Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
At 09:01 PM 1999/06/10 -0400, you wrote: >The status page shows that for exponents in the range 3,310,000-3,960,000, >there are 225 exponents for which 2 L-L tests have been done, yet there are >40 exponents for which no factor is known, and no LL test has been done. I >have 2 questions: > >1. Why have 2nd LL tests been done in many cases when there are still >exponents whose status is unknown? > >2. Exponents over 6,000,000 have been assigned for a couple of months or >so. Why are large exponents being assigned when there are still smaller >ones in need of a LL test? The Internet Primenet Server is not the only pool of exponents. Some people are getting exponents manually assigned via the webpage; I get mine by email from George. I request exponents below 5,260,000 because that's what I'm mostly set up to run, with a separate primenet V2.x server and numerous v14.4 clients. One of the blocks I've been assigned by George includes 3,960,000, which is currently issuing rapidly. When an exponent gets put on a slow machine and nears the bottom of the untested-once list, I move its intermediate result files to a fast box to accelerate achievement of the next GIMPS milestone. Several other Intel cpus I run which are 200Mhz and up are busy running 1 or 2 full LLtests in each run length, also reserved by email from George. After all, the IPS won't issue in the upper ranges yet, so testing ahead of the pack for QA purposes requires other means. Ken Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
RE: Mersenne: status of exponents
> ### Are we better off with or without these machines? ### > > This is the question people have been asking you and that you have been > avoiding. It seems to me you are of the opinion that if a > machine doesn't meet > *your* standards of processor power or network connectivity, we > should just > tell the guy "hey, thanks, but no thanks, we've got better things > to do than > wait around for you." I haven't avoided the question. In fact, I think I've been quite emphatic that we need to find the work that is best suited to the computer we have. Let's face it, some computers just SHOULD NOT be running first time LL tests, even in the 4M-5M range, and here I'm talking specifically about 486 class machines. Even a P-60 could finish one of those up in less than a year. But for a 486, I'm thinking "factoring...factoring". > I am in no way opposed to reclaiming abandoned exponents, but to > simply start > working on them without contacting the current "owner" when you > have contact > information available is not only irrational but unethical, > regardless of the > nobility of your intentions. But I don't have contact information available. I have their primenet ID which means nothing to anyone but Scott, and I don't feel like bugging him in the form of "Scott, could you email this list of 13 people and ask them "Whassup wit dat?" > Who gets credit for the work is > irrelevant; the > fact is by doing this you are taking away their contribution > (regardless of > whether the number tested turns out to be prime or not) because > *you* didn't > think their machine was good enough for this project. Not really, because even if they finish, well hey, they just did a double-check. > Again just *ask*. It's the polite thing to do. It's the RIGHT > thing to do. > I feel like I have to repeat this because you have not attempted > to explain > at all why you went ahead and started working on the exponents > without asking. Okay, well I just did explain...I don't know who these people are. Aaron Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
"Brian J. Beesley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'd like to suggest: [...] >(b) an extra form is added to the PrimeNet Manual Exponent page, so >that progress reports can be supplied manually on behalf of clients >which can't do it automatically. (Don't even need to give a >completion date really - just to say "I'm still alive" & keep the >exponent reserved for another "expiry period" - but should have an >optional field for estimated completion date, if known) This is a very good idea. I am runnnig MacGIMPS on my PowerMac G3/233 and that particular LL client has no server support yet. I would find it rather unpleasant if someone snatched the exponent that was assigned to me because s/he assumed that it was abandoned. After all, the fun part of GIMPS (to me) is the knowledge that "I am testing exponent x that has been assigned to me and to noone else". JP Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
You will notice that in an email from George he said he does occasionally go through the database and release those exponents that don't look like they will be done by his own criteria and that he discourages "poaching". I would think that you would trust him, and just get new exponents automatically. This will help keep both you and others from "wasting" cpu time, duplicating first time checks. I really don't think that anything will really "fall through the cracks". There isn't really much point in arguing about this further, its discouraged, but we can't do much about people who insist on doing it. Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
RE: Mersenne: status of exponents
> I don't really understand the urgency to get these exponents > finished, either. > So what if it takes 2 years to finish that check? Is one year to > long? Six > months? Six weeks? Should we tell people with Pentium 100s that > we don't > want their help? Considering we have an unlimited supply of > exponents to test > (barring a unexpected revelation that there are a finite number > of Mersenne > primes), we are better off (in terms of total work done per day) > with older > machines in addition to your new PIII-550's than we would be without them. In one year, we just might be able to do first time checks on every exponent under the currently unknown M38. Wouldn't it be nice if we could verify that it is indeed the 38th Mersenne Prime, and not just the 38th *known* Mersenne Prime? I *gaurantee* that if EVERY OTHER NUMBER except this little group of a dozen or so were tested, and only these few held us back from verifying the order of the list, there would be very strong argument to get them tested right away. If anything else, I'm just guilty of jumping the gun by a few months, but considering that some of these exponents have been checked out for a year and still have a year to go, I find the arguments that "well, I only connect once a year" to be a bit tenuous at the outset. > To make a long story short, just *ask* people... Mr. Woltman has > a policy of > not releasing email addresses, which I respect; since there are > only a dozen > or so of these suspected of abandoning their exponents, I would imagine he > wouldn't be too busy to send them a quick email for you and let > you know what > they have to say. It just seems rude not to ask if you have > contact information > available. I think a BETTER policy would be to automatically identify exponents which meet some unusual criteria and automatically send them emails, asking them "are you still running the software, how far along is it, do you have the latest version, etc" and if they don't respond, then BOOM, back into the pool of available exponents it goes. Criteria for such an emailer might include: - hasn't reported results since it was first checked out - expected completion date at least 1 year in the future - running time exceeds 1 year with no checkins etc. If an exponent met 2 or more criteria, they get an auto-email. I don't know how feasible this is, but I think it'd help weed out those rare numbers that *have* been abandoned and which, unfortunately, had long completion times to begin with. For other abandoned numbers checked out with the latest versions, they'll expire 60 days after the last checkin date was missed (if I understood Scott's comments right), so the problem will eventually go away. And that's why we might as well clean out the problem exponents now anyway since no more new problem exponents are likely to show up with the current system. Aaron Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
