> The GIMPS home page explains the following
> "Finally, if a factor is later found for a Mersenne number or the
> Lucas-Lehmer result is found to be incorrect, then you will "lose credit"
> for the time spent running the test."
>
> It is on <www.mersenne.org/top.htm> always struck me as odd I must admit.
> At the time the test was done it obviously WAS required, so why the
> subsequent penalty when we make advances and can factor much deeper?
I have always liked Georges way of calculating credits. I think it is
very nice and clean. It also encourages factoring, and the factors of
mersenne numbers interest mathematicans. It _gives_ credit for
factoring, by giving the one who finds factors a relative advantage
over those who spend less time factoring. If you find a factor of a
number which is tested already, you climb by pushing someone else down.
If I don't factor far enough, that will eventualy happen to me. This
keeps my {3,4}86's, m68k's, mips3k's, and old sparc's busy. 8-)
We can discuss different ways of counting CPU-time, etc. for ever, but
we will never find the Correct Formula. Therefore I think that Georges
formula, just counting LL-results for every Mersenne without a factor
in the database and give credit to the people who tested those numbers,
is a beautiful solution. A simple, working solution to a problem which
can be made very complex, time- and space consuming.
Scott's formula is also a simple, working solution which suits Primenet.
--
Sturle URL: http://www.stud.ifi.uio.no/~sturles/ Er det m}ndag i dag?
~~~~~~ MMF: http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=BUP399 - St. URLe
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
