Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, John R Pierce wrote: > > ... I think the 10 intervals might be a bit too draconian... I agree, 30 days should be considered a minimum. I don't know it if could be put into the primenet server, but could a 'trust' setting be put in? Maybe for the first 15 days a new person has an exponent, they should be limited to a max of 30 days with it. This could be set into the software, just so any people who join then immediatly quit don't chug up the system. Also, maybe the smallest components could be given to people with a high 'trust' rating, so we think they will get done. Obviously, anyone could fiddle their trust rating, I don't think it is worth getting too advanced, just stick in the first started date in the .ini file, don't put too much into it... Chris _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
> George: v20, *and* the PrimeNet server, ought not allow any one machine to > keep more than ten times its average communication frequency in exponents > queued, and no more than 60 days no matter what -- requests for additional > exponents when the server knows that that machine already has two months' > work ought to be denied. If a machine reports in every 3 days, let it > keep no more than 30 days. If it reports in daily, let it keep ten > days. By stopping exponent hogs from locking up hundreds of exponents > just because they like the small ones, GIMPS will reach its goals > (milestones, proving M37, etc), much faster. I think the 10 intervals might be a bit too draconian. I have most of my systems set to check in every two days, its a quick and easy way to keep track of the servers I don't directly monitor. A half dozen of my machines are various lab computers which sit around idle 99% of the time, and don't even have their consoles turned on. By your standards, 20 days would be a cutoff... Well, many of these machines are pentium 120s and stuff that take a bit over 20 days to do a LL test. Sure, they are slow. But they are steady. Of the 13 machines I have running currently, only 3 or 4 of them are faster than 200MHz. -jrp _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
A good sensible posting. I concur and thank Jeff Woods for writing it. At 11:12 AM 2/4/00 -0500, you wrote: >I hate to open a can of worms here, but feel I must However, I am not >a poacher myself, nor do I advocate it. I only write this to tell you why >I don't feel sorry for folks who queue up WAY too much work and then gripe >about it when someone else calls them on the carpet about it by poaching >them. I write this in the hopes that you'll see the error of your ways, >and work not just for yourself, but for the good of the group. > >My conclusion at the end of this message is for George's consideration, and >the rest of this message defends this conclusion: > >George: v20, *and* the PrimeNet server, ought not allow any one machine to >keep more than ten times its average communication frequency in exponents >queued, and no more than 60 days no matter what -- requests for additional >exponents when the server knows that that machine already has two months' >work ought to be denied. If a machine reports in every 3 days, let it >keep no more than 30 days. If it reports in daily, let it keep ten >days. By stopping exponent hogs from locking up hundreds of exponents >just because they like the small ones, GIMPS will reach its goals >(milestones, proving M37, etc), much faster. > >-- > >Dave has at least 80 exponents reserved between 2.4M and >3.99M. Eighty. Almost all are less than suspected M37. It is a >certainty that without poaching, we will have to wait until late 2000 or >later to prove M37, because Dave is trying to do all the double-checking >singlehandedly. > >I cannot stress this part enough: This is why we have thousands of >participants in GIMPS! It is our PRIMARY raison d'etre! To spread >around the workload to get things done faster! By trying to take 80 of >the 280 or so exponents left for doublechecking up to M37 (nearly 30% to >ONE participant!), Dave is intentionally thwarting the very purpose of >GIMPS: distributed mathematical research. DISTRIBUTED computing is key! > >Each of Dave's 80 exponents will take a P-II/400 0.09 seconds per >iteration. If the average exponent is closer to 2.8M, here's how much time >Dave has set aside: > >2.8M x 80 x 0.09 = 20,160,000 seconds DIV 86,400 = 233 days. > >That's if Dave uses P-II 400's, on PRIMARY tests. Double-checks use a >different LL code, and take longer. I doubt Dave is using P-II's for this >purpose, too. If it's P-90's, that's 233 x 4.5 (times slower) x 1.2 >(times slower to double check, a guess), or 1574 days of work queued up for >Dave. > >I can only find six named machines of Dave's in the work list. 1574 days >of work over 6 machines is an AVERAGE of 262 days of work queued up per >machine. > >What a PIG. Why does ANYONE need nine months of work queued up, >especially for machines that seem to report back to GIMPS on a daily >basis? Many of us want to see results -- we want milestones, we want to >see "All exponents less than 3,000,000 have been double checked." We want >to see "Double checking proves 3021377 is the 37th Mersenne Prime". > >Most of Dave's assignments have gone untouched for 30 - 90 days. > >We don't want to wait a YEAR for this milestone, just because you and a >handful of others want to test all the little exponents. > >Your machines are useful to us, don't get me wrong. Nobody here wants you >and Dave (and other exponent hogs) to quit GIMPS. We just want you to >reserve a reasonable number of exponents, and take what comes to >you. These machines will be equally useful to us whether double-checking >2916117 or 4717123 and we'll get where we're going faster that way! > >Dave's machines are permanently connected (or frequently connected) -- they >have reported progress nearly daily -- slow, steady progress, but they >report. > >Thus, IMO, Dave should not have his clients set to queue up more than TWO >DAYS of work. I set mine at ONE day, so that I don't even get a new >assignment until the machine is less than a day away from finishing its >exponent and being left with NO work. And that's the way it ought to be >-- nobody ought to even be ABLE to hold up the progress of the group in >reaching milestones for this long. When your machine is ALMOST out of >work, THAT is the time to request the smallest available exponent OF THAT >MOMENT. > >So, to your paragraph below, there's nothing wrong with seeking out the >smallest available exponents but there *is* something wrong with >seeking out nine months' worth of them, and holding up the very purpose of >the group. > >If Dave gets poached, I won't shed a tear. > >I'd have done a similar analysis on your assignments, but didn't know your >ID. You're probably not as heinous as Dave is, since he appears to be the >worst of the lot on cursory inspection, but ANYONE holding more work than >necessary is on the list of "wo
