Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038
Hi everyone, This is a general reply to most of the messages posted here about poaching and anything related!!! It doesn't matter if numbers were poached, are being poached or will be poached, and it doesn't matter if I discover a new prime or if anybody else discovers it, or whatever, what matters is that humanity has now good enough (not sure!) tools to discover new primes, so anyone with a 300 $ machine can achieve that, and actually, it would just be like revealing a fact that everyone can live without! So, unless we might redefine what a prime number is (which is unlikely!) the numbers will never change, they will remain prime! We are proving nothing! It's the math tools that are proving whatever has to be proved, we are just using our computers as complementary tools! Suppose that I discover a 10 million digits prime using the Lucas-Lehmer test, on a stupid machine... And let's tell what is great and what is not! First, if the Lucas-Lehmer didn't exist, the discovery would have been impossible! Second, if the stupid machines didn't exist, the discovery would have been (almost!) impossible! Third, if the project did not exist, the discovery would take let's say a lot more time than what it takes with it! And Last, if I did not exist, anyone else could have done it! So, I'm doing nothing! I'd rather try to find a new algorithm to be listed in first! ;-) (I should've mentionned that first if human beings didn't exist, then... you can figure this out! No offence to the possible existence of ET intelligence!) So, poaching is just useless for the poachers! They can use their intelligence somewhere else where they can get a lot more benefits or at least a real benefit! By the way, if you read the about prime95 dialog box, it's mentionned that it's a just for fun software!!! One last word, Prime 95 could be cooler and more fun if there were logs for every iteration! Like all the calculations and stuff! But it wouldn't interest a lot of people, so, as prime 95 is open source, I'll do that myself! Cheers! Elias Daher (double majoring in mathematics and computer science in Paris, France) _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Poaching -- Discouragement thereof
At 10:45 PM 1/26/03 +, Brian J. Beesley wrote: On Sunday 26 January 2003 19:55, Mary K. Conner wrote: [ big snip - lots of _very_ sensible ideas!!! ] Primenet, and Primenet should preferentially give work over 64 bits to SSE2 clients, and perhaps direct others to factor only up to 64 bits unless there aren't enough SSE2 clients to handle the over 64 bit work (or if the owner of a machine asks for over 64 bit work). Umm. Last time I checked, it seemed to be a waste of an SSE2 system to be running trial factoring ... the LL testing performance is so good that they really should be doing that. It would only apply to SSE2 machines that want to run factoring. We can't force SSE2 owners to run LL if they want to run factoring. At least this would put the SSE2 power where it shines in factoring, instead of the bit ranges where it is abysmally bad. _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038
At 10:06 PM 1/26/03 -0500, Paul Missman wrote: I know that this might be earth shattering news for you, but there is no such thing as poaching. Neither GIMPS or Primenet have any license to these numbers, nor are they the only entities testing large numbers for primality. If my sister reads from her math book a method of testing large primes, knows nothing of Primenet or GIMPS, tests the numbers on her home computer, and finds a large prime, she is gonna publish it. She might choose to send any results to GIMPS, or not. She might double check it using GIMPS provided software, or not. But for sure nobody has any reason to prevent her from doing any of this. There simply is no real problem here that is begging for solution. Anyone is entitled to test any number they want for primality. GIMPS isn't the prime number police, nor would they have any right to be. I never meant to suggest that people outside of GIMPS have no right to be doing testing. If someone scoops GIMPS to a prime (and it has happened), then c'est la vie. If someone just wants to test some numbers (even using Prime95) without using the cooperative Primenet data, and even report their results to George, that's fine. What I'm suggesting is that if someone decides to participate in GIMPS and use Primenet (including the databases and reports), then they should most definitely not be using those databases and reports to pick candidates for testing that have been assigned to other people. If they want the benefits of the cooperation, then they should respect the assignment process that produces those benefits. _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Poaching -- Definition (was: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038)