RE: Mersenne: status of exponents
> There is no sure-fire formula for detecting exponents that are no longer > being worked on. Once in a great while, I analyze the database and find > exponents that have "slipped through the cracks" or I think have been > abandoned and release them for reassignment. I do *not* email > the affected > persons (I used to, but it was *way* too much work). > > The good news is that the current prime95 expiration policy seems to > work very well. Thus, this problem should occur much less frequently > in the future. Agreed. I think it's important to note here that of the thousands of exponents currently assigned for testing, I could find only a bit over a dozen that were SOOO obviously abandoned (and so much time until they would be reassigned) that I think the current system does in fact work quite well... Aaron Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
RE: Mersenne: status of exponents
> > WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL IT MAKE in > > __your__ life when exponent so-and-so is completed ?? > > When it comes right down to it, it will make *very* little difference to > most of us when *any* exponent finishes. I guess that means we should all > quit, eh? Exactly. How we check numbers is nobody elses business. I don't like the idea of unecessarily replicating work, but neither do I like the idea of waiting 2 years to work on an exponent that's been abandoned. > > This project was supposed to be fun. It is becoming intrusive. > > Interesting...I've never seen a less intrusive project in my life. And I am having fun, especially the part where I learn about the inner workings of our legal system! :-) Seriously though, it's a hobby, we all have a different approach to it, but if it weren't enjoyable in some weird way, I'd have quit on May 28, 1998. Aaron Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
Howdy, I had 8 machines testing last year. Only one was internet connected. After a couple of months of checking in results and getting no credit in the top producer list, I got discouraged. It is not just that my producer stats did not change. It implied to me that my efforts were wasted. I hope Aaron does not make someone else feel that way. I have nearly finished a round of upgrading most of these machines and I have not decided whether it is "safe" to start testing numbers again. Good day, Ralph Green, Jr. At 08:58 PM 6/13/99 +0100, Brian J. Beesley was seen to remark: >Could I suggest that we do something to help those people with non- >internet connected machines (or possibly machines which have to run >LL testing clients which have no server support) to keep their >progress up to date. Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
Hi all, At 11:46 AM 6/13/99 -0500, several people wrote: >The expiration policy is such-and-so... Prime95 reports in with new expected completion dates as well as next expected checkin date every N days where N is by default 28 days. Your exponents are reassigned if you miss your next expected checkin date by 60 days. However, prime95 version 15 used a different algorithm. The program reported an expected completion date when an exponent was reserved. The exponent expired 60 days after the expected completion date is missed. Exponents that are checked out by email do not follow a rigid formula. Generally, progress must be reported every 4 or 5 months and the range completed within a year. People I know such as Mr. Burge and Mr. Sunde are given more slack than a name I do not recognize. These exponents are usually recycled to people who cannot upgrade from version 14 or are using Macs (which work a lot better on exponents below 4.8M). Exponents above 5.2M are given to Primenet. The "problem" exponents that started this thread almost assuredly came from version 15 clients using the old expiration policy. >Is "poaching" OK? No. There's nothing I can do about it, but I certainly do not encourage it. For the past two years it seems there has always been two or three people testing the lowest available exponents. I don't think they have improved their chances at all as they often report double-checks rather than first-time checks. >Oh great, I reported a result and got "exponent already tested" error. Remember, you will get this error message when you retest an exponent that was originally tested by buggy version 17. It is very likely that you just completed the first CORRECT LL test. That said, accidents happen. A manual tester can enter the wrong range, an expired exponent can all of a sudden have its result reported, etc. The system will never be perfect, but fortunately works as expected 99% of the time. >You should email the original person that reserved the exponent. Well, my policy is not to give out email addresses. >I'm not upgrading because I think my old P-whatever should run >first time checks. GIMPS does not mandate your computer do certain work. You can override the defult behavior in the Test/Primenet dialog box. Remember, you are here to have fun and if you don't mind waiting 6 months for an LL test, that's fine by me. Your checkin every 28 days will let the server know you are busy working on your exponent. (However, be reasonable. As this thread shows if you grab an exponent that will take 4 years to test, you can expect a "poacher" to finish it before you do. I would think one year completion time would be OK though). >Why do we care that these smaller exponents get tested in a timely manner? The obvious answer is we want to make a relatively orderly determination on the primality of every Mersenne number. There is no sure-fire formula for detecting exponents that are no longer being worked on. Once in a great while, I analyze the database and find exponents that have "slipped through the cracks" or I think have been abandoned and release them for reassignment. I do *not* email the affected persons (I used to, but it was *way* too much work). The good news is that the current prime95 expiration policy seems to work very well. Thus, this problem should occur much less frequently in the future. Have fun, George Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
Simon Burge wrote:
> I haven't saved the world, but I'm still having a good time, and to me
> that's what GIMPS is all about. I'd hate to see that disappear...