Mersenne: Poaching is no more
We do not need to poach anymore. See George's last post on this topic. I believe the PrimeNet semantics were changed in v15 (?), and now it's based on check-ins, not just expected dates. Anyhow, if any poaching _needs_ to be done, George and Scott takes care of that themselves, since they occasionally check for such exponents. /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/ _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
RE: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
Let me give you the 'newbie' point of view to all this. I've only been part of GIMPS for a couple of months. It looked like something fun to do, useful for science, etc. and a good way to burn off those spare cycles that keep building up. :-) Here I thought I was part of some great cause and we were only here for the common good. Little did I know there really is a dark side to the force and behind the scenes GIMPS is really Peyton Place. I'm not even sure WHY anyone wants to go to the trouble of filtering out high exponents. Will this result in more LL hours worked and a higher position on the performers lists? Also, what's this about poaching? Sounds like stealing; what is there to steal in GIMPS? The biggest downside to this thread is that it exists at all. It's hard to attract new believers to a cause once they hear about the associated corruption. Cheers... Russ _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Re: American Pi
Olivier Langlois wrote: > The bill to change the value of pi > to exactly three was introduced without fanfare by Leonard Lee > Lawson (R, Crossville), and rapidly gained support after a letter-writing > campaign by members of the Solomon Society, a traditional values group. Note that ignorance, having presumably been around longer than intelligence (but only to us arrogant evolutionist pigs :) is well-suited to being a "traditional value." > "There are other geometries, and pi is different in every one of them," > said Humbleys. "Scientists have arbitrarily assumed that space is > Euclidean. A circle drawn on a spherical surface has a different value > for the ratio of circumference to diameter. Anyone with a compass, > flexible ruler, and globe can see this for themselves. It's not exactly > rocket science." Indeed, the ratio [circumference/diameter] ranges from pi (the irrational one, defined using plane geometry) in the limit of vanishing circle size monotonically downward to 2 for the largest possible circle one can draw on a sphere, which is a great circle (e.g. on an idealized earth, the equator is a great circle having circumference C, and its "radius" is the length of an arc of another great circle from the equator to either pole, i.e. C/4. Thus [circumference/diameter] = [C/(2*C/4)] = 2. Each latitude thus has its own value for pi. Atheists standing on the north or south pole should use the irrational Euclidean-geometry value. Folks whose religion admits only of whole numbers should choose either 2 or 3, depending on which value is closer to the real value at their latitude. Folks living in non-spherical geometries or higher-dimensional spaces will necessarily be politically disenfranchised. This seems a small price to pay for the wonderful simplicity of being able to remember just the number 2 or 3, which can be done even while knuckle-walking: if one is at a latitude having pi := 2, just stick both thumbs out while walking on all fours. If pi := 3, stick thumbs and tongue out. In the latter instance, when having to occasionally retract one's tongue to keep it from drying out, one should shut one eye so as not to lose one's place. Of course one has to be careful not to moisten one's tongue and blink at the same time, because one then has pi := 2 thumbs + 2 shut eyes = 4, which is heresy, and even momentary heresy is punishable by remedial mathematics reeducation. > Roger Learned, a Solomon Society member who was in Montgomery to > support the bill, agrees. He said that pi is nothing more than an > assumption by the mathematicians and engineers who were there to > argue against the bill. "Those nabobs waltzed into the capital with an > arrogance that was breathtaking," Learned said. "Their predatorial > deficit resulted in a polemical stance at absolute contraposition to the > legislature's puissance." At this instantiation, even the cursory or desultory peruser should become cognizant of the likelihood that the exposition under scrutiny is intended to be recognized as risible by the reader. (In plain English: it's a joke, folks!) Sadly, it's based on actual occurrences, and the flowery, obfuscatory language of the above paragraph is not too far from the kind preferred by many politicians and lawmakers. -Ernst "The streets shall flow with the blood of the unbelievers." - Beavis and Butt-Head "...and three shall be the number of the counting. Four shalt thou not count, nor two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out..." - Monty Python and the Holy Grail _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Small exponents
Sorry David for misspelling your name David Campeau! WsF _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Small exponents
