[QUOTE=chalsall;454958]And there is your bug. :smile:[/QUOTE]

I'm inclined to agree. The rules clearly state per worker, and that's what the intended design was.

George, could you examine the details on my computer? GUID = 929FEE33E0FD3CC86AA18BBAB7314AC0 (that's not sensitive is it?)

[QUOTE=Dubslow;454974]I'm inclined to agree. The rules clearly state per worker, and that's what the intended design was.

George, could you examine the details on my computer? GUID = 929FEE33E0FD3CC86AA18BBAB7314AC0 (that's not sensitive is it?)[/QUOTE]


Four workers.

NEW MILESTONE REACHED
 

All exponents under 71'000,000 have been checked once.

[QUOTE=rudy235;455186]All exponents under 71'000,000 have been checked once.[/QUOTE]

Bummer... [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=70723879&full=1"]"The Prime Minister" poached it from "Albert Pettersson"[/URL] who was legitimately assigned it and was making reasonable progress.

George et al... Perhaps this will motivate you to implement the assignment rules as they were intended, to avoid this kind of thing in the future.

[QUOTE=rudy235;455186]All exponents under 71'000,000 have been checked once.[/QUOTE]

aka, the latest occurrence of [I]premature <el><el>-calculation[/I]... ah, emotions!

Not much in favour of strict rules, however I'd be grabbing popcorn, should one of these "emotions" turn out a success...

[QUOTE=chalsall;455188]Bummer... [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=70723879&full=1"]"The Prime Minister" poached it from "Albert Pettersson"[/URL] who was legitimately assigned it and was making reasonable progress.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, but if Albert Pettersson perseveres he'll make the double-check. There is someone else who is more advanced (83.3%) but seems to have abandoned the task!

[QUOTE=rudy235;455191]Yes, but if Albert Pettersson perseveres he'll make the double-check. There is someone else who is more advanced (83.3%) but seems to have abandoned the task![/QUOTE]

Yes... But...

Mr. Pettersson (AKA "GAPa") didn't understand why he was given this assignment. Based on all of our understanding of the assignment rules, he shouldn't have -- exactly for the reason which has just been empirically demonstrated.

Computers are harsh mistresses; they do exactly what you tell them to do (currently).

[QUOTE=rudy235;455186]All exponents under 71'000,000 have been checked once.[/QUOTE]

Huh... noted and updated. Yeah, I wasn't expecting it yet and the poaching caught me off guard. :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;455198] I wasn't expecting it ... poaching caught me off guard. :smile:[/QUOTE]


That _IS_ the definition of poaching! :bangheadonwall:

[QUOTE=chalsall;455188]George et al... Perhaps this will motivate you to implement the assignment rules as they were intended, to avoid this kind of thing in the future.[/QUOTE]Today, I received a category 1 assignment ([url]https://www.mersenne.org/M71737427[/url]), so perhaps the issue has been resolved now?

[QUOTE=GAPa;455241]Today, I received a category 1 assignment ([url]https://www.mersenne.org/M71737427[/url]), so perhaps the issue has been resolved now?[/QUOTE]

Possibly. Possibly not...

Cat 0's (the lowest 200 candidates) only become available occasionally. You just happened to get "lucky" with the assignment, and demonstrated a rarely executed flaw in the coded logic.

Within the software development industry this is sometimes referred to as a "Once a Month Bug". Absolutely no reference to some of our partner's moods... :smile: