that it wasn't until now that ANYONE >had Win9x run that long without rebooting. I might have actually hit that problem and not realized it. Until recently, for many months I had my old P-120 running in another room doing essentially nothing but Mersenne (double checks most recently). It was on a UPS, so unless there was a long-term power failure, it was on all of the time. I remember at least one time when it locked up for no apparent reason. +----------------------------------------------+ | Jud "program first and think later" McCranie | +----------------------------------------------+ ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:18:54 Set the time zone in the Time preference utility From: "Daren Scot Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #576 I've switched from Linux to BeOS - entirely, not even dual-booting both. Same hardware as before - PII 400 MHz. BeOS is POSIX compatible, has TCP/IP, but the file system is offbeat, and from what I hear most linux software needs a little bit of tweaking to compile for Be. Is there any Mersenne testing software that can run on BeOS? Or other interesting math crunching software? - -- Daren Scot Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.newcolor.com "Life is easy, except for that part between birth and death." ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:22:10 -0600 From: "Blosser, Jeremy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575 So basically, you are on some sort of drugs or something? I hate to jump to my brother's defence here, but I think that the point was to prove 100% that M37 was really M37 and not M38 or M39 or whatever, thus being able to get rid of the '?' on the GIMPs page. :) I think that in the spirit of a "team" effort, assigning an LL test to a 486 is the stupidest and most incosiderate thing a person could do. As far as the GIMPS effort goes, if your LL test is going to take a year, then perhaps you should do a factoring or double check assignment. As far as other efforts go, sure, we could form our own GIMPs like project and have competing projects, but I don't think thats a good idea. For example, when I was coding for distributed.net (RC5/DES), and were going for the DES-II stuff, and the EFF built their super-duper DES cracking machine, it seemed kinda unfair that they got the exponent before we did. Then for DES-III, they figured out a way to have their machine coordinate with the dist.net servers. So the whole effort was organized, and the whole range of keys went by much faster. Now, lets say for example, that the EFF decides they want to build a "Mersenne finding machine", which has 56,000 processors all doing LL tests, and they go right on past your exponent you have had checked out for over a year... would you feel slighted by the EFF? Give me a break folks, you are being way too anal about your assignments. I think it is quite clear to me that George and Scott missed a lot of exponents that slipped thru the cracks and my bro just decided to point that out in his own weird way. I might also add that when I saw my UltraEnterprise 4000 was doing something like .9s/iter, I thought, "Hmmm... thats no good". So I recompiled using Suns C compiler and increased my performance to a respectable .5s/iter so, I suggest that for the "Good of the team", it would be better to use the right tool for the right job... Or should I go out and write my LL tester for my HP calculator? Another note: You may have noticed that I worked on a Java LL tester in the past, and I decided not to release it until it had respectable speeds for this exact reason. Having > 1s/iter wasn't good enough for me. Sorry if you don't like that. Lastly, what is the deal with reporting my bro to the FBI for "stealing"? What, he stole your assignment? You know, there is a law against making false charges against someone. Best regards, Jeremy P.S. This whole argument is stupid, so why not just drop it. You can't really stop anyone from poaching, so are gonna go cry to George and Scott and say "Aaron stole my exponent which I've been working on for 3 yrs". I would say, "Do some factoring next time stupid!" But, really, I could care less if George and Scott decided to take team madpoo off the list for poaching or whatever (We're almost to 33). The whole idea is to go forward in the name of science, not "I want to reserve these 100 exponents cuz their small and I might find M37 and get my name in the history books". As a matter of fact, if Aaron finds a prime in his poached exponents, I'm sure he'll be glad to share credit with whoever had it checked out or whatever. Or for that matter, he would probably just give that person the full credit and not want any credit at all really. So if its your "Place in history" you are worried about, I don't really care. - -----Original Message----- From: Ashton Vaz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, June 13, 1999 8:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575 Hi Aaron, >Or this one: >4465127 60 472.3 311.8 371.8 26-Feb-98 09:23 koma >magek072 > >Checked out 2/26/98, *NEVER* checked in at all, over a YEAR until it >will >expire. > >There are quite a few like that, so I'm gonna play God and take care of >'em. >:-) > >Here's one I just *love*: > >4787599 61 376.0 662.0 722.0 02-Jun-98 16:42 >andres > >We could wait around 2 years to finally get around to testing this >obviously >abandoned one, or I'll just do it now. How about another option Aaron? You touch anyone's exponents...especially mine and I report you to the FBI for stealing? DAMNIT....I sure as hell hope the above message was in jest. You better not play around with my exponents (or anyone else's for that matter) or I'll raise hell on this list. <And now back to George's regular GIMPS programming on my only computer, my beloved P100!