Hi all! I've lately returned to GIMPS and devoted to double checking. Using the ideas presented by David Campou (diamonddave) I make a shell script which is started every two days and takes new exponents. New and all exponents are merged and sorted. When mprime starts it returns the largest ones to the pool. DaysOfWork=20. I use Celeron 300 (but only about 30% of CPU time). I try to take only a few exponents and finish each of them in a week or unreserved it. I don't like poaching but I don't want to fight with the poacher(s). Wojciech Florek (WsF) Adam Mickiewicz University, Institute of Physics ul. Umultowska 85, 61-614 Poznan, Poland phone: (++48-61) 8273033 fax: (++48-61) 8257758 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://spin.amu.edu.pl/~florek _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: OFFICIAL poaching might be better?
In other words, David is "pre-emptively poaching" these numbers, to prevent them from getting taken by quitters, in thinking he can clear them before others So, he's a poacher himself, it stands to reason on this side of the aisle... To me there's no difference between hoarding and poaching -- both are detrimental to the effort. You claim that David is doing a good job completing the exponents much faster. I think they'd get done much faster if we just created a "cleanup pool" of machines, perhaps a few dozen. I'd donate a P-100 or two to the effort. v20 of Prime95 could allow a machine to join "the cleanup crusade", which would have the following differences from standard participation: 1) The smallest exponents could ONLY be assigned to the cleanup crusade. If there were 100 cleanup boxes, then the smallest 400 exponents ought to be held back for them. 2) The TTL (expiry time) on a cleanup box ought to be MUCH shorter than 60 days. Perhaps as low as 7 days. If you don't have a frequent connection, don't be a cleanup hitter. 3) Once operational, Dave could release most of his queue, and flood the crusade with work. We'd clear his 260 day backlog in about a month, and would continue to crank out milestones even faster than random poaching would allow. If we did that, and didn't do ANYTHING else, other than ensure that when small exponents under CURRENT operation expire, they go to the cleanup pool rather than to the general pool. Questionable results and errors can also go to the cleanup pool, as well. Comments, flames, etc, welcome ;-) At 08:09 PM 2/4/00 +0100, you wrote: >Not so long ago David send a mail to this list on how he's doing this. >He said: > > And now the hard and real important part: > > monitor your Account report EVERY DAY (I can't stress this enough, because > EVERY DAY 4-5 new exponent are going to be assigned to you, if you are > able to monitor your account on the weekend modify the part* schedule and > Time setting, to fit your need) and keep ONLY 60 days of work for your > computer, use the release form on PrimeNet to release high exponent that > can't complete in 60 Days. and reorder your assignment so that the > smallest exponent are finished first. > >So he takes only 60 days of work for each pc. > > > >Most of Dave's assignments have gone untouched for 30 - 90 days. > >That those exponents have gone untouched is because he is scheduling the >lowest >exponents first and they are finished within 3 or 4 while a lot of other >exponents >take months. I saw some exponents that would expire in a few days and then >the data >gets updated and it takes another 60 days before the exponents expire while >the LL >test wasn't even started on those exponents. > >I think David is doing a good job in completing the milestones MUCH faster. >He never poaches an exponent but lets the exponents asing by the server. >Although i agree with you that he could release some of the higher exponents >for so >that others could test them. > > >If Dave gets poached, I won't shed a tear. > >Nobody should poach PERIOD > > >Any defense you'd like to offer for holding 9 months' work, I'll listen to, > > >but I doubt you'll come up with anything convincing. > >Like he said befor No more than 60 thays for each machine > >Sander _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
RE: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
>Dave has at least 80 exponents reserved between 2.4M and >3.99M. Eighty. Almost all are less than suspected M37. It is a >certainty that without poaching, we will have to wait until late 2000 or >later to prove M37, because Dave is trying to do all the double-checking >singlehandedly. Not so long ago David send a mail to this list on how he's doing this. He said: And now the hard and real important part: monitor your Account report EVERY DAY (I can't stress this enough, because EVERY DAY 4-5 new exponent are going to be assigned to you, if you are only able to monitor your account on the weekend modify the part* schedule and Time setting, to fit your need) and keep ONLY 60 days of work for your computer, use the release form on PrimeNet to release high exponent that you can't complete in 60 Days. and reorder your assignment so that the smallest exponent are finished first. So he takes only 60 days of work for each pc. >Most of Dave's assignments have gone untouched for 30 - 90 days. That those exponents have gone untouched is because he is scheduling the lowest exponents first and they are finished within 3 or 4 while a lot of other exponents take months. I saw some exponents that would expire in a few days and then the data gets updated and it takes another 60 days before the exponents expire while the LL test wasn't even started on those exponents. I think David is doing a good job in completing the milestones MUCH faster. He never poaches an exponent but lets the exponents asing by the server. Although i agree with you that he could release some of the higher exponents for so that others could test them. >If Dave gets poached, I won't shed a tear. Nobody should poach PERIOD >Any defense you'd like to offer for holding 9 months' work, I'll listen to, >but I doubt you'll come up with anything convincing. Like he said befor No more than 60 thays for each machine Sander _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
RE: Mersenne: FW: what do you think about the authenticity of this?