Paul Missman wrote: I know that this might be earth shattering news for you, but there is no such thing as poaching. I think that folks who've been following the poaching discussion from the beginning know that there is indeed such a thing, and what it is. But let me post a refresher for the sake of newcomers. (Sayyy ... this ought to be in the PrimeNet FAQ! I'll volunteer to write it up as such, once the discussion has proceeded to the point where it seems that we have sound definitions.) In the context of GIMPS/PrimeNet, poach is used by analogy to certain more widespread uses of the verb. From Webster's Third New International Dictionary [the square-bracketed words are expansions of the dictionary's abbreviations]: poach // [verb] ... 3a: to trespass on (a field [poach]ed too frequently by the amateur) -- often used with _on_ or _upon_ (what happens to a poet when he [poach]es upon a novelist's preserves -- Virginia Woolf) b: to take (game or fish) by illegal methods ... [verb intransitive] ... 3: to trepass for the purpose of stealing game : take game or fish illegally (had taken to [poach]ing as a means of supplying fresh meat for the table -- H.D.Quillin) 4: to play a ball in a racket game that should normally be played by one's partner In GIMPS/PrimeNet, what is being trespassed upon is an exclusive assignment by GIMPS (represented by George Woltman) or by PrimeNet to L-L test a specific Mersenne number for primality. Since GIMPS/PrimeNet is not a government entity, instead of laws we have rules, so instead of illegal we mean in violation of the established rules for assignments. Our preserves are the GIMPS/PrimeNet assignments. Our game or fish is the privilege to be the exclusive tester of the specific Mersenne number which has been assigned. That privilege includes the right to be the first person to know the result of a first-time Lucas-Lehmer primality test, and, if that result is that the number is prime, the right to be designated as the discoverer of that particular Mersenne prime. The latter right is of considerable importance and weight within the world of mathematics, and thus is deemed to have a high value, not at all trivial, in our context. For doublechecking assignments, the privilege associated with an exclusive GIMPS or PrimeNet assignment includes the right to be the first person to know the result of a doublechecking Lucas-Lehmer primality test, and, if that result is that the number is prime, the right to be designated as the discoverer of that particular Mersenne prime if it turns out that the first-time result of nonprimality was incorrect. Also, the GIMPS/PrimeNet assignment system can be considered analogous to rules for determining which partner in a racket game is to be the one to play a ball. Neither GIMPS or PrimeNet have any license to these numbers, But they have rules of the game, and poaching is a violation of those rules. The GIMPS/PrimeNEt assignment system was established for at least these reasons: (a) to make work on Mersenne numbers efficient by avoiding needless duplication of effort, and (b) to provide world-wide incentive for people to participate by establishing the privileges listed above. Poaching works against those goals. Pretending that GIMPS/Primenet poaching concerns the laws of a governmental entity, or that governmental legality is relevant to our discussion would be a straw man type of argument. nor are they the only entities testing large numbers for primality. They _are_ the established clearinghouse for testing _Mersenne_ numbers for primality. The M in GIMPS stands for Mersenne. Neither GIMPS nor PrimeNet attempts to make assignments for any other category of number. If my sister reads from her math book a method of testing large primes, knows nothing of PrimeNet or GIMPS, tests the numbers on her home computer, and finds a large prime, she is gonna publish it. ... and (provided the number were a Mersenne prime in particular) she would not be deemed to have poached if she did so in ignorance of GIMPS and Primenet. But the poachers with which this discussion is concerned are those who _do_ know about the GIMPS/Primenet assignment system but nevertheless deliberately choose to violate its assignment rules. She might choose to send any results to GIMPS, or not. Okay. She might double check it using GIMPS provided software, or not. If she did, it would weaken any claim of ignorance of the assignment system. But for sure nobody has any reason to prevent her from doing any of this. ... _if_ she genuinely was working outside GIMPS/PrimeNet and was not aware of the GIMPS/PrimeNet assignment system. There simply is no real problem here that is begging for solution. Some folks who _have_ followed this discussion and have participated in GIMPS a long time might like to pretend so. But, yes, there is a real problem here. Richard Woods
Re: Poaching -- Definition (was: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1#1038)
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Richard Woods wrote: Paul Missman wrote: I know that this might be earth shattering news for you, but there is no such thing as poaching. I think that folks who've been following the poaching discussion from the beginning know that there is indeed such a thing, and what it is. But let me post a refresher for the sake of newcomers. You know, the anti-poachers seem so strident and self-absorbed and hell-bent on their mission to make poaching into the next offense that the U.N. investigates that I'm inclined to begin doing some poaching just to tweak them a bit. I wonder what numbers this Woods fellow has reserved...;-) Kel A GIMPS participant since George had only 300 of us running his fine program(s) _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: An officially sanctioned poach....
