Re: Mersenne: Drifting UP(!) in Top Producers ranking?
Mary K. Conner wrote: You get credit for your work doing factoring even if you're not finding factors. Has this changed? When I joined GIMPS a couple of years ago I though Factoring only counted when a factor was found. Cheers... Russ DIGITAL FREEDOM! -- http://www.eff.org/ _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
RE: Mersenne: Drifting UP(!) in Top Producers ranking?
I'm pretty sure 'twas always thus. I mean, even if you don't find a factor, you're still doing work and contributing to the cause. When I had my little incident a few years back (4 and a half years ago, can you believe it?), the prime service was stopped before a single one had finished it's LL test, but, it did get quite a bit of factoring done, and even though it didn't find a big bunch of factors, my factoring credit did go up a wee bit. Not much... Most of the #'s had already been factored at that time, and this was well before the days of P-1 (I think we were still doing first time tests in the 4M exponent range). From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Russel Brooks You get credit for your work doing factoring even if you're not finding factors. Has this changed? When I joined GIMPS a couple of years ago I though Factoring only counted when a factor was found. _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
SV: Mersenne: Drifting UP(!) in Top Producers ranking?
These days you get an assignment say 21.1xx.xxx and it will give you approximately 0.057 P90/y. Team_prime_rib has a calculator for the exact value you will get for any number you TrialFactor and what you get if you really find a factor. Visit www.teamprimerib.com to get the p90.exe program. Which remind me, to avoid the cheat possible, the award for finding a factor should be set somehow bigger than only the nearest 6x bits. Give a factor something like the full value of TFing it to 66 bit! IMHO the TF with a factor found should be equal to an LL; but I have already discussed this with George and he is afraid only factoring would be done if the award is that high. br tsc -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Russel Brooks Sendt: to 21-11-2002 23:13 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Emne: Re: Mersenne: Drifting UP(!) in Top Producers ranking? Mary K. Conner wrote: You get credit for your work doing factoring even if you're not finding factors. Has this changed? When I joined GIMPS a couple of years ago I though Factoring only counted when a factor was found. Cheers... Russ DIGITAL FREEDOM! -- http://www.eff.org/ _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: SV: Mersenne: Drifting UP(!) in Top Producers ranking?
--On Friday, November 22, 2002 12:31 AM +0100 =?utf-8?Q?Torben_Schl=C3=BCntz?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These days you get an assignment say 21.1xx.xxx and it will give you approximately 0.057 P90/y. Team_prime_rib has a calculator for the exact value you will get for any number you TrialFactor and what you get if you really find a factor. Visit www.teamprimerib.com to get the p90.exe program. Which remind me, to avoid the cheat possible, the award for finding a factor should be set somehow bigger than only the nearest 6x bits. Give a factor something like the full value of TFing it to 66 bit! IMHO the TF with a factor found should be equal to an LL; but I have already discussed this with George and he is afraid only factoring would be done if the award is that high. That, and you get some rather ridiculous consequences if you do that. When George originally created the list of candidate exponents, he eliminated tens of millions of composite exponents, and an infinite number of negative exponents, non-integer exponents, imaginary exponents, and prime exponents above the range of the program. Should he get credit for all of these, especially given that it probably took him an afternoon of programming and computation combined, tops, to create the list? By your reasoning he should, since he removed the need for LL testing all those exponents... Nathan _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
RE: SV: Mersenne: Drifting UP(!) in Top Producers ranking?
When George originally created the list of candidate exponents, he eliminated tens of millions of composite exponents, and an infinite number of negative exponents, non-integer exponents, imaginary exponents, and prime exponents above the range of the program. Should he get credit for all of these, especially given that it probably took him an afternoon of programming and computation combined, tops, to create the list? By your reasoning he should, since he removed the need for LL testing all those exponents... Ahh, but none of those numbers would have been Mersenne numbers anyway by definition. :) The real work was probably just chugging through the first 53 or 54 bits of factoring. Relatively easy on the old CPU, and probably eliminated quite a bit right off the bat with a minimum of effort. I know it makes no difference to the project if a 53 bit factor is found, or a 65 bit factor. It may have taken longer to find the 65 bit one, but each still saved an entire LL test, so... On the one hand, the person doing the factoring might want to get more credit for factoring the larger #, because it took more CPU time to find. :) At any rate, figuring out how much points to award for doing trial factoring, and then if you even find a factor... You probably just gotta balance that in a way to encourage just the right amount of factoring work. :) Once the server (and client) are ready to assign P-1 work, this will probably all change a bit more to encourage some P-1 factoring work ahead of the LL tests. And maybe assigning 64 bit factoring, then P-1, and then 65 (and higher) bit factoring... In that order. (that was the optimum way to do it, right?) :) _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