> Later all. Ashton _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:44:58 -0600 From: "Blosser, Jeremy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #573 Since the agner.org server seems to be down, if you want a copy of this doc, e-mail me and I'll e-mail it to you (Don't want to waste massive bandwidth). I'd mirror it, but my stupid internet provider only allows me to upload via their dial-in (doh!). Oh well. - ---snip--- >There's the good doc at: http://www.agner.org/assem/pentopt.htm which >explains all this stuff better than I could ever hope to. You gave me this link too; it gives a 404. :-) Time for a mirror? - ---snip--- > mov al, 0 Would it be a big problem replacing this with eax, etc.? Generally, 16-bit stuff isn't good for P6, although I can't see a direct partial stall in your code. - ---snip--- ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:26:03 +0300 (EET DST) From: Jukka Tapaila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: All the stuff about slow computers etc. My policy is to put all slower computers and those which aren't on 24/7 (such as computers at school) to work for distributed.net. I find they can do a lot more useful work cracking rc5 than they would do sitting on Mersenne exponent. Of course this is just my opinion, as I'm not so fond of maths as I'm of distributed computing, and I realize there are a lots of people who want to contribute all of their power to research instead of "useless" code cracking. But this really is an option to consider, as the exponents are getting larger and larger. --Jukkis ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:29:16 -0500 From: Paul Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Re: Poaching Alright, I've been quietly watching this until now... I've got a slower computer working on this project, and I've been involved for perhaps two years. My machine IS contributing to the project 24/7, and I'd like that to continue. >I'm not out to do all this just to get in the top-100 list...you >could take away all my accumulated CPU time (though the others >in my team madpoo might not like that) and that'd be fine because >I'd still know that I'm contributing. I feel the same way, because I can never possibly make the top-100 list. But you see, Aaron, I'd still like to know that I'm contributing, too. If someone comes along and poaches my exponents, where does that leave me? I wouldn't even know about it for quite some time. >I merely suggest that we try to clean up some of the bits that >ultimately will fall through the cracks. As I said before... >exponents like the ones that were pointed out earlier are a very >rare exception to the rule...but those exceptions must be dealt >with to keep the coherency of GIMPS intact. The way I understand it, they won't "fall through the cracks". They'll be reassigned whenever GEORGE decides, not you. >But hey, this is just my opinion. After I test this little teeny >tiny group of numbers, I won't poach anymore and you can all do >whatever, but I >still think it's a good idea to "clean house" every >now and then. I don't think that is for you to decide. I think you should stop testing someone else's "teeny tiny group of numbers", and resume doing work that YOU are assigned. If someone poaches my exponents, I'm gone from GIMPS for good. And THAT is CPU time that you'll NEVER get back. Paul Becker ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:58:17 -0600 From: "Blosser, Jeremy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Poaching Exponents... Okay, so apparently there are some people out there crying because someone might "steal" their exponents (and turn people into the FBI) I think my brother brought up a valid point, that being that there are exponents that people are "sitting" on, and it is holding up the verification of M37. And in his own way decided to bring the whole argument to a head by "poaching" some exponents that have been checking out for over a year for PRIMARY LL testing... My thought is that I don't really mind someone sitting on an exponent, but if you have some 386 doing a primary LL test on a number and its going to take over a year to accomplish, and its not connected to the internet but once a year... then maybe you should assign it a double check or a factoring test. It is the most *considerate* thing to do as far as the whole team approach is concerned. Really, the thought that someone wants to sit