It's been quite awhile since I've done a release of exponents that seem to be stuck - probably over a year. I've identified 185 exponents that have had NO progress reported and are either: a) Below 12,000,000 and been assigned for 200 days or more, or b) Between 12 and 20 million and been assigned for 300 days or more Does anyone see any problems with releasing these exponents back into the pool? _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
RE: Poaching -- Definition (was: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038)
If memory serves me correct, I was the first one to use the term poaching in reference to snagging numbers assigned to someone else, so I'll add my $0.02 worth. :) At the time (and this debate still comes up every now and then), Primenet didn't expire exponents... That was something that George and Scott would do manually on a periodic basis. I thought nothing at all of going through the primenet work lists and finding exponents that hadn't been checked on in a while or had been running for years, or that still had years left to run, and then just completing them myself in order to get the darn things cleared off. The reasoning behind it was (and still is) to clear out old exponents being double-checked so that we would be able to confirm the order of the known Mersenne primes... Having to wait for 2 years (and yes, there were some like that) for a single exponent to be double-checked when that would hold up proving the ordering of a certain prime, well... It bugged me. :) Now that exponents are re-released automatically after not being checked in for 60 days, that has certainly helped. There are still the odd machines (486's or what?) out there that run and actually do check in from time to time, yet will take years to complete a single LL test, but the issue of finishing out double-check ranges hasn't really come up in a while, so I don't care so much at the moment. However, it should be noted that I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to poach a double-check from a MUCH slower machine if that's what was holding up finishing off a range of checks... By slow, I mean an exponent that was still showing over 6 months or so to complete, especially when a good, new machine could finish the same exponent in a couple of days. :) For the most part though, it seemed that once upon a time there was a problem with poachers who just took small exponents from people who were actually still working on them, and simply ran them on a faster machine or something. That's the sort of thing that gives us respectable poachers a bad name. :-D As for any legal issues, well, at the time there were no rewards for finding the next prime, so if I had happened to poach a prime #, I'm sure it wouldn't have been a big a deal as it would be now if you were actually going to claim some prize money as a result. Still though, IANAL but it would seem that since these numbers are public domain, and nobody can be said to have any special claim to any of them, you probably wouldn't have much legal standing if you wanted to go after someone who poached a number from you that turned out to be a prize winning prime. Yeah, it'd suck, but you know the old saying... Life isn't fair. :) Aaron PS - I can't remember how long I've been doing GIMPS now... Since before Primenet, but I can't recall how long ago that was... '96 maybe? '97? Seems like ages at any rate. I just recall sending emails to George telling him which numbers I'd picked from the database to start working on. :) The original primenet. :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kel Utendorf Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 12:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Poaching -- Definition (was: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038) On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Richard Woods wrote: Paul Missman wrote: I know that this might be earth shattering news for you, but there is no such thing as poaching. I think that folks who've been following the poaching discussion from the beginning know that there is indeed such a thing, and what it is. But let me post a refresher for the sake of newcomers. You know, the anti-poachers seem so strident and self-absorbed and hell-bent on their mission to make poaching into the next offense that the U.N. investigates that I'm inclined to begin doing some poaching just to tweak them a bit. I wonder what numbers this Woods fellow has reserved...;-) Kel A GIMPS participant since George had only 300 of us running his fine program(s) _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
VS: Mersenne: An officially sanctioned poach....