Altho we all want to test fresh numbers, they *all* eventually need to be
double checked by self sacrificing souls. Bless you Simon. May your
descendants fill the earth. {8^D spike
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
At 04:32 PM 6/13/99 +0200, Sturle Sunde wrote: >When a person tells the world which exponents he is testing, and >continously reports his progress, people could at least complain to him >before hijacking the exponents he has been testing for a year Some people that are out of contact may be using the buggy version 17, and their work is wasted. +--+ | Jud "program first and think later" McCranie | +--+ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
At 11:46 AM 6/13/99 -0500, Mikus Grinbergs wrote: > >To those on this list who are pursuing why certain exponents are not >being completed "sooner" -- think about it -- WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL >IT MAKE in __your__ life when exponent so-and-so is completed ?? > I write the exponents resulting in primes down in my book, and I don't want to have to insert ones later. ;-) +--+ | Jud "program first and think later" McCranie | +--+ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
On 13 Jun 99, at 16:32, Sturle Sunde wrote: > When a person tells the world which exponents he is testing, and > continously reports his progress, people could at least complain to him > before hijacking the exponents he has been testing for a year with the > dream of becoming a discoverer of the next Mersenne prime. Stealing the > exponent on purpose without even sending him an email is just plain wrong. Hear hear. > I, at least, would change to another project very quickly if the now very > well coordinated Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search is turned into an > anarchy were people are encouraged to cheat. This is an excellent point, I think we ought to take notice. It's certainly p*ss*d me off a bit with the Proth project to find that, out of 4 primes I've discovered, 2 are "rediscoveries" of numbers that other people have been working on without reserving ranges via the perfectly satisfactory facilities provided. I'll be dumping Proth & moving that P100 system to something else when the range I'm working on at the moment finishes. Probably ECM. Could I suggest that we do something to help those people with non- internet connected machines (or possibly machines which have to run LL testing clients which have no server support) to keep their progress up to date. I have a Sun Sparc 2 which has been double checking using MacLucasUNIX for a while now, it takes about 10 weeks to run a test on an exponent around 2 million. The problem is, if I use the manual testing pages, it expires after 60 days & gets reallocated. I found a workaround, viz. to use a "dummy" setup on another system running Prime95 to supply "dummy" progress reports, but it's a bit messy and inconvenient. I'd like to suggest: (a) the expiry period for exponents allocated using the manual pages is extended from 60 days - say to 120 days (b) an extra form is added to the PrimeNet Manual Exponent page, so that progress reports can be supplied manually on behalf of clients which can't do it automatically. (Don't even need to give a completion date really - just to say "I'm still alive" & keep the exponent reserved for another "expiry period" - but should have an optional field for estimated completion date, if known) Obviously this is "second best" to providing everyone with PrimeNet- aware clients (and permanent, free-to-use, _secure_ Internet connections), but I don't see that as being a realistic target in the short to medium term. Regards Brian Beesley Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
RE: Mersenne: status of exponents
From: Mikus Grinbergs > What RIGHT do the people on this list have to > keep asking questions of those who do not meet > the expectations of the questioners? I don't think there's *anything* at all wrong with asking questions. I like the project and have been devoting CPU time to it since before primenet. If someone told me that asking questions about the project or the way it's run is inappropriate, I'd politely inform them that they could go hang. If we're a part of this, then we can ask questions. It's as simple as that. I've *never* seen George or Scott even hint that questions weren't welcome...and I think that's just the way it should be. > WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL IT MAKE in > __your__ life when exponent so-and-so is completed ?? When it comes right down to it, it will make *very* little difference to most of us when *any* exponent finishes. I guess that means we should all quit, eh? > This project was supposed to be fun. It is becoming intrusive. Interesting...I've never seen a less intrusive project in my life. Rick. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alienshore.com/ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
This really bothers me. Who appointed us to be our brother's keepers? What RIGHT do the people on this list have to keep asking questions of those who do not meet the expectations of the questioners? To those on this list who are pursuing why certain exponents are not being completed "sooner" -- think about it -- WHAT DIFFERENCE WILL IT MAKE in __your__ life when exponent so-and-so is completed ?? This project was supposed to be fun. It is becoming intrusive. mikus In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jud McCranie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 11:38 AM 6/13/99 +0200, Sturle Sunde wrote: > >And exactly how do you think that justifies that a GIMPS-participant does > >it knowingly? > > I'd like to ask the following of readers of this list who have been working on > an exponent for more than 1 year, and have an expected completion date after > 9/9/99. > > 1. What percentage of the computation has been completed? > > 2. What is the speed of the CPU? > > 3. How many hours per day is Prime95 actually running? > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
