> Anyone receiving a TF task could edit the worktodo.ini from > Factor=20.abc.def,59 > to > Factor=20.abc.def,65 > He would receive approx. twice the credit the effort is worth.
In fact the probability of finding a factor would be less than one sixth. [...] > Would this cheat be trapped later by P-1 or does P-1 trust earlier work > so factors below say 67-bits are not considered? P-1 doesn't 'trust' the amount of TF, in the sense of failing to find (or ignoring) small factors. However the calculation of the probability of success - and hence of the optimal bounds - assumes that none will be found. P-1 and TF search different but overlapping factor spaces. My understanding is that P-1 has about a 1 in 3 chance of finding a factor in the TF range. However I don't think the server logs who finds a factor, or how it was found, or even if the exponent was assigned to the finder. > The above questions are _not_ asked because I intend to use the method. > :-/ I think it would miscredit GIMPS as we trust the results of GIMPS. Factorisation is merely a tool for quickly eliminating candidates. We do not double check negative results as a proof that there are no factors in the checked range (though found factors are checked by the server itself). > And I would be disappointed if I learned that an LL I did could have > been solved far earlier - and using less effort. One way to avoid this disappointment personally would be to focus solely upon TF or P-1. > br tsc Daran G. _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
