LL vs. DC ... am I reading this right?
 

If an unnamed exponent says this:
[CODE]
No factors below 2^66
P-1 B1=210000, B2=3045000
Unverified LL xxxxxxx
Suspect LL yyyyyyy
[/CODE]

OR

[CODE]
No factors below 2^66
P-1 B1=105000, B2=1995000
Unverified LL xxxxxxx
Unverified LL yyyyyyy [/CODE]

and the Residues do NOT match will the next assignment be a DC?

And, further would it be illegal, immoral or naughty for me to assign myself the DC via the worktodo.add process?

I believe both are DC's
as for assigning yourself one, if you performed the ll you probably shouldn't as the server won't trust your doublecheck, but otherwise it is perfectly "legal"

the same person shouldnt do the same ll test twice

[QUOTE=henryzz;151123]the same person shouldnt do the same ll test twice[/QUOTE]

Yes, as you and Starrynte both said....I understand. I did NOT do the LL test. I just might want to do the DC.

Proposal:

A new PrimeNet function, [I]conditional specific assignments[/I].

A conditional specific assignment would be requested by someone _for a specific exponent_ and type of assignment (TF, P-1, L-L, DC ...). Then PrimeNet would:

if that exponent was not currently assigned to anyone else (for any purpose), then assign it as requested (and return a code indicating that success),

else

return a code indicating that the conditional assignment request was refused.

(Exponents in ranges not currently available for assignment would be in the latter category.)

The refusal return code could be elaborated:

the exponent was already assigned to someone else for some purpose,

the exponent previously had been L-Led (first-time or later) by the requestor of a conditional L-L assignment -- to prevent two L-L test assignments to the same person on an exponent,

the exponent is already assigned to the (apparently forgetful) requestor :-),

range not currently available for assignment,

and so on.

This wouldn't [I]prevent[/I] anyone from doing whatever they can do now, such as performing two L-Ls on the same exponent or doing a test on an exponent currently assigned to someone else; it would just provide folks a better means to avoid doing so accidentally or unknowingly, by cooperating with PrimeNet instead of going around it by perusing a report then forcing a manual communication to squat on an exponent (hoping that PrimeNet had not assigned it since the report's epoch, but not having any assurance of that).

petrw1,
At the moment it would be immoral/worng. You need to wait 90 days as George is in the process of ring-fencing v4 assignments that did not get copied over to v5 correctly. Wait till Jan 20th or george gives a signal.

[QUOTE=garo;151464]petrw1,
At the moment it would be immoral/worng. You need to wait 90 days as George is in the process of ring-fencing v4 assignments that did not get copied over to v5 correctly. Wait till Jan 20th or george gives a signal.[/QUOTE]

OK

Ring-Fencing???

Yeah making sure those exponents that were assigned in v4 cannot be registered by other users in v5. The horse has bolted a bit on this but George was away so we should at least not make the situation worse by poaching v4 assigned exponents.

Ceasing and Desisting....

Cheers!