on an exponent for over a year because "I've checked it out, and I'm running it on my 386 that is connected to the internet once a year" is more inconsiderate than someone poaching your exponent. As far as poaching is concerned, I unlike my brother Aaron, think that George and Scott need to release whatever exponents, since there are only a dozen or so that have seemed to have slipped thru the cracks... I guess I'm just annoyed at the "?" next to M37... Lastly, I think that threatening to falsify primenet reports, or report someone to the FBI for "stealing" is really sophomoric. And I've noticed this has come from the anti-poaching camp... I suggest Aaron stop his poaching, that Scott and George work on getting all the exponents up to M37 at least have a primary LL check, and for those who are whining about someone poaching your exponents, try and think beyond the scope of yourself and think about the GIMPS effort as a whole. Try putting the machine to its best use (Factoring as opposed to LL testing). If you are so concerned about becoming "famous" for finding a new Mersenne Prime, spend the extra $200 or so and get a P233 which at least would finish its testing in 4 days (in the 3-4M range). Otherwise I suppose that it would be okay for me to run my GIMPS client on my toaster oven, in which case, I think it might finish its 700,000 range LL test in 2103... :) Later, Jeremy Blosser (Note: I am Aaron's BROTHER, not Aaron. Please try not to get confused by the fact that we have the same last name (I know thats a foriegn concept to some people) and send me nasty e-mails, it just makes you look stupid, and annoys me...) ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:34:20 -0700 From: "Joth Tupper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Ground Rules for "Poaching" ? Original Subject: RE: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575 This strand is getting kinda emotional. So we ask the director, "What is my motivation?" Hmm. I do GIMPS because it is fun. I am not a big contributor but I have a total of 5 machines running. Two months ago, I had two machines doing LL tests and this month I find that only one machine is doing an LL test. The rest are doing double-checks... at least while windoze is up and crawling. We just got hot weather (for us, anyway) and two of my slowest machines seem to be suffering heat-stroke but that is hardware rather than software. Even double-checking 3MM exponents is taking about 2 weeks on the fastest of these machines. I would say I am disappointed to see my 2nd fastest machine double-checking. On the other hand, I do not expect to draw a Mersenne prime in this lottery. I do want to see more primes discovered. Sure, I would like to say "(co-)discoverer of Mnn" in my digital signature, but the fact is that I am not THE discoverer, I just ran a program that George and company put together. When there is money or fame on the table, then that raises all sorts of value questions for people. I might even call it greed in myself. For the collective progress of GIMPS, I really like the idea of having some targets for 12/31/99 that can be stated fairly firmly, like tested up to 7.5MM and double-checked up to 5.0MM (or whatever the numbers are). The problem is that there may be a lot of machines out there (including some of mine) that will start something by or before September that will not be expected to finish by year-end. This could include some first-testing of exponents that yield a prime or even double checking that turns up a prime missed on the first pass (clearly only possible by a highly improbable concatenation of errors). So how about some administrative ground rules to make us all "happy" or at least aware of risks? Here is one thought for "poaching rules" for your consideration: first it only really matters if a prime turns up. So, for purposes of achieving a target for year-end, someone -- perhaps Scott -- will check the database for several sorts of holes. The highest priority will be exponents that have not been assigned, of course. Second priority is exponents assigned but not expected to be completed before some date like 10/1/99. These late-bloomers are a risky collection: they may or may not finish in time depending on hardware performance. Third is exponents with a really long time since assignment and last report. (A long-running exponent for someone that is expected to complete by 10/1 would not concern me at this time at all, even if it has been running for two years.) First, the GIMPer originally assigned an exponent "owns" the exponent. Someone who "poaches" that exponent -- starts testing the exponent before the first run completes -- is in fact double-checking the exponent even if this double-check finishes before the first LL test finishes. This may make lots of problems for the database. The real trick is in notifying the exponent owners. Suppose this notification starts in August. They should be notified that double-checking their exponents is underway and asked to respond, say within a month to verify that they are still running the first LL test (if this is not