Fra: George Woltman Sendt: ma 27-01-2003 21:29 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Emne: Mersenne: An officially sanctioned poach It's been quite awhile since I've done a release of exponents that seem to be stuck - probably over a year. I've identified 185 exponents that have had NO progress reported and are either: a) Below 12,000,000 and been assigned for 200 days or more, or b) Between 12 and 20 million and been assigned for 300 days or more Does anyone see any problems with releasing these exponents back into the pool? Hi George! I don't really understand the question. If these 185 assignments have made NO progress in a year why didn't they expire in about 60 days automaticly? I've seen this expiring happen to some of my machines - no problem - 6n days of inactivity and they dies at my account. Do you by NO progress mean close to NO progress? I would like to have an email informing me about a short period of time to get that machine up and running again. I don't have any reason for postponing any milestone, so my answer could as well be: I know that machine died after many years of work so please expire all the work assigned to machine: xyzxyzxx. With approx. 70 machines and only me to support them I would just like to be warned. br tsc and let us soon find another gem! _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: An officially sanctioned poach....
I've identified 185 exponents that have had NO progress reported and are either: a) Below 12,000,000 and been assigned for 200 days or more, or b) Between 12 and 20 million and been assigned for 300 days or more Does anyone see any problems with releasing these exponents back into the pool? I don't see any problem there... I've got a few rather slow machines working away, but none of them have come close to those conditions... prime fact current days exponentbits iteration run / to go / exp date updated date assigned -- - - --- --- a old 150MHz compaq 14581247 65 12386304 379.0 57.6 61.6 27-Jan-03 11:59 13-Jan-02 22:57 a 300MHz dell workstation... 16061027 65 10289151 205.7 57.2 60.2 26-Jan-03 01:06 06-Jul-02 05:43 17940641 66 3.2 238.2 60.2 26-Jan-03 01:06 24-Jan-03 17:48 a p2-400 thats 99% idle 15350897 66 11206656 123.2 27.4 61.4 27-Jan-03 06:52 26-Sep-02 16:16 16667383 65 32.4 138.4 61.4 27-Jan-03 06:52 26-Dec-02 12:26 another p2-400 thats 99% idle 17162647 65 268697673.6 95.5 61.5 27-Jan-03 10:45 15-Nov-02 07:51 dell dual p3-xeon 600 server 16774487 66 6750208 111.0 44.3 61.3 27-Jan-03 04:49 08-Oct-02 20:13 17732821 65 17.9 122.3 61.3 27-Jan-03 04:49 09-Jan-03 23:47 16743187 66 7602175 114.1 39.0 61.0 26-Jan-03 21:14 05-Oct-02 19:24 17721617 65 22.0 114.0 61.0 26-Jan-03 21:14 05-Jan-03 21:17 a p3-800 16765747 66 6225920 112.0 37.7 61.7 27-Jan-03 14:58 07-Oct-02 22:42 17543573 65 40.2 99.7 61.7 27-Jan-03 14:58 18-Dec-02 17:36 a p4-1.7G 16330969 66 230924781.3 12.3 60.3 26-Jan-03 03:08 07-Nov-02 13:56 14746003 66 46.6 39.3 60.3 26-Jan-03 03:08 12-Dec-02 06:41 17366381 65 55.8 28.3 60.3 26-Jan-03 03:08 03-Dec-02 01:44 17692057 65 24.8 57.3 60.3 26-Jan-03 03:08 03-Jan-03 01:22 17891527 66 7.0 75.3 60.3 26-Jan-03 03:08 20-Jan-03 21:32 I just updated the p150 to v22, so hopefully, its next assignment will be something more suited to its pigginess like factoring. _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
RE: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038
The fact that life doesn't end is not an excuse to poach. Poaching hurts the project because it drives away participants. It is not harmless. I don't know why people keep defending it. I think that there are two possible solution paths to poaching. 1. Punishment (capital punishment?) and making poaching hard to do. 2. trying to understand causes behind poaching and then change the server software more milestone friendly. I think that we are like to reach milestones. I personally refer option 2. I like when we reach milestones and here are few things I would like to change : 1. Why one size fits to all? 60 days expiry time to all task is not a good idea. Smaller tasks should have lower one. Like 30 days. 2. I would like to assign bottom 5 % of double check assignments to trusted searches (who have shown that they return their jobs fast and reliably. 3. When George release small exponents to triple check then these should assigned to trusted searches. 4. very slow computers should concentrate to trial factoring. 5. maximum time limit to bottom 5% double checks (like 6 months) I think that poacher does not necessarily care about cpu credit so taking that away from poacher is not sure solution. I don't know any other realistic punishment. Rejecting work does not sound very clever idea. I think that we should start with option 2 and wait some time and only after that start using option 1. Yours, Nuutti _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: 80% instead of 100%? (was Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038)
