-----Original Message-----
From: Brian J. Beesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Nathan Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12 May 2001 22:01
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: 26 exponents
>On 12 May 2001, at 15:26, Nathan Russell wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 May 2001 14:20:36 -0400, Jud McCranie wrote:
>
>> >A thought (but it would mean more work) is that if an exponent expires, it
>> >gets reassigned to someone who has completed at least one exponent, to
keep
>> >the progress going. These unfinished exponents in the 6,000,000 range
were
>> >originally assigned so long ago that they must have been dropped several
times.
>>
>> I think that's more of a 'quick fix', and might make new participants
>> feel that GIMPS doesn't trust them.
>>
>> It's certainly an interesting topic for discussion, though.
>
>I don't like the idea, for the reason Nathan indicates - it smacks of
>"elitism".
As someone currently running a legacy machine, (It's taking 4-5 months to run
double-checks in the range under consideration,) I have some thoughts on this.
First of all, as Jud notes, the 'elitism' is already there, in that different
machines get treated differently in the assignments that they are given. It
also lies at the heart of the 'Top producer' chart. Even readers of this list
get opportunities to acquire exponents or prebeta-test software, etc., that
are not available to the unwashed masses.
Secondly, if - when I ask the server to give me "whatever kind of work makes
most sense" - it gives me something else, whether out of spurious concern for
my feelings or for any other reason, then not only are the programmers
betraying my trust in them, they are also indicating that they don't trust me
to ask for what I want. If I choose to specify what kind of work I want, I
still expect the be given the work that "makes most sense" within that
category. I certainly would not expect to be given work that would delay a
milestone, given the limitations of my machine.
It "makes sense" to offer factorisations to newcomers to the project. It
probably would make sense to offer at least one double-check before moving on
to first time checks. And it makes sense to offer milestone-blocking work to
fast machines with a proven track record of reliability. People will
understand this. People do not expect to be given jobs that they are not able
to do, or positions of trust within days of joining a new club.
Thirdly most people will neither know nor care about the detail of how
allocations are made.
>A better "fix" would be to patch PrimeNet so that it can assign an
>exponent for two LL test runs simultaneously. (Whichever finishes
>first becomes the "LL test", the other is the double-check).
While that's basically a good idea, it's important to be honest with
participants. A patch would not be enough. People need to be informed about
departures from documented practice.
Regards
Brian Beesley
Daran G.
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