Ah, good 'old urban legends... "This wonderful bit of creative writing began circulating on the Internet in April 1998. Written by Mark Boslough as an April Fool's parody on legislative and school board attacks on evolution in New Mexico, the author took real statements from New Mexican legislators and school board members supporting creationism and recast them into a fictional account detailing how Alabama legislators had passed a law calling for the value of pi to be set to the "Biblical value" of 3.0. This brilliant piece of humor was originally posted to the newsgroup talk.origins on 1 April 1998 as well as sent to a list of New Mexican scientists and citizens interested in evolution and printed in the April issue of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason newsletter NMSR Reports. Its talk.origins poster followed up a day later with a full confession and explanation of the prank, thereby allowing others to share in the fun. One would have thought that would have been the end of it. Ah but the Internet works in mysterious ways. Several readers forwarded the piece to friends and posted it to other newsgroups. As the story moved along, what would have easily identified it as a parody and not a news item was stripped out: the attribution to "April Holiday" of the "Associmated Press." Now it looked like a real news piece. Which is how it was received by many. There is not now and never has been a bill in front of the Alabama state legislature to redefine the value of pi. With one exception, none of the names given in this fanciful account stand up to scrutiny. The one exception is Guy Hunt. He is a former governor of Alabama, convicted in 1993 for diverting $200,000 from his inaugural fund to his personal use. Though the claim about the Alabama state legislature is pure nonsense, it is similar to an event that happened more than a century ago. In 1897 the Indiana House of Representatives unanimously passed a measure redefining the area of a circle and the value of pi. (House Bill no. 246, introduced by Rep. Taylor I. Record.) The bill died in the state Senate." For more funny urban legends, I suggest visiting http://www.snopes.com Jeremy Blosser -Original Message- From: Olivier Langlois [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 3:15 AM To: Mersenne mailing list (E-mail) Subject: Mersenne: FW: what do you think about the authenticity of this? Is this story really ?? Where is going our society ?? :-) _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne Digest V1 #687
Mersenne DigestFriday, February 4 2000Volume 01 : Number 687 -- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 22:34:46 + From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Re: Icon On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:56:01PM -0500, Vincent J. Mooney Jr. wrote: >I am using WIN 98. How do I set up an icon on the desktop to kick off >PRIME95 (as I needed to do twice today when the dang computer crashed)? The right thing would be putting it either in the Startup folder (on the start menu), or by following this procedure: 1. Open the Prime95 window. 2. Select Advanced/Password, and enter 9876. (I'm not sure if you need to do this.) Click OK. 3. Select Options/Windows 95/98 service. 4. Select Options/Tray Icon. If you set Prime95 up this way, it will run even if you're not logged in, and automatically on system startup. /* Steinar */ - -- Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/ _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers -- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 19:58:17 -0500 From: "Vincent J. Mooney Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Re: Icon I did all that, following your instructions. Prime95 disappears when I minimize it. It used to be on the taskbar (right word?) at the bottom of the WIN98 screen. Can't there be an icon on the desktop, as I originally asked? Also, is there a FAQ about this? At 10:34 PM 2/2/00 +, you wrote: >On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:56:01PM -0500, Vincent J. Mooney Jr. wrote: >>I am using WIN 98. How do I set up an icon on the desktop to kick off >>PRIME95 (as I needed to do twice today when the dang computer crashed)? > >The right thing would be putting it either in the Startup folder (on the >start menu), or by following this procedure: > >1. Open the Prime95 window. >2. Select Advanced/Password, and enter 9876. (I'm not sure if you need to > do this.) Click OK. >3. Select Options/Windows 95/98 service. >4. Select Options/Tray Icon. > >If you set Prime95 up this way, it will run even if you're not logged in, >and automatically on system startup. > >/* Steinar */ >-- >Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/ >_ >Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm >Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers > _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers -- Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 18:16:14 PST From: "Dennis Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Re: P-1 factoring Will this P-1 factoring step take place ONLY before a LL test, or will it also be part of the trial factoring step? The reason why I'm asking is because one of my machines is a dedicated 486 to work on trial factoring only. It has 16MB RAM. The hard disk is *very* slow, so when it thrashes, my 486 is essentially rendered useless. I would really like an option to turn P-1 off in that case. As for memory, try the GlobalMemoryStatus() call in Windows. 