Original Subject: RE: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575
This strand is getting kinda emotional. So we ask the director, "What is my
motivation?" Hmm.
I do GIMPS because it is fun. I am not a big contributor but I have a total
of 5 machines running. Two months ago, I had two machines doing LL tests
and this month I find that only one machine is doing an LL test. The rest
are doing double-checks... at least while windoze is up and crawling. We
just got hot weather (for us, anyway) and two of my slowest machines seem to
be suffering heat-stroke but that is hardware rather than software.
Even double-checking 3MM exponents is taking about 2 weeks on the fastest of
these machines. I would say I am disappointed to see my 2nd fastest machine
double-checking.
On the other hand, I do not expect to draw a Mersenne prime in this
lottery. I do want to see more primes discovered. Sure, I would like to
say "(co-)discoverer of Mnn" in my digital signature, but the fact is that I
am not THE discoverer, I just ran a program that George and company put
together. When there is money or fame on the table, then that raises all
sorts of value questions for people. I might even call it greed in myself.
For the collective progress of GIMPS, I really like the idea of having some
targets for 12/31/99 that can be stated fairly firmly, like tested up to
7.5MM and double-checked up to 5.0MM (or whatever the numbers are).
The problem is that there may be a lot of machines out there (including some
of mine) that will start something by or before September that will not be
expected to finish by year-end. This could include some first-testing of
exponents that yield a prime or even double checking that turns up a prime
missed on the first pass (clearly only possible by a highly improbable
concatenation of errors).
So how about some administrative ground rules to make us all "happy" or at
least aware of risks?
Here is one thought for "poaching rules" for your consideration: first it
only really matters if a prime turns up. So, for purposes of achieving a
target for year-end, someone -- perhaps Scott -- will check the database for
several sorts of holes. The highest priority will be exponents that have
not been assigned, of course. Second priority is exponents assigned but not
expected to be completed before some date like 10/1/99. These late-bloomers
are a risky collection: they may or may not finish in time depending on
hardware performance. Third is exponents with a really long time since
assignment and last report. (A long-running exponent for someone that is
expected to complete by 10/1 would not concern me at this time at all, even
if it has been running for two years.)
First, the GIMPer originally assigned an exponent "owns" the exponent.
Someone who "poaches" that exponent -- starts testing the exponent before
the first run completes -- is in fact double-checking the exponent even if
this double-check finishes before the first LL test finishes.
This may make lots of problems for the database.
The real trick is in notifying the exponent owners. Suppose this
notification starts in August. They should be notified that
double-checking their exponents is underway and asked to respond, say within
a month to verify that they are still running the first LL test (if this is
not known).
Second notices should go out about a month later to update those who
responded and to ask again of the non-responders.
If no new Mersenne primes turn up during this organized "poaching" then no
harm will be done to anyone that I can see.
However, there can be a real problem if the double-checking turns up a
prime. Here, the owner of the exponent must complete the LL test without
being told that there is a prime waiting!! If the owner's LL test somehow
fails, then the double-checker gets the credit (and may have to wait a LONG
time to see anything public). If the owner appears to drop out of GIMPS
without completing the LL test, we face a crisis of conscience: do "we"
tell this person that they need to complete this test or let them walk away?
If they really want to drop out, do we tell them that they "owned" a winning
exponent and must complete the LL test to get public credit for it? I
suspect that the only way to preserve any confidentiality is to treat all of
the slow cases and potential drop-outs the same and make them take a
positive action to be active or to drop-out. The alternative is a passive
acceptance of being dropped out. ...And I definitely do NOT like the idea
of telling someone that they are dropped by GIMPS. That is really raw. But
we still have a problem with an "owner" of a Mersenne prime who fails to
respond to anything. At some point, that person must lose title perhaps
after GIMPS makes a good faith effort to track them down. I think that this
is the only real problem: does GIMPS have an obligation to someone who has
been out of touch for over a year (or whatever period seems practical)? The
Washington State Lottery voids winning tickets after 6 months, I think, so 6
months seems to be a reasonable time frame to cancel ownership of an
exponent. GIMPS is strictly volunteer but we operate under some sort of
by-laws, like any club. If we want the prize, we have to pony up the run
time and report it somehow...even if by snail mail or by a phone call!!
As impatient as I am to see the newest Mersenne prime, I can easily wait 6
months -- especially to avoid the potential for scandal that improper
handling could bring to GIMPS.
Sorry to be so long-winded. People -- including me -- feel very possessive
about their exponents. This feeling is important to the continued health of
GIMPS. On the other hand, GIMPS is a collaborative effort under the general
guidance and control of a fairly small committee. I trust this committee to
act in good faith for the contributors and for GIMPS but they will have to
hold first allegiance to GIMPS. Perhaps there is something of value this
suggestion for "poaching" rules. Please kick this around as hard as you
can!
Thanks,
Joth
----- Original Message -----
From: Ashton Vaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Aaron Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Mersenne@Base. Com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 6:11 AM
Subject: RE: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575
> ---Aaron Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > How about another option Aaron? You touch anyone's
> > > exponents...especially mine and I report you to the FBI for
> stealing?
> > > DAMNIT....I sure as hell hope the above message was in jest. You
> > > better not play around with my exponents (or anyone else's for that
> > > matter) or I'll raise hell on this list.
> >
> > Wow! Well, I wasn't kidding, I did grab some exponents and am
> testing them.
> > I guess you'll have to call the FBI?
> >
> > Obviously, opinions on this matter are VERY extreme!
> >
> > As for you Ashton, which of those numbers in my message belonged to
> you?
> > Are you still testing it and, if so, why no updates in over a year?
> >
> > Let me know and I'll leave you at it, but for goodness sake, if you
> have a
> > machine that slow, please consider factoring or double-checking
> smaller
> > exponents. It's just as important to do those tests and a slower
> machine is
> > much better suited. I don't use a hammer to cut wood, I don't use a
> > screwdriver to paint my walls, and I don't use a pocket calculator
> to do FFT
> > work, but for adding 2+2, it's just fine. Get the drift? Certain
> tools are
> > better suited to certain jobs. Find the job that your slower
> computer is
> > best suited for and go for it.
> >
> > Am I just wrong in thinking this?
>
> First of all, no, none of those exponents are mine. I have tons of
> machines running Prime95 and I'm pretty high up on the list of
> producers It's just that I think you're way off base on this...and I'm
> sure other people on this list think the same too. <whine, complain,
> etc.> George, (or someone else!) could you please explain to Aaron why
> he is off base of this one.....something along the lines of "Ashton
> has the right to set his machine to do whatever kind of work he wants
> it to do. It's a fun project. Don't go around annoying people, etc.,
> etc. blah, blah."
>
> It's just not fair to take exponents that other people are working
> on (in the hopes of being the co-discoverer of M39) and have them find
> a "Exponent already tested" when their machine checks in two
> months....especially after some of the exponents you listed seemed to
> be more that 50% complete. Is it just me or are you just not thinking
> straight this past week? (Compared with your regular postings, they
> seem to be far more illogical!)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ashton
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
>
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