known). Second notices should go out about a month later to update those who responded and to ask again of the non-responders. If no new Mersenne primes turn up during this organized "poaching" then no harm will be done to anyone that I can see. However, there can be a real problem if the double-checking turns up a prime. Here, the owner of the exponent must complete the LL test without being told that there is a prime waiting!! If the owner's LL test somehow fails, then the double-checker gets the credit (and may have to wait a LONG time to see anything public). If the owner appears to drop out of GIMPS without completing the LL test, we face a crisis of conscience: do "we" tell this person that they need to complete this test or let them walk away? If they really want to drop out, do we tell them that they "owned" a winning exponent and must complete the LL test to get public credit for it? I suspect that the only way to preserve any confidentiality is to treat all of the slow cases and potential drop-outs the same and make them take a positive action to be active or to drop-out. The alternative is a passive acceptance of being dropped out. ...And I definitely do NOT like the idea of telling someone that they are dropped by GIMPS. That is really raw. But we still have a problem with an "owner" of a Mersenne prime who fails to respond to anything. At some point, that person must lose title perhaps after GIMPS makes a good faith effort to track them down. I think that this is the only real problem: does GIMPS have an obligation to someone who has been out of touch for over a year (or whatever period seems practical)? The Washington State Lottery voids winning tickets after 6 months, I think, so 6 months seems to be a reasonable time frame to cancel ownership of an exponent. GIMPS is strictly volunteer but we operate under some sort of by-laws, like any club. If we want the prize, we have to pony up the run time and report it somehow...even if by snail mail or by a phone call!! As impatient as I am to see the newest Mersenne prime, I can easily wait 6 months -- especially to avoid the potential for scandal that improper handling could bring to GIMPS. Sorry to be so long-winded. People -- including me -- feel very possessive about their exponents. This feeling is important to the continued health of GIMPS. On the other hand, GIMPS is a collaborative effort under the general guidance and control of a fairly small committee. I trust this committee to act in good faith for the contributors and for GIMPS but they will have to hold first allegiance to GIMPS. Perhaps there is something of value this suggestion for "poaching" rules. Please kick this around as hard as you can! Thanks, Joth - ----- Original Message ----- From: Ashton Vaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Aaron Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Mersenne@Base. Com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 6:11 AM Subject: RE: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575 > ---Aaron Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How about another option Aaron? You touch anyone's > > > exponents...especially mine and I report you to the FBI for > stealing? > > > DAMNIT....I sure as hell hope the above message was in jest. You > > > better not play around with my exponents (or anyone else's for that > > > matter) or I'll raise hell on this list. > > > > Wow! Well, I wasn't kidding, I did grab some exponents and am > testing them. > > I guess you'll have to call the FBI? > > > > Obviously, opinions on this matter are VERY extreme! > > > > As for you Ashton, which of those numbers in my message belonged to > you? > > Are you still testing it and, if so, why no updates in over a year? > > > > Let me know and I'll leave you at it, but for goodness sake, if you > have a > > machine that slow, please consider factoring or double-checking > smaller > > exponents. It's just as important to do those tests and a slower > machine is > > much better suited. I don't use a hammer to cut wood, I don't use a > > screwdriver to paint my walls, and I don't use a pocket calculator > to do FFT > > work, but for adding 2+2, it's just fine. Get the drift? Certain > tools are > > better suited to certain jobs. Find the job that your slower > computer is > > best suited for and go for it. > > > > Am I just wrong in thinking this? > > First of all, no, none of those exponents are mine. I have tons of > machines running Prime95 and I'm pretty high up on the list of > producers It's just that I think you're way off base on this...and I'm > sure other people on this list think the same too. <whine, complain, > etc.> George, (or someone else!) could you please explain to Aaron why > he is off base of this one.....something along the lines of "Ashton > has the right to set his machine to do whatever kind of work he wants > it to do. It's a fun project. Don't go around annoying people, etc., > etc. blah, blah." > > It's just not fair to take exponents that other people are working > on (in the hopes of being the co-discoverer of M39) and have them find > a "Exponent already tested" when their machine checks in two > months....especially after some of the exponents you listed seemed to > be more that 50% complete. Is it just me or are you just not thinking > straight this past week? (Compared with your regular postings, they > seem to be far more illogical!) > > Thanks! > > Ashton > _________________________________________________________ > DO YOU YAHOO!