2 of the items in the structure are dwAvailPhys, and dwAvailVirtual. You can use that info. Also, a request: I also have a dual processor system running GIMPS... therefore I have 2 instances of GIMPS running. Can you detect multiple processors in a future version? Thanks, Dennis __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers -- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 22:19:15 -0500 (EST) From: Lucas Wiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: P-1 factoring > Will this P-1 factoring step take place ONLY before a LL test, or will it > also be part of the trial factoring step? > > The reason why I'm asking is because one of my machines is a dedicated 486 > to work on trial factoring only. It has 16MB RAM. The hard disk is *very* > slow, so when it thrashes, my 486 is essentially rendered useless. The P-1 step would become a fourth work assignment (to be done after a number has been trial factored, but before it has had an LL test run on it). Much like how the trial factoring and LL test are done on separate computers. - -Lucas Wiman _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers -- Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 20:15:10 -0800 From: Stefan Struiker <[E
Re: Mersenne: FW: what do you think about the authenticity of this?
It's a joke. Heinlein jokingly wrote in 1969 about some fictionl legislature trying to legislate pi to be exactly three in "Stranger in a Strange Land". Someone else started this urban myth. Here's a reference about it you can trust: http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/ctc676.htm Headline: Net hoax on pi just won't die I found this easily, by STFW. I looked for "Leonard Lee Lawson" and found 36 pages, including the link above. All call it a hoax. Heinlein was right, though, in his predictions about societal direction. That's for another forum, though. ;-) At 04:15 AM 2/4/00 -0500, you wrote: >Is this story really ?? >Where is going our society ?? :-) > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On >Behalf Of Blu >Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 12:44 PM >To: Protected Mode List >Subject: OT: what do you think about the authenticity of this? > > > > HUNTSVILLE, Ala.-NASA engineers and mathematicians in this high-tech > > city are stunned and infuriated after the Alabama state legislature > > narrowly passed a law Monday redefining pi, a mathematical constant > > used widely in the aerospace industry. The bill to change the value of pi > > to exactly three was introduced without fanfare by Leonard Lee > > Lawson (R, Crossville), and rapidly gained support after a letter-writing _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
Jeff Woods wrote: > > Dave has at least 80 exponents reserved between 2.4M and > 3.99M. Eighty. Almost all are less than suspected M37. It is a > certainty that without poaching, we will have to wait until late 2000 or > later to prove M37, because Dave is trying to do all the double-checking > singlehandedly. > > [alot more] Some time ago I used to poach, too, taking exponents that were due to expire within 3-5 days and finish them with some leftover PII-400 power, but I stopped when the "evil, evil poaching thread" arose (lets not revive it). Back in those days, I too noticed this "diamonddave" hogging dozens of exponents (I think I even poached one or two) but as I watched him over a longer period of time, I noticed that he actually finished his assigned work quickly and effectively, much more so than the heap of assigned exponents and the number of machines we see lead to believe. He (I believe his real name is David Campeau (sp?)) seems to have enough horsepower to finish the reserved exponents in time, and what I remember from an old posting of his, he actually does it to avoid those small exponents again getting assigned to users who won't finish them, or only very slowly. I stopped worrying about diamonddave, its assignments like 2569667 D 60 52.6 105.2 105.2 20-Jan-00 21:28 14-Dec-99 03:00 Z 2593697 D 60 1482152 322.6 -35.7 24.3 19-Dec-99 01:17 19-Mar-99 03:23 philboy 2593793 D 60 322.6 -8.7 40.3 19-Dec-99 01:17 19-Mar-99 03:23 philboy 2861897 D 60446026 293.5 -21.0 39.0 05-Jan-00 16:32 17-Apr-99 05:22 SW 2941837 D 60 45517 133.5 -58.3 1.7 26-Nov-99 10:20 24-Sep-99 06:47 gallina that bother me. I actually hope diamonddave will grab them when they expire, and not an user who will again take >300 days for a exponent (and possibly not even finish it). Ciao, Alex. _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: FW: what do you think about the authenticity of this?