"John R Pierce" wrote: > btw, I disagree with the current policy of not letting slowish machines like > this do LL tests, this machine cranks out a exponent every 60 days, has been > an old faithful, I see no reason to retire it from the test, hence have not > updated it to the current software, its still running 16.x. I currently > have about 12 systems working total and have logged 27+ p90 years with IPS > (and another 4+ with pre-IPS GIMPS). Spare a thought for us non-intel folks. I've currently got 78 machines chugging along purely double-testing these days. My last great chance at discovering a new prime finished when it took over 5 months to test 3743321. In two and a half years with up to one hundred machines working, I've managed 16.2 P90 years... What a lot of people seem to have forgotten is that this _isn't_ a race to the finish line (there is no finish line!), and that people are meant to be having fun along the way. I'm still having my bit of fun - once a day I check my logs to see if another number (or even two!) have finished double checking, whereas once I used to count the number of numbers that finished (on 17th March, 1997 there were 17 numbers that finished). I've learnt a little math along the way (thanks Ernst!), and done my small bit tweaking the speed of Will's mersenne1 program by a few percent here and there. I haven't saved the world, but I'm still having a good time, and to me that's what GIMPS is all about. I'd hate to see that disappear... Simon. Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
> Here's a prime example: > 4369949 60 475.6 223.8 283.8 22-May-98 13:13 23-Feb-98 02:21 dsh21 > BamBam > Checked out 2/23/98, last checkin was 5/22/98 (over a year ago) with another > 223.8 days to run, 283.8 days until it will expire. The owner is "dsh21". Mail him and ask why. > Or this one: > 4465127 60 472.3 311.8 371.8 26-Feb-98 09:23 koma > magek072 > Checked out 2/26/98, *NEVER* checked in at all, over a YEAR until it will > expire. The owner is "koma". Mail him and ask why. > 4787599 61 376.0 662.0 722.0 02-Jun-98 16:42 andres > We could wait around 2 years to finally get around to testing this obviously > abandoned one, or I'll just do it now. Why don't you mail "andres" and ask if it is abandoned first? I have permission to use two machines myself, which are on the internet once a year. They are fast enough, but someone always steals their exponents before the year is over, so it is no use. I reserved exponents for them via email to George a while, so that the machines didn't show up in Primenet's logs, but I got tired of the manual work so the machines are idle now. Remember that there are more wierd configurations out there than any one of you will ever be able to imagine, and Primnet isn't nearly flexible enough even for my simple use. I don't think it is very difficult to send email, and I know you can do it, so WHY NOT? -- Sturle URL: http://www.stud.ifi.uio.no/~sturles/ Er det m}ndag i dag? ~~ MMF: http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=BUP399 - St. URLe Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
RE: Mersenne: status of exponents
> At 09:32 AM 6/13/99 -0600, Aaron Blosser wrote: > >Criteria I used were: > > > >1) Original *quite* long time to complete > >2) No check-ins for a period of at least 6 months. > > I thought that if no check-in was done in 60 days, the number was > put back in > the pool. One would have thought so, but I guess not. Here's a prime example: 4369949 60 475.6 223.8 283.8 22-May-98 13:13 23-Feb-98 02:21 dsh21 BamBam Checked out 2/23/98, last checkin was 5/22/98 (over a year ago) with another 223.8 days to run, 283.8 days until it will expire. Or this one: 4465127 60 472.3 311.8 371.8 26-Feb-98 09:23 koma magek072 Checked out 2/26/98, *NEVER* checked in at all, over a YEAR until it will expire. There are quite a few like that, so I'm gonna play God and take care of 'em. :-) Here's one I just *love*: 4787599 61 376.0 662.0 722.0 02-Jun-98 16:42 andres We could wait around 2 years to finally get around to testing this obviously abandoned one, or I'll just do it now. Aaron Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
RE: Mersenne: status of exponents
At 09:32 AM 6/13/99 -0600, Aaron Blosser wrote: >Criteria I used were: > >1) Original *quite* long time to complete >2) No check-ins for a period of at least 6 months. I thought that if no check-in was done in 60 days, the number was put back in the pool. +--+ | Jud "program first and think later" McCranie | +--+ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
At 04:32 PM 6/13/99 +0200, Sturle Sunde wrote: > >Great. Next time Primenet tells me "Error, this exponent is already >tested" on the exponent I reserved a few months ago, I should be very >happy and tell myself: "Great! Someone have tested the exponent for me, >and will get the credit if it was prime! I propose this as the honorable thing to do. First, you aren't likely to discover a prime, but if you do discover one that some other GIMPS person is working on, you should contact that person and share the credit. +--+ | Jud "program first and think later" McCranie | +--+ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
RE: Mersenne: status of exponents
> When a person tells the world which exponents he is testing, and > continously reports his progress, people could at least complain to him > before hijacking the exponents he has been testing for a year with the > dream of becoming a discoverer of the next Mersenne prime. Stealing the > exponent on purpose without even sending him an email is just plain wrong. > This way you encourage him to send false progress reports or results to > keep you away. "Heck, I send in this bogus result to keep people happy > while I continue to check if this is a Mersenne prime. It will always > take some time before someone double check it, so I would probably have > more than enough time to get the real result." If it makes you feel any better, I took the two posts from Yvan Dutil and also went through the assignments list on Primenet and gathered about 14 exponents that I figured, quite reasonably, were abandoned. Criteria I used were: 1) Original *quite* long time to complete 2) No check-ins for a period of at least 6 months. You see, the real problem is that if I had a 486 that I wanted to use to LL test a number in the 4M-5M range, and I specified that my machine is on 8 hours of the day, the expected completion date originally sent would in deed be over a year in the future. And since an exponent will only expire 60 days past the expected completion date, these numbers which are almost entirely likely to be abandoned, wouldn't show up in the Primenet "to be assigned" database for over a year after the time it was checked out. In some of those cases, the exponent, having been checked out nearly a year ago, still had a year before it was expected to be done. And a good number of those had NEVER had the progress updated since it was checked out. I'm not out there just randomly grabbing numbers as you suggest. Aaron Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
