[QUOTE=axn;398137]In other words, you are still measuring the work expended in finding the factor, not the work saved![/QUOTE]

OK... Do you (or anyone) have a better suggestion?

The goal is simply to not have very large exponents be given a disproportionate amount of "Saved" credit. Although, in reality, the metric is relatively meaningless, and was in fact implemented (as suggested by Dubslow) simply in order to draw Jerry and Mike back to LLTF from DCTF (years ago).

[QUOTE=axn;398182]However, in order to avoid people gaming the system by TF-ing too far ahead of the LL wavefront, you can discount the work saved by how far away the exponent is from the current LL (@ 4m/year). This means that a factor found ahead of the wavefront starts out with a small value of "work saved", but will appreciate over time, eventually reaching the full value (after decades?!).[/QUOTE]

We cross posted... What I liked about James' proposal is it avoided the need to keep track of the "wave front". This is even more important at the moment as in there are many "fronts" in the LL range, including the P-1 wave in the Cat 4 region (which we're fighting to keep ahead of just going to 74!).

[QUOTE=chalsall;398183]The goal is simply to not have very large exponents be given a disproportionate amount of "Saved" credit[/QUOTE]
Large exponents leads to more "work saved" not because they are currently lower depth TF-wise (although that helps), but because they require a large amount of effort to LL. There is just no getting around that fact. And the work saved _is real_, just not relevant _today_.

[QUOTE=chalsall;398184]We cross posted... What I liked about James' proposal is it avoided the need to keep track of the "wave front". This is even more important at the moment as in there are many "fronts" in the LL range, including the P-1 wave in the Cat 4 region (which we're fighting to keep ahead of just going to 74!).[/QUOTE]

I think tracking the wavefront is the only real option. Although, you don't actually need to "track" it. Pick a start value, say 75m, and a start date, 2015-01-01. Now the computed wavefront is (current date - start date) in years times 4m/year + start value. So, 3 months into 2015, wavefront would be at a nominal value of 76m. The real number doesn't matter, as long as it is close enough.

Now any exponent below our computed wavefront gets full credit. Anything > wavefront gets a discounted credit based on how far away it is from the wave front (I don't know what is the correct form of the discount function, perhaps 1/d^3 where d is the distance in suitable unit).

Even this system can be gamed by doing breadth first TF at current wavefront. I guess this is what is driving your intuition regarding discounting the bit levels. I don't have any good suggestions. Perhaps, factor