I particularly liked the line in which the alleged lawmaker said that the mathematicians were being irrational: > "I think that it is the mathematicians that are being irrational, and it > is time for them to admit it," said Lawson. Of COURSE they're being irrational! It's PI! ;-) At 12:43 PM 2/4/00 +, you wrote: > > I think it is meant as a spoof on the still-current controversy over > > giving both creationism and Darwinian evolution equal emphasis in > education. > >This line above makes it sound very much like a pun on the >creation/evolution debate. And a good one at that. _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
I hate to open a can of worms here, but feel I must However, I am not a poacher myself, nor do I advocate it. I only write this to tell you why I don't feel sorry for folks who queue up WAY too much work and then gripe about it when someone else calls them on the carpet about it by poaching them. I write this in the hopes that you'll see the error of your ways, and work not just for yourself, but for the good of the group. My conclusion at the end of this message is for George's consideration, and the rest of this message defends this conclusion: George: v20, *and* the PrimeNet server, ought not allow any one machine to keep more than ten times its average communication frequency in exponents queued, and no more than 60 days no matter what -- requests for additional exponents when the server knows that that machine already has two months' work ought to be denied. If a machine reports in every 3 days, let it keep no more than 30 days. If it reports in daily, let it keep ten days. By stopping exponent hogs from locking up hundreds of exponents just because they like the small ones, GIMPS will reach its goals (milestones, proving M37, etc), much faster. -- Dave has at least 80 exponents reserved between 2.4M and 3.99M. Eighty. Almost all are less than suspected M37. It is a certainty that without poaching, we will have to wait until late 2000 or later to prove M37, because Dave is trying to do all the double-checking singlehandedly. I cannot stress this part enough: This is why we have thousands of participants in GIMPS! It is our PRIMARY raison d'etre! To spread around the workload to get things done faster! By trying to take 80 of the 280 or so exponents left for doublechecking up to M37 (nearly 30% to ONE participant!), Dave is intentionally thwarting the very purpose of GIMPS: distributed mathematical research. DISTRIBUTED computing is key! Each of Dave's 80 exponents will take a P-II/400 0.09 seconds per iteration. If the average exponent is closer to 2.8M, here's how much time Dave has set aside: 2.8M x 80 x 0.09 = 20,160,000 seconds DIV 86,400 = 233 days. That's if Dave uses P-II 400's, on PRIMARY tests. Double-checks use a different LL code, and take longer. I doubt Dave is using P-II's for this purpose, too. If it's P-90's, that's 233 x 4.5 (times slower) x 1.2 (times slower to double check, a guess), or 1574 days of work queued up for Dave. I can only find six named machines of Dave's in the work list. 1574 days of work over 6 machines is an AVERAGE of 262 days of work queued up per machine. What a PIG. Why does ANYONE need nine months of work queued up, especially for machines that seem to report back to GIMPS on a daily basis? Many of us want to see results -- we want milestones, we want to see "All exponents less than 3,000,000 have been double checked." We want to see "Double checking proves 3021377 is the 37th Mersenne Prime". Most of Dave's assignments have gone untouched for 30 - 90 days. We don't want to wait a YEAR for this milestone, just because you and a handful of others want to test all the little exponents. Your machines are useful to us, don't get me wrong. Nobody here wants you and Dave (and other exponent hogs) to quit GIMPS. We just want you to reserve a reasonable number of exponents, and take what comes to you. These machines will be equally useful to us whether double-checking 2916117 or 4717123 and we'll get where we're going faster that way! Dave's machines are permanently connected (or frequently connected) -- they have reported progress nearly daily -- slow, steady progress, but they report. Thus, IMO, Dave should not have his clients set to queue up more than TWO DAYS of work. I set mine at ONE day, so that I don't even get a new assignment until the machine is less than a day away from finishing its exponent and being left with NO work. And that's the way it ought to be -- nobody ought to even be ABLE to hold up the progress of the group in reaching milestones for this long. When your machine is ALMOST out of work, THAT is the time to request the smallest available exponent OF THAT MOMENT. So, to your paragraph below, there's nothing wrong with seeking out the smallest available exponents but there *is* something wrong with seeking out nine months' worth of them, and holding up the very purpose of the group. If Dave gets poached, I won't shed a tear. I'd have done a similar analysis on your assignments, but didn't know your ID. You're probably not as heinous as Dave is, since he appears to be the worst of the lot on cursory inspection, but ANYONE holding more work than necessary is on the list of "won't cry for you, Argentina" folks. MOST folks understand this. There are 26,600 machines right now, and 44,200 exponents assigned -- 1.66 exponents assigned per machine. Since the software default
RE: Mersenne: FW: what do you think about the authenticity of this?
