On 14 May 2001, at 8:45, Nathan Russell wrote:
> >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.
Sorry, I don't buy that. Every system has exactly the same chance of
picking up any given assignment; it's a matter of the time at which
you make the request. And you _can_ override the assignment type
which would be the default for your system, if you wish to do so.
>
> >Even readers of this list
> >get opportunities to acquire exponents or prebeta-test software, etc., that
> >are not available to the unwashed masses.
AFAIK everyone is entitled to subscribe to this list, whether they
participate by running assignments or not.
>
> Additionally, GIMPS,
> unlike most other projects, has exponents taht are 'better' than
> others.
In the absence of completed tests, small exponents are more likely to
be prime than larger ones, as well as taking less effort to test.
However, note that a considerable number of users have voluntarily
chosen to run 10 million digit range exponents, thus reducing the
probability that they will discover a prime. The increased reward for
being successful counterbalances the reduced chance of success.
There is also a theoretical difference between those exponents
congruent to 1 modulo 4 and those congruent to 3 modulo 4. However I
believe that this is due to the fact that one of these groups has a
larger probability of having a small factor; thus this irregularity
is removed by the time that LL testing begins.
> >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.
I agree. Either you allow people to choose the type of work they
want, or you tell people plainly that you will select for them the
type of work you will ask them to do. Either works, but a mixture is
inconsistent.
>
> Note that an exponent given out for triple-checking has a microscopic
> chance of being prime (something like two in one billion), since it
> must
>
> 1. Be prime (once chance in 60,000-70,000) and
> 2. Have been missed by both previous tests (1 in 100 for each).
NO! Conditional probability: if we need a third LL test run, it is
because at least one of the other two _must_ be in error. So the
probability of finding a prime on the third LL test run is (about)
one half the probability of finding a prime on the second LL test run
- irrespective of the error rate, provided it is small.
>
> >People need to be informed about
> >departures from documented practice.
>
> Are you suggesting that, every time George offers exponents to the
> members of this mailing list, he should send out a newsletter to every
> participant - guaranteeing hundreds or thousands of replies for him to
> deal with? I think there may be no good solution to this.
Clearly this is ridiculous. I don't have a problem with George
offerring a few exponents "selectively" through this list, because
the list does not have a closed membership. The only sane alternative
is to wait for "deadline critical" assignments to complete in the
normal way - something which some people have vociferously objected
to.
Regards
Brian Beesley
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