> I'd like to ask the following of readers of this list who have been working on > an exponent for more than 1 year, and have an expected completion date after > 9/9/99. my slowest machine, a old 430FX based pentium-100 which has been on GIMPS since well before Primenet, is currently taking about 60 days per LL test. It runs 24/7, its only other duties currently are 'print server' and 'fax modem'. I may be converting it to a linux system to act as an internet gateway at some point, presumably then I will save its work-in-progress and set it up as with the linux version (or move its todo over to my new p3-500). btw, I disagree with the current policy of not letting slowish machines like this do LL tests, this machine cranks out a exponent every 60 days, has been an old faithful, I see no reason to retire it from the test, hence have not updated it to the current software, its still running 16.x. I currently have about 12 systems working total and have logged 27+ p90 years with IPS (and another 4+ with pre-IPS GIMPS). 1 - pentium 100 2 - pentium 120 1 - pentium 150 1 - pentium 166 1 - pentium 200 2 - PentiumPro 200 (really 1 system w/ 2 cpus) 1 - Pentium-II 300 2 - Pentium-II 400 1 - Pentium-III 500+ [the 300 is actually a 266 at 75MHz for 300 core speed, and the 500+ is actually a 450 currently being 'burned in' at 120Mhz (540MHz core)... no prime95 errors at all to date] -jrp Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
> Some time ago we went over this issue on this list. Since all exponents need > to be checked twice anyway, it is possible to return a doublecheck on an > number of which the 'original' result is not in yet. As long as it happens > with a different CPU or different startingnumbers there is nothing at hand. > Make sure though that not the same work is done twice, since it has not added > value. Great. Next time Primenet tells me "Error, this exponent is already tested" on the exponent I reserved a few months ago, I should be very happy and tell myself: "Great! Someone have tested the exponent for me, and will get the credit if it was prime! I should just be happy and keep testing to verify the nice guys result. The question, if the number was prime or not have been answered by someone else, but why should I care about that?" And when the exponent is released again for double-checking and returned before my test is finished, I should tell myself: "Good, I'm contributing to the project by checking the exponent for the third time." Nah. Perhaps I should just start picking random numbers from the list of current assignments, if I think that I can finish them first. As you say, all exponents have to be tested twice anyway so it can't hurt. Rules are made for wimps. Also I think that I should pretend to never have been a part of GIMPS if I find a new Mersenne prime. Just ignoring the rules, like you. When a person tells the world which exponents he is testing, and continously reports his progress, people could at least complain to him before hijacking the exponents he has been testing for a year with the dream of becoming a discoverer of the next Mersenne prime. Stealing the exponent on purpose without even sending him an email is just plain wrong. This way you encourage him to send false progress reports or results to keep you away. "Heck, I send in this bogus result to keep people happy while I continue to check if this is a Mersenne prime. It will always take some time before someone double check it, so I would probably have more than enough time to get the real result." I, at least, would change to another project very quickly if the now very well coordinated Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search is turned into an anarchy were people are encouraged to cheat. Btw.: I've double checked approximately 450 exponents to present, far more than I've tested for the first time, and have 60 machines double checking other peoples results as I write this. I think that I'm doing my fair part of the less exciting double checking. -- Sturle URL: http://www.stud.ifi.uio.no/~sturles/ Er det m}ndag i dag? ~~ MMF: http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=BUP399 - St. URLe Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
At 11:38 AM 6/13/99 +0200, Sturle Sunde wrote: >And exactly how do you think that justifies that a GIMPS-participant does >it knowingly? I'd like to ask the following of readers of this list who have been working on an exponent for more than 1 year, and have an expected completion date after 9/9/99. 1. What percentage of the computation has been completed? 2. What is the speed of the CPU? 3. How many hours per day is Prime95 actually running? +--+ | Jud "program first and think later" McCranie | +--+ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
At 11:38 AM 6/13/99 +0200, Sturle Sunde wrote: > >And exactly how do you think that justifies that a GIMPS-participant does >it knowingly? I don't think it is justified, except for cases where they seem to have been abandoned, or someone is purposefully holding up the project. >This isn't a competition to finish all exponents in turn. But the idea is to get a complete list of Mersenne primes (up to the limits of our computation). One of the criticisms of previous projects is that they were out for records. As soon as one machine found a record prime, the rest jumped ahead to look for another record rather than checking all of the range. GIMPS is supposed to avoid that problem. GIMPS is designed to check all numbers, and even double check them. > This is a fun project It is also to be useful. +--+ | Jud "program first and think later" McCranie | +--+ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
>>Yes. I would get very pissed if someone snatched an exponent which I >>already spent a year of work on, and am still working on, without even >>telling me in advance. > We are all in some danger of this happening because of non-GIMPS people > working on Mersenne primes (with Crays, etc). And exactly how do you think that justifies that a GIMPS-participant does it knowingly? I still think this is bad behaviour, regardless of what a non-GIMPS-person might do with his Cray. This isn't a competition to finish all exponents in turn. This is a fun project where everybody, including people with slow computers, should be welcome to participate without having people making their one-year of CPU-time turn into nothing by snatching their exponents. Go away and make your own project for PIII's and Crays only, if you think they are the only computers worthy of participating. How would you feel if the exponent you took turned out to be a new Mersenne prime? -- Sturle URL: http://www.stud.ifi.uio.no/~sturles/ Er det m}ndag i dag? ~~ MMF: http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=BUP399 - St. URLe Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