ASK THIS LAWSON TO BE A sole MEMBER OF THE NEXT SPACE SHUTTLE WHICH TRIP WILL BE RECALCULATED WITH PHI AS 3. SEE WHAT HE WILLL DO. If he accepts the offer we have a problem less. Pitty off the shuttle, but sometimes you have to make sacrifices > -Original Message- > From: Olivier Langlois [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 10:15 AM > To: Mersenne mailing list (E-mail) > Subject: Mersenne: FW: what do you think about the authenticity of > this? > > Is this story really ?? > Where is going our society ?? :-) > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of Blu > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 12:44 PM > To: Protected Mode List > Subject: OT: what do you think about the authenticity of this? > > > > HUNTSVILLE, Ala.-NASA engineers and mathematicians in this high-tech > > city are stunned and infuriated after the Alabama state legislature > > narrowly passed a law Monday redefining pi, a mathematical constant > > used widely in the aerospace industry. The bill to change the value of > pi > > to exactly three was introduced without fanfare by Leonard Lee > > Lawson (R, Crossville), and rapidly gained support after a > letter-writing > > campaign by members of the Solomon Society, a traditional values group. > > Governor Fob James says he will sign it into law on Wednesday. > > > > The law took the state's engineering community by surprise. "It would > > have been nice if they had consulted with someone who actually uses > > pi," said Dr. Marshall Bergman, a manager at the Ballistic Missile > Defense > > Organization. According to Bergman, pi is a Greek letter used to > signify > > the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. It is often > used > > by engineers to calculate missile trajectories. > > > > Prof. Kim Johanson, a mathematician from University of Alabama, said > > that pi is a universal constant, and cannot arbitrarily be changed by > > lawmakers. Johanson explained that pi is an irrational number, which > > means that it has an infinite number of digits after the decimal point > and > > can never be known exactly. Nevertheless, she said, pi is precisely > > defined by mathematics to be "3.14159, plus as many more digits as you > > have time to calculate." > > > > "I think that it is the mathematicians that are being irrational, and it > is time > > for them to admit it," said Lawson. "The Bible very clearly says in I > Kings > > 7:23 that the altar font in Solomon's Temple was ten cubits across and > > thirty cubits in diameter, and that it was round in compass." Lawson > > also called into question the usefulness of any number that cannot be > > calculated exactly, and suggested that never knowing the exact answer > > could harm students' self-esteem. "We need to return to some absolutes > > in our society," he said. "The Bible does not say that the font was > > thirty-something cubits. Plain reading says thirty cubits. Period." > > > > Science actually supports Lawson, explained Russell Humbleys, a > > propulsion technician at the Marshall Spaceflight Center who testified > in > > support of the bill before the legislature in Montgomery last week. "Pi > is > > merely an artifact of Euclidean geometry." Humbleys is working on a > > theory which he says will prove that pi is determined by the geometry of > > three-dimensional space, which is assumed by physicists to be > > "isotropic," or the same in all directions. > > > > "There are other geometries, and pi is different in every one of them," > > said Humbleys. "Scientists have arbitrarily assumed that space is > > Euclidean. A circle drawn on a spherical surface has a different value > > for the ratio of circumference to diameter. Anyone with a compass, > > flexible ruler, and globe can see this for themselves. It's not exactly > > rocket science." > > > > Roger Learned, a Solomon Society member who was in Montgomery to > > support the bill, agrees. He said that pi is nothing more than an > > assumption by the mathematicians and engineers who were there to > > argue against the bill. "Those nabobs waltzed into the capital with an > > arrogance that was breathtaking," Learned said. "Their predatorial > > deficit resulted in a polemical stance at absolute contraposition to the > > legislature's puissance." > > > > Some education experts believe that the legislation will affect the way > > math is taught to Alabama's children. One member of the state school > > board, Lily Ponja, is anxious to get the new value of pi into the > state's > > math textbooks, but thinks that the old value should be retained as an > > alternative. "As far as I am concerned, the value of pi is only a > theory, > > and we should be open to all interpretations." She looks forward to the > > day when students will have the freedom to decide for themselves what > > value pi should have. > > > > Dr. Robert S. Dietz, a professor at Arizona Stat
Re: Mersenne: FW: what do you think about the authenticity of this?
