On 29 Jun 99, at 23:13, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
(in reply to my message)
> >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.
Nah, it would be manually submitted results, therefore not eligible.
Who cares, anyway?
>
> 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.
>
Precisely my point.
> >(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.
To discourage people from generating 20% extra results, mostly bad,
by overclocking their systems to a dangerous level instead of being
"conservative" & generating reliable results. This would also make it
counterproductive to submit "faked" results, therefore allowing
credit to be given for results submitted manually.
I accept that we all have personal views on this; Scott & George
produce different but broadly consistent data, so perhaps it doesn't
matter too much. In any case, it's not sensible to "change the rules
during the game", unless there's an overwhelming reason for doing so.
Regards
Brian Beesley
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
