George,
Can you clarify again what no progress is? The same person who
has the exponents you mentioned also has several exponent that show up 1
iteration complete. Are you going to nuke those as well?
The one group of people I'm a bit afraid for - since I have
belonged to that grou
At 12:04 AM 1/28/03 +, Gordon Spence wrote:
[snip]
From: "Mary K. Conner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1036
[snip]
There are plenty of triple checks that happen accidentally. There is no
GIMPS need to do some on purpose, especially to the detriment
At 12:08 AM 1/28/03 +0200, Nuutti Kuosa wrote:
Hmm. Your name seems oddly familiar. ;)
1. Punishment (capital punishment?) and making poaching hard to do.
2. trying to understand causes behind poaching and then change the server
software more milestone friendly. I think that we are like to rea
At 03:29 PM 1/27/03 -0500, George Woltman wrote:
It's been quite awhile since I've done a release of exponents
that seem to be stuck - probably over a year.
I've identified 185 exponents that have had NO progress reported and are
either:
a) Below 12,000,000 and been assigned for 200 days or more
At 10:23 PM 1/27/2003 +0100, Torben Schlüntz wrote:
I don't really understand the question. If these 185
assignments have made NO progress in a year why didn't they expire in
about 60 days automaticly?
Do you by NO progress mean close to NO progress?
Look at this
[snip]
From: "Mary K. Conner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #1036
[snip]
There are plenty of triple checks that happen accidentally. There is no
GIMPS need to do some on purpose, especially to the detriment of a
participant that is following the rules. I
As I finished reading Gordon Spence's latest post, I was startled by his
last paragraph.
Gordon Spence wrote:
> And before you go off and waste hours trawling through
> all the masses of data on the project files to try and
> work out if I have ever poached any numbers, I'll save
> you the bother
>The fact that life doesn't end is not an excuse to poach. Poaching hurts
>the project because it drives away participants. It is not harmless. I
>don't know why people keep defending it.
I think that there are two possible solution paths to poaching.
1. Punishment (capital punishment?) and m
> I've identified 185 exponents that have had NO progress reported and are
> either:
> a) Below 12,000,000 and been assigned for 200 days or more, or
> b) Between 12 and 20 million and been assigned for 300 days or more
>
> Does anyone see any problems with releasing these exponents back into
> t
Fra: George Woltman
Sendt: ma 27-01-2003 21:29
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Emne: Mersenne: An officially sanctioned poach
It's been quite awhile since I've done a release of
exponents
that seem to be stuck - probably over a year.
If memory serves me correct, I was the first one to use the term poaching in
reference to snagging numbers assigned to someone else, so I'll add my $0.02
worth. :)
At the time (and this debate still comes up every now and then), Primenet
didn't expire exponents... That was something that George an
It's been quite awhile since I've done a release of exponents
that seem to be stuck - probably over a year.
I've identified 185 exponents that have had NO progress reported and are
either:
a) Below 12,000,000 and been assigned for 200 days or more, or
b) Between 12 and 20 million and been assign
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Richard Woods wrote:
>Paul Missman wrote:
>> I know that this might be earth shattering news for you,
>> but there is no such thing as "poaching".
>
>I think that folks who've been following the poaching discussion from
>the beginning know that there is indeed such a thing, an
Paul Missman wrote:
> I know that this might be earth shattering news for you,
> but there is no such thing as "poaching".
I think that folks who've been following the poaching discussion from
the beginning know that there is indeed such a thing, and what it is.
But let me post a refresher for
At 10:06 PM 1/26/03 -0500, Paul Missman wrote:
I know that this might be earth shattering news for you, but there is no
such thing as "poaching".
Neither GIMPS or Primenet have any license to these numbers, nor are they
the only entities testing large numbers for primality.
If my sister reads f
At 10:45 PM 1/26/03 +, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
On Sunday 26 January 2003 19:55, Mary K. Conner wrote:
>
> [ big snip - lots of _very_ sensible ideas!!! ]
>
> Primenet, and Primenet should preferentially give work over 64 bits to SSE2
> clients, and perhaps direct others to factor only up to 64
Hi everyone,
This is a general reply to most of the messages posted here about poaching
and anything related!!!
It doesn't matter if numbers were poached, are being poached or will be
poached, and it doesn't matter if I discover a new prime or if anybody else
discovers it, or whatever, what ma
17 matches
Mail list logo