Stefan Struiker wrote: > > Olivier Langlois wrote: > > > alternative. "As far as I am concerned, the value of pi is only a theory, > > and we should be open to all interpretations." She looks forward to the > I think it is meant as a spoof on the still-current controversy over > giving both creationism and Darwinian evolution equal emphasis in education. This line above makes it sound very much like a pun on the creation/evolution debate. And a good one at that. Ciao, Alex. _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: FW: what do you think about the authenticity of this?
Olivier Langlois wrote: > Is this story really ?? > Where is going our society ?? :-) > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of Blu > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 12:44 PM > To: Protected Mode List > Subject: OT: what do you think about the authenticity of this? I think it is meant as a spoof on the still-current controversy over giving both creationism and Darwinian evolution equal emphasis in education. I hope. Regards, Stefanovic _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: FW: what do you think about the authenticity of this?
Is this story really ?? Where is going our society ?? :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Blu Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 12:44 PM To: Protected Mode List Subject: OT: what do you think about the authenticity of this? > HUNTSVILLE, Ala.-NASA engineers and mathematicians in this high-tech > city are stunned and infuriated after the Alabama state legislature > narrowly passed a law Monday redefining pi, a mathematical constant > used widely in the aerospace industry. The bill to change the value of pi > to exactly three was introduced without fanfare by Leonard Lee > Lawson (R, Crossville), and rapidly gained support after a letter-writing > campaign by members of the Solomon Society, a traditional values group. > Governor Fob James says he will sign it into law on Wednesday. > > The law took the state's engineering community by surprise. "It would > have been nice if they had consulted with someone who actually uses > pi," said Dr. Marshall Bergman, a manager at the Ballistic Missile Defense > Organization. According to Bergman, pi is a Greek letter used to signify > the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. It is often used > by engineers to calculate missile trajectories. > > Prof. Kim Johanson, a mathematician from University of Alabama, said > that pi is a universal constant, and cannot arbitrarily be changed by > lawmakers. Johanson explained that pi is an irrational number, which > means that it has an infinite number of digits after the decimal point and > can never be known exactly. Nevertheless, she said, pi is precisely > defined by mathematics to be "3.14159, plus as many more digits as you > have time to calculate." > > "I think that it is the mathematicians that are being irrational, and it is time > for them to admit it," said Lawson. "The Bible very clearly says in I Kings > 7:23 that the altar font in Solomon's Temple was ten cubits across and > thirty cubits in diameter, and that it was round in compass." Lawson > also called into question the usefulness of any number that cannot be > calculated exactly, and suggested that never knowing the exact answer > could harm students' self-esteem. "We need to return to some absolutes > in our society," he said. "The Bible does not say that the font was > thirty-something cubits. Plain reading says thirty cubits. Period." > > Science actually supports Lawson, explained Russell Humbleys, a > propulsion technician at the Marshall Spaceflight Center who testified in > support of the bill before the legislature in Montgomery last week. "Pi is > merely an artifact of Euclidean geometry." Humbleys is working on a > theory which he says will prove that pi is determined by the geometry of > three-dimensional space, which is assumed by physicists to be > "isotropic," or the same in all directions. > > "There are other geometries, and pi is different in every one of them," > said Humbleys. "Scientists have arbitrarily assumed that space is > Euclidean. A circle drawn on a spherical surface has a different value > for the ratio of circumference to diameter. Anyone with a compass, > flexible ruler, and globe can see this for themselves. It's not exactly > rocket science." > > Roger Learned, a Solomon Society member who was in Montgomery to > support the bill, agrees. He said that pi is nothing more than an > assumption by the mathematicians and engineers who were there to > argue against the bill. "Those nabobs waltzed into the capital with an > arrogance that was breathtaking," Learned said. "Their predatorial > deficit resulted in a polemical stance at absolute contraposition to the > legislature's puissance." > > Some education experts believe that the legislation will affect the way > math is taught to Alabama's children. One member of the state school > board, Lily Ponja, is anxious to get the new value of pi into the state's > math textbooks, but thinks that the old value should be retained as an > alternative. "As far as I am concerned, the value of pi is only a theory, > and we should be open to all interpretations." She looks forward to the > day when students will have the freedom to decide for themselves what > value pi should have. > > Dr. Robert S. Dietz, a professor at Arizona State University who has > followed the controversy, wrote that this is not the first time a state > legislature has attempted to redefine the value of pi. A legislator in the > state of Indiana unsuccessfully attempted to have that state set the value > of pi to three. According to Dietz, the lawmaker was exasperated by the > calculations of a mathematician who carried pi to four hundred decimal > places and still could not achieve a rational number. > > Many experts are warning that this is just the beginning of a national > battle over pi between traditional values supporters and the technical > elite. Solomon Society member Lawson agrees. "We just want to retur
