On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 11:43:33PM +0100, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
>I obviously can't answer for George. PrimeNet works a different way,
>Scott credits any work submitted in good faith, whatever happens
>thereafter.
More important, Scott credits factoring work also. Since George didn't
credit factoring work, I guess he set up these rules to discourage
LL-testing only (ie. skipping the factorization).
>I agree. However, to take the point to a ridiculous extreme, finding
>a factor saves running a LL test - so why can't I have credit for
>finding 54,522 (small) factors in the range 33.2 million to 36
>million, thus saving (very approximately) 54,522 * 8 P90 CPU years LL
>testing? The job ran in an hour on a PII-350!
I'm sure that if you asked Scott, he would credit that to you as factoring
work.
However, while a factor `saves' an LL test, this is expected behaviour,
and not something extraordinary. If every factor was going to be credited
as a full LL test, most people would do factoring only! I belive PrimeNet's
solution on this is close to optimal.
>(a) you should lose _double_ credit for a LL test if the result is
>proved incorrect, or if a factor is found in a range which you claim
>to have checked;
Why? I'd rather stick with the PrimeNet policies, where you never lose
any credit at all.
>BTW I don't really understand why PrimeNet doesn't credit you for
>results obtained when the manual testing pages are used instead of
>the automatic system. I suppose Scott is trying to promote the
>automatic system, and I'm in agreement with that sentiment, but it
>still seems a bit strange to me.
There are always technical reasons, you know :-) But honestly, I don't
have a clue on this.
/* Steinar */
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