As I finished reading Gordon Spence's latest post, I was startled by his last paragraph. Gordon Spence wrote: And before you go off and waste hours trawling through all the masses of data on the project files to try and work out if I have ever poached any numbers, I'll save you the bother. Yes I have. How many? - can't remember, less than 20 or so. Will I do it ever again? - don't know. So I checked digest #1038. There, Gordon Spence wrote, in response to an earlier question of mine: Is there any particularly _special_ relationship between being a Mersenne prime discoverer and being trusted not to poach? Unless there is some such special relationship, I imagine that thousands of non-discoverers could also be trusted not to poach. Well in actual fact, there *is* now that you come to mention it. As a Mersenne Prime discoverer I am given immediate notification of any new MP immediately it is reported, ie *before* it is verified. We are trusted to keep it quiet.because when we discovered ours we proved that we were capable of _discretion_ Back to Mr. Spence's latest post -- in item 11, just four paragraphs above his last one which I quoted above, he wrote: My point is that there are a small number of people who we know for 100% certain can be trusted to act with discretion when sensitive information is involved. Now, to me, until I got to the final paragraph, it seemed that Mr. Spence had been claiming in this discussion that Mersenne prime discoverers could be _more_ trusted not to poach than other people could. But let's look at that final paragraph again: And before you go off and waste hours trawling through all the masses of data on the project files to try and work out if I have ever poached any numbers, I'll save you the bother. Yes I have. How many? - can't remember, less than 20 or so. Will I do it ever again? - don't know. In other words, the man claiming that he could be especially trusted admits _having already poached, perhaps up to 20 or so times_. I suppose I should commend his honesty. So, maybe only 80% of Mersenne prime discoverers during the GIMPS era can be trusted not to poach, instead of 100%? Richard Woods _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1039
[snip] From: Mary K. Conner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1036 [snip] There are plenty of triple checks that happen accidentally. There is no GIMPS need to do some on purpose, especially to the detriment of a participant that is following the rules. If someone feels a personal need to do triple checks, they should do them on exponents that are already double checked. Actually the project *does* deliberately do a fair number of triple checks. You just see them as double checks that's all. Why? where the residue bits returned from the first and second, do not match. Gordon Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:31:33 -0500 From: Nathan Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038 [snip] What if your prime had been lost to poaching? I think that's every participant's worst fear. I would have been very annoyed. but you know what, my life would have gone on and I would have gotten over it. Life happens despite your best efforts. Gordon From: Mary K. Conner [EMAIL PROTECTED] The fact that life doesn't end is not an excuse to poach. Poaching hurts the project because it drives away participants. It is not harmless. I don't know why people keep defending it. Nobody here is particularly defending it, we just don't see it as a crime against humanity like a few people on here seem to. In fact it seems to me that all those who are carrying on about it are mostly latecomers to the party. Gordon Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:09:55 + From: Daran [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038 On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:01:26PM +, Gordon Spence wrote: 1. Personally, I don't see any harm in poaching per se, I have had it happen to me. That's life and the way it goes. As I stated earlier, when information is discovered humanity as a whole gains. Period. Look at the big picture. I don't quite see what 'humanity as a whole gains' when I return a negative result, or even a new factor, to the server. The biggest picture in which what we do has any