At 08:38 PM 12/3/2001 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion that "a 'Factored' status is >better for GIMPS than a 'Two LL' status"
I think everyone is in agreement on this. >But if factoring is not really part of GIMPS's purpose (and I agree it >isn't), I think of GIMPS as two projects. The larger project is "let's find the next Mersenne prime". The much smaller project is "let's maximize our knowledge of all Mersenne numbers". >I'm saying that it is rational for someone to decide to factor past >the Prime95-calculated tradeoff points, I agree. I've done several P90 CPU years of that myself. I think more of the discussion has centered around stats and the formula for picking how far to trial factor, rather than whether factoring is of some mathematical value. I'm not inclined to change the trial factoring formula. If I recall correctly, when I last computed the formula I erred on the side of more factoring rather than less. As to the stats, maybe, just maybe, we can upgrade our stats system in 2002. I know from other distributed projects that many users are fanatical about any changes in stats. We will have to tread very carefully! -- George _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