At 07:47 AM 6/12/99 +0200, Sturle Sunde wrote: >Yes. I would get very pissed if someone snatched an exponent which I >already spent a year of work on, and am still working on, without even >telling me in advance. We are all in some danger of this happening because of non-GIMPS people working on Mersenne primes (with Crays, etc). +--+ | Jud "program first and think later" McCranie | +--+ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
RE: Mersenne: status of exponents
> At least: Stay away from my exponents! If you touch them, I will find > you with the completed exponents report, track you down, tell the > FBI that > they don't have all your computer equipment and that you are > searching for > primes again, force you to to switch to SETI@home and factor the > exponents > you've tested to pieces, so that you'll loose credit for all the > CPU time! > Be afraid. B-) Yow! I'll be sure and stay away from your exponents anyway!!! :-) The last thing I need is for the FBI to come and take the 3 new machines I have at home (and 2 of them belong to my company)!! :-) The ones I grabbed (I went back and looked at the assigned work page on Primenet...so if you manually got some from George, they wouldn't show up there in theory) were *first time* checks that had completion dates at least a year from now. That way, when the original assignee checks in their result, it's at least good for a double-check, which is what a machine that slow should've been doing anyway. These are exponents in the 4M-5M range...there were very few that were going to take over a year...thank goodness. > Also, most of my assignments, both double cheking and first time, are > running on non-Intel Unix boxes. These are reserved directly > form George, > not from Primenet, so you won't find them. The Primenet software have > flaws which makes it unuseable for other packages than Prime95/mprime. I think that's what Jud McCranie was talking about with the un-tested first-time exponents under 4M. I guess those are some that show up on the mersenne.org status list. Now...correct me if I'm wrong, but not all exponents that George keeps track of end up in Scott's Primenet database...right? George still keeps a few that he assigns to people manually? Or are there still some manual assignments that got passed out *before* the advent of Primenet that STILL haven't been finished? Yow! > Primenet once hijacked 58 of the double cheking assignments I was working > on due to a bug in the Primenet software. That's happened to me, strangely enough...every now and then when a machine of mine update expected completion dates, it will release some exponents because it says they were already tested (happened more often with factoring assignments). I don't know why, and I haven't seen that happen lately...I assume some bug was causing Primenet to assign the same exponent twice maybe? No sweat off my brow though...I've turned in a few LL results that, for whatever reason ended up being counted as a double-check instead of the first time LL test it started out as, but again...each one get's double-checked anyway, so it's all good. Aaron Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
> If I see a test that will take well over a year, is it wrong of me to just > do it myself with a manual assignment? Yes. I would get very pissed if someone snatched an exponent which I already spent a year of work on, and am still working on, without even telling me in advance. Hey, you coud have the P###-files, but tell me! As long as the people working on the exponent are actualy working of them, I think it is very little nice of you to hijack their exponents without even sending them an email in advance! At least: Stay away from my exponents! If you touch them, I will find you with the completed exponents report, track you down, tell the FBI that they don't have all your computer equipment and that you are searching for primes again, force you to to switch to SETI@home and factor the exponents you've tested to pieces, so that you'll loose credit for all the CPU time! Be afraid. B-) Also, most of my assignments, both double cheking and first time, are running on non-Intel Unix boxes. These are reserved directly form George, not from Primenet, so you won't find them. The Primenet software have flaws which makes it unuseable for other packages than Prime95/mprime. Primenet once hijacked 58 of the double cheking assignments I was working on due to a bug in the Primenet software. Unfortunately the next batch I got mostly contained exponents which wanted 256K FFT size instead of 128K. 256K FFT size means more than tvice the CPU-time, which means to slow to test on an Indy. Those 58 machines are therefore retired from GIMPS. 8-( -- Sturle URL: http://www.stud.ifi.uio.no/~sturles/ Er det m}ndag i dag? ~~ MMF: http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=BUP399 - St. URLe Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
JON STRAYER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As I said, unless there is an intervention or someone just >> takes it upon themselves to double-check those exponents >> with software other than George's (the very basis >> of doublechecking), we won't get confirmation of >> M37 until 2003 > So? It's not like we are running out of work. No, nor will we ever, barring an ingenious mathematical proof that either a) There are finitely many Mersenne primes (with upper bound or maximum number of Mersenne primes) or b) All (or all but finitely many with an upper bound or maximum quantity for the sporadics) Mersenne primes follow some pattern. Imagine there turned out to be a link between primes patterns (or Mersenne prime patterns) and the Mandelbreot set? It's not out of the question. That thing has interesting additive combinatorics, also doubling patterns, Fibonacci sequences, and the like hidden in it. Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
RE: Mersenne: status of exponents
Okay then...like it or not, I took all those exponents that were posted to the list earlier and started them up. I had 3 quad-processor and 1 dual-processor PPro 200 machines not doing anything, so they're now working on those exponents. Aaron > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jud > McCranie > Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 2:11 PM > To: Aaron Blosser > Cc: Mersenne@Base. Com > Subject: RE: Mersenne: status of exponents > > > At 01:10 PM 6/11/99 -0600, Aaron Blosser wrote: > > > >If I see a test that will take well over a year, is it wrong of > me to just > >do it myself with a manual assignment? > > I think that is what should be done. A double check will have to be done > anyway, so let the year-long test serve as the double check. > Anything less > than a P=166 is defaulting to double check assignments. If it is taking a > year, then it is running on something considerably slower. > > > > +--+ > | Jud "program first and think later" McCranie | > +--+ > > > > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