significance at all, is the GIMPS project as a whole. Correct, and returning a factor adds to the sum of human knowledge, we know something we didn't know previously. Even your negative result if it confirms a previous negative, adds to human knowledge in that we know for define that the particular exponent is composite. Gordon Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:28:04 -0500 From: Richard Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Poaching -- Definition (was: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038) Paul Missman wrote: I know that this might be earth shattering news for you, but there is no such thing as poaching. I think that folks who've been following the poaching discussion from the beginning know that there is indeed such a thing, and what it is. But let me post a refresher for the sake of newcomers. Don't bother we have heard it all before, several times and no doubt it will crop up again in about a year or so. Until the license file specifically _exludes_ it and the check-in/check-out process _prevents_ it, then despite the fact that it outside the *spirit* of the project, it is within the *rules*. Gordon Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:01:10 -0500 (EST) From: Kel Utendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Poaching -- Definition (was: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038) [snip] You know, the anti-poachers seem so strident and self-absorbed and hell-bent on their mission to make poaching into the next offense that the U.N. investigates that I'm inclined to begin doing some poaching just to tweak them a bit. I wonder what numbers this Woods fellow has reserved...;-) I've already been searching and I've identified quite a few candidates! Hmmm. ;-))) Kel A GIMPS participant since George had only 300 of us running his fine program(s) I think I joined at around the 700 or so mark. Gordon Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:57:37 -0800 From: Aaron [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Poaching -- Definition (was: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1038) [snip] However, it should be noted that I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to poach a double-check from a MUCH slower machine if that's what was holding up finishing off a range of checks... By slow, I mean an exponent that was still showing over 6 months or so to complete, especially when a good, new machine could finish the same exponent in a couple of days. :) Well said that man. Absolutely agree. Gordon _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1039
At 12:04 AM 1/28/03 +, Gordon Spence wrote: [snip] From: Mary K. Conner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1036 [snip] There are plenty of triple checks that happen accidentally. There is no GIMPS need to do some on purpose, especially to the detriment of a participant that is following the rules. If someone feels a personal need to do triple checks, they should do them on exponents that are already double checked. Actually the project *does* deliberately do a fair number of triple checks. You just see them as double checks that's all. Why? where the residue bits returned from the first and second, do not match. Different animal. I know about extra checks when residues don't match. I'm speaking of triple or higher checks where all residues agree. The only reason to do those other than the exponents that have only 16 bit residues is to check for cheating. If those kinds of checks need to be done, they ought to be done with intelligence, not by random poaching. _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: An officially sanctioned poach....
George, Can you clarify again what no progress is? The same person who has the exponents you mentioned also has several exponent that show up 1 iteration complete. Are you going to nuke those as well? The one group of people I'm a bit afraid for - since I have belonged to that group - are the non-Prime95 participants. Glucas and Mlucas do not provide a way to report progress. There may be a few legitimate exponents that get swept out by this process as well. Particularly on Team_Prime_Rib where our queues sometimes run deep. There were several exponents that I grabbed back in July that are still in the process of being worked on and should be completed in 2-3 weeks. If we do some of our own housekeeping will it be possible to explicitly list the exponents we want to prevent being unreserved? If so, do let us know what format you would want that list in. Thanks, Garo _ Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