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > ________________________________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:46:01 -0700 From: "Joth Tupper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: These go to 11 (WAS: blahblah...) Actually, your a need not be a positive integer. Any non-zero Real, Complex, quaternion, Hamiltonian, Cayley or Sylvester number will do... among others... JT - ----- Original Message ----- From: Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 1:03 AM Subject: Mersenne: These go to 11 (WAS: blahblah...) > > >or, more concisely, (1+1+1)^(1+1) + 1. > > >Can anyone represent that number in fewer than (1+1+1)! ones? > > This all depends on what operators and notations are accepted and > without specifying that, the whole question is useless. > > What about without any ones at all: (With C++ operators) > ((0++)++)*(((((0++)++)++)++)++) > > or without any numbers: (With normal algebra) > > ((a/a)+(a/a))*((a/a)+(a/a)+(a/a)+(a/a)+(a/a)), a [belongs to] N > > > -- Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 11887013 > http://www.nic.fi/~laire/english or http://come.to/markuslaire > PGP Key: 4096/1024 DH/DSS ID: 0xB93CD277 > Fingerprint: 7C6B AE89 C243 F5A4 9702 EDAB 19ED 59B0 B93C D277 > ________________________________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:16:43 -0700 From: Kevin Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Poaching Exponents... "Blosser, Jeremy" wrote: > Okay, so apparently there are some people out there crying because someone > might "steal" their exponents (and turn people into the FBI) > > I think my brother brought up a valid point, that being that there are > exponents that people are "sitting" on, and it is holding up the > verification of M37. And in his own way decided to bring the whole argument > to a head by "poaching" some exponents that have been checking out for over > a year for PRIMARY LL testing... > > My thought is that I don't really mind someone sitting on an exponent, but > if you have some 386 doing a primary LL test on a number and its going to > take over a year to accomplish, and its not connected to the internet but > once a year... then maybe you should assign it a double check or a factoring > test. It is the most *considerate* thing to do as far as the whole team > approach is concerned. > > Really, the thought that someone wants to sit on an exponent for over a year > because "I've checked it out, and I'm running it on my 386 that is connected > to the internet once a year" is more inconsiderate than someone poaching > your exponent. > > As far as poaching is concerned, I unlike my brother Aaron, think that > George and Scott need to release whatever exponents, since there are only a > dozen or so that have seemed to have slipped thru the cracks... > Notice in the email from George on Sunday that he does do this, also it isn't really a few exponents holding up proving that m37? is m37. There are a lot on numbers still being tested, at least wait until it really is down to a few exponents holding things up(ones that look abandoned). Any checking of exponents that are not actually abandoned wastes time, you could be testing higher exponents instead of duplicating work someone else is doing, that will be double checked anyway. > > I guess I'm just annoyed at the "?" next to M37... > > Lastly, I think that threatening to falsify primenet reports, or report > someone to the FBI for "stealing" is really sophomoric. And I've noticed > this has come from the anti-poaching camp... I suggest Aaron stop his > poaching, that Scott and George work on getting all the exponents up to M37 > at least have a primary LL check, and for those who are whining about > someone poaching your exponents, try and think beyond the scope of yourself > and think about the GIMPS effort as a whole. Try putting the machine to its > best use (Factoring as opposed to LL testing). > > If you are so concerned about becoming "famous" for finding a new Mersenne > Prime, spend the extra $200 or so and get a P233 which at least would finish > its testing in 4 days (in the 3-4M range). > > Otherwise I suppose that it would be okay for me to run my GIMPS client on > my toaster oven, in which case, I think it might finish its 700,000 range LL > test in 2103... :) > > Later, > Jeremy Blosser > > (Note: I am Aaron's BROTHER, not Aaron. Please try not to get confused by > the fact that we have the same last name (I know thats a foriegn concept to > some people) and send me nasty e-mails, it just makes you look stupid, and > annoys me...) > ________________________________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ End of Mersenne Digest V1 #577 ******************************