>WHY are these others so concerned about a few exponents not being >finished soon? What possible difference does it make to them? It doesn't affect me personally in the slightest, other than wanting to see that line item on the GIMPS home page under "Milestones", that we know M37 is truly M37 and not M38. Part of the reason many of us do this is to see the progress in material ways like that, and I don't want to have to wait until 2003 to see that milestone reached, when it is one computer holding up the chase. That's not the case today (one holdout stopping us) but it won't be too long before it is... Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
RE: Mersenne: status of exponents
At 01:10 PM 6/11/99 -0600, Aaron Blosser wrote: > >If I see a test that will take well over a year, is it wrong of me to just >do it myself with a manual assignment? I think that is what should be done. A double check will have to be done anyway, so let the year-long test serve as the double check. Anything less than a P=166 is defaulting to double check assignments. If it is taking a year, then it is running on something considerably slower. +--+ | Jud "program first and think later" McCranie | +--+ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
RE: Mersenne: status of exponents
What is the consensus on exponent "poaching"? If I see a test that will take well over a year, is it wrong of me to just do it myself with a manual assignment? What would be the consequences of that? I know that if I test it and turn it in myself, the next time the slow machine does an update, it will get an "exponent already tested" message and remove it from the worktodo, and if it does finish up eventually and turn it in, would it count as a double-check (or even triple-check if it really takes a year)? Aaron > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Yvan Dutil > Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 8:59 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Mersenne: status of exponents > > > At 07:53 AM 6/11/99 MDT, Paul Derbyshire wrote: > >Jud McCranie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >[Mysterious missing Mersenne exponents] > > > >> But I thought that the exponents were reassigned if no result was > >> reported in 2 months. These were assigned much more than 2 months ago. > > > >No, they're reassigned if no update is reported in 2 months. The update > may be > >a keepalive or an expected completion date or almost anything. > > The limit is 60 days after the completion date, and not since the > last update. > These ones never call back in since more than a year. Four of them will be > still > allocated a year from now. > > prime fact current days > exponentbits iteration run / to go / exp date updated date > assigned > -- - - --- > --- > 4465127 60 470.2 313.8 373.8 > 26-Feb-98 09:23 > 4671439 * 60 369.8 149.2 209.2 > 06-Jun-98 20:31 > 4787599 61 373.9 664.1 724.1 > 02-Jun-98 16:42 > 4833901 61 401.9 407.1 467.1 > 05-May-98 16:35 > 4864591 61 373.0 34.0 94.0 > 03-Jun-98 13:18 > 4876111 61 411.3 51.7 111.7 > 26-Apr-98 07:59 > 4926563 61 436.6 105.4 165.4 > 31-Mar-98 23:58 > 5016679 61 385.5 383.5 443.5 > 22-May-98 02:09 > 5123693 61 369.6 -43.6 16.4 > 06-Jun-98 23:55 > > Yvan Dutil > > > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
Will the Millenium Deities smite all GIMPS participants unless each and every exponent under 500 has been processed by 12/31/99 ? Assume uncompleted exponents were reserved in good faith. How does it make the world a better place to have others come along and say: "I see that splinter in your eye -- *you* have not finished yet !!"? WHY are these others so concerned about a few exponents not being finished soon? What possible difference does it make to them? mikus Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
On 11 Jun 99, at 10:32, Jeff Woods wrote: > Exponents are only re-assigned if the machine they are assigned to has not > been heard from AT ALL over the past 60 days. So long as the machine > checks in and tells PrimeNet that it is still working, it will let them > take as long as they want to check the exponent. So? There's plenty of work left for the rest of us 8-) > > This was my complaint from a couple days ago -- one client in particular > has four exponents checked out for double-checking, and is regularly > checking in -- taking 11 months to check a single exponent. Even though > those three "untouched" exponents won't even be LOOKED AT by the machine > for up to three years, the will never expire because the machine checks in > regularly (at least every 60 days) and reports that it did a few iterations. Ah. Someone with a 386. We've had these before, it usually happens (eventually) that the user gets fed up or the machine gets upgraded, either way the problem "goes away". > > As I said, unless there is an intervention or someone just takes it upon > themselves to double-check those exponents with software other than > George's (the very basis of doublechecking), we won't get confirmation of > M37 until 2003 Well, they're not a serious problem, yet. When they _do_ become isolated instances preventing a landmark link confirmation of M(37) being achieved, then I'm sure someone will devote a few PII-400 CPU weeks to clearing them up. BTW note that PrimeNet does accept results for exponents not assigned to you, though it does mutter and won't credit you for the CPU time. Regards Brian Beesley Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
> > I wonder about that, however. A 286 can't run Prime95, and a 386 would require > a 387, right? > ... or a 486 SX would require a 387 or 487 coprocessor. But since 387s cost buttons, the user might actually have one. The problem is, a 386+387 is still hopelessly slower than a Pentium, even at the same clock speed. Don't you think this discussion has gone on long enough yet? Regards Brian Beesley Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
At 07:53 AM 6/11/99 -0600, Paul Derbyshire wrote: >Those are probably just whichever 3M-area exponents got assigned to 286s and >386s :-) I wonder about that, however. A 286 can't run Prime95, and a 386 would require a 387, right? +--+ | Jud "program first and think later" McCranie | +--+ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
RE: Mersenne: status of exponents
At 10:47 AM 6/11/99 -0500, JON STRAYER wrote: >> As I said, unless there is an intervention or someone just >> takes it upon themselves to double-check those exponents >> with software other than George's (the very basis >> of doublechecking), we won't get confirmation of >> M37 until 2003 > >So? It's not like we are running out of work. > But it seems that our work should be better prioritized. There are small exponents that were assigned at least 17 months ago that haven't been finished. +--+ | Jud "program first and think later" McCranie | +--+ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
