-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 May 2001 14:31
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: 26 exponents
>On Mon, 14 May 2001 00:20:47 +0100, Daran wrote:
>
>>As someone currently running a legacy machine, (It's taking 4-5 months to
run
>>double-checks in the range under consideration,) I have some thoughts on
this.
>>
>>First of all, as Jud notes, the 'elitism' is already there, in that
different
>>machines get treated differently in the assignments that they are given. It
>>also lies at the heart of the 'Top producer' chart.
>
>Every distributed computing project larger than a few dozen members
>has such a chart. It would be difficult to keep people interested
>without one. I know that I don't feel less a part of the project
>because my placing is above 4,000.
I daren't look at my placing, but I'm pretty sure I'm going backwards. :-)
>>Even readers of this list
>>get opportunities to acquire exponents or prebeta-test software, etc., that
>>are not available to the unwashed masses.
>
>Very true. Of course, George can hardly contact all several thousand
>participants when such an opportunity happens.
As I said, the intention is not to criticise current practice, but to point at
that there is already differential treatment between participants, and that it
really isn't something to worry about, IMO.
[...]
>>If I choose to specify what kind of work I want, I
>>still expect the be given the work that "makes most sense" within that
>>category. I certainly would not expect to be given work that would delay a
>>milestone, given the limitations of my machine.
>
>This might be a reasonable change in PrimeNet. Personally, I don't
>think milestones should be a focus of the project, but it is nice when
>a new one appears on the page.
True. Similarly top producer ranking isn't a focus of the project, but it's
nice (or not nice, in my case) to see how well you're doing.
[...]
>I still think that this is very debatable. There should not be a
>certain /assignment type/ reserved for 'veterans', but it may be
>reasonable to, e.g., only give triple-checks to accounts that request
>double-checks, and have returned more than a certain number of
>results.
In what way is that not reserving an assignment type - triple-checks - to
veterans?
>>People need to be informed about
>>departures from documented practice.
>
>Are you suggesting that, every time George offers exponents to the
>members of this mailing list, he should send out a newsletter to every
>participant - guaranteeing hundreds or thousands of replies for him to
>deal with? I think there may be no good solution to this.
No, of course not. I meant changes in practise that affect /them/. For
example the suggestion that an exponent be assigned to two people
simultaneously, with the first one back counting as the primary test, and the
second as the double-check. If I asked for a first-time check (or if I
thought I had been given one), then I should not be happy if I found out later
that someone else had gotten there first..
>Nathan
Daran G.
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
