On 7 Feb 2002, at 14:11, Daran wrote: > > Nah, the candle is being burned from both ends. The point is that > > the small ones _are_ being poached. If you work in the same order as > > the poacher, work on lots of exponents will be replicated. If you > > work in the opposite order, only one exponent will be accidentally > > triple-checked. > > A solution, then, is not to do small exponants at all.
This suggestion is impractical as well as mildly facetious. If you have clients running 24x7 with automatic PrimeNet comms (the least intrusive method, from the point of view of the user) then you get new assignments at "random" times - the client checks how much work it has left every 65536 iterations. So you are liable to get small exponents from time to time. If you use manual client checkin to PrimeNet, or manual testing forms, then you _can_ pick a time of day when you are _unlikely_ to receive small exponents - but even this is no guarantee. Mary deliberately got a big bunch of small exponents when they became available, presumably because she felt she would be able to clear them in a reasonable time on a reasonably reliable system (or systems). In this respect she's actually acting with the same motivation as the poachers, but attempting to stay within the cooperative spirit of the project. It is for this reason that she is rightly upset about being poached. Regards Brian Beesley _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