RE: Mersenne: status of exponents
> As I said, unless there is an intervention or someone just > takes it upon themselves to double-check those exponents > with software other than George's (the very basis > of doublechecking), we won't get confirmation of > M37 until 2003 So? It's not like we are running out of work. -- There are only three reasonable numbers in software engineering: 0, 1 & Infinity Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
At 07:53 AM 6/11/99 MDT, Paul Derbyshire wrote: >Jud McCranie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >[Mysterious missing Mersenne exponents] > >> But I thought that the exponents were reassigned if no result was >> reported in 2 months. These were assigned much more than 2 months ago. > >No, they're reassigned if no update is reported in 2 months. The update may be >a keepalive or an expected completion date or almost anything. In addition these ones have stay silent for a year: prime fact current days exponentbits iteration run / to go / exp date updated date assigned 4300291 D 61 447.1 -24.8 35.2 21-Mar-98 18:45 21-Mar-98 11:03 4369949 60 473.5 225.9 285.9 22-May-98 13:13 23-Feb-98 02:21 However, these ones seem (somehow) to follow the rule? prime fact current days exponentbits iteration run / to go / exp date updated date assigned 4472627 61 1509116 216.4 196.0 81.0 04-Jun-99 15:27 07-Nov-98 04:35 4692539 61 1337470 163.3 177.8 57.8 08-Jun-99 08:07 30-Dec-98 06:11 4742407 61 3604480 292.8 48.8 53.8 04-Jun-99 10:17 22-Aug-98 19:59 4746997 61 45.3 26.6 60.6 11-Jun-99 04:27 27-Apr-99 06:03 4786079 61 1.3 92.7 86.7 10-Jun-99 06:29 10-Jun-99 06:24 4854439 61 2818048 214.7 52.3 66.3 10-Jun-99 21:41 08-Nov-98 22:46 and many more... P.S. While I was writing this message, I recieved the message of Jeff Wood explaning than the check is machine based and not number base which explained this behavior. Yvan Dutil Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
At 07:53 AM 6/11/99 MDT, Paul Derbyshire wrote: >Jud McCranie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >[Mysterious missing Mersenne exponents] > >> But I thought that the exponents were reassigned if no result was >> reported in 2 months. These were assigned much more than 2 months ago. > >No, they're reassigned if no update is reported in 2 months. The update may be >a keepalive or an expected completion date or almost anything. The limit is 60 days after the completion date, and not since the last update. These ones never call back in since more than a year. Four of them will be still allocated a year from now. prime fact current days exponentbits iteration run / to go / exp date updated date assigned -- - - --- --- 4465127 60 470.2 313.8 373.8 26-Feb-98 09:23 4671439 * 60 369.8 149.2 209.2 06-Jun-98 20:31 4787599 61 373.9 664.1 724.1 02-Jun-98 16:42 4833901 61 401.9 407.1 467.1 05-May-98 16:35 4864591 61 373.0 34.0 94.0 03-Jun-98 13:18 4876111 61 411.3 51.7 111.7 26-Apr-98 07:59 4926563 61 436.6 105.4 165.4 31-Mar-98 23:58 5016679 61 385.5 383.5 443.5 22-May-98 02:09 5123693 61 369.6 -43.6 16.4 06-Jun-98 23:55 Yvan Dutil Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
Exponents are only re-assigned if the machine they are assigned to has not been heard from AT ALL over the past 60 days. So long as the machine checks in and tells PrimeNet that it is still working, it will let them take as long as they want to check the exponent. This was my complaint from a couple days ago -- one client in particular has four exponents checked out for double-checking, and is regularly checking in -- taking 11 months to check a single exponent. Even though those three "untouched" exponents won't even be LOOKED AT by the machine for up to three years, the will never expire because the machine checks in regularly (at least every 60 days) and reports that it did a few iterations. As I said, unless there is an intervention or someone just takes it upon themselves to double-check those exponents with software other than George's (the very basis of doublechecking), we won't get confirmation of M37 until 2003 At 09:16 AM 6/11/99 -0400, you wrote: >At 09:22 PM 6/10/99 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >I would venture to say that those 40 exponents are "out" at the moment, > >assigned to machines which have not yet turned in a result. > >But I thought that the exponents were reassigned if no result was reported >in 2 >months. These were assigned much more than 2 months ago. > >+--+ >| Jud "program first and think later" McCranie | >+--+ > > > >Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
Jud McCranie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [Mysterious missing Mersenne exponents] > But I thought that the exponents were reassigned if no result was > reported in 2 months. These were assigned much more than 2 months ago. No, they're reassigned if no update is reported in 2 months. The update may be a keepalive or an expected completion date or almost anything. Some exponents take much longer than 2 months to LL test on slower machines. Those are probably just whichever 3M-area exponents got assigned to 286s and 386s :-) Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
At 09:22 PM 6/10/99 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I would venture to say that those 40 exponents are "out" at the moment, >assigned to machines which have not yet turned in a result. But I thought that the exponents were reassigned if no result was reported in 2 months. These were assigned much more than 2 months ago. +--+ | Jud "program first and think later" McCranie | +--+ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: status of exponents
In a message dated 6/10/99, 9:07:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The status page shows that for exponents in the range 3,310,000-3,960,000, > there are 225 exponents for which 2 L-L tests have been done, yet there are > 40 exponents for which no factor is known, and no LL test has been done. I > have 2 questions: > > 1. Why have 2nd LL tests been done in many cases when there are still > exponents whose status is unknown? I would venture to say that those 40 exponents are "out" at the moment, assigned to machines which have not yet turned in a result. > 2. Exponents over 6,000,000 have been assigned for a couple of months or > so. Why are large exponents being assigned when there are still smaller > ones in need of a LL test? The same reason as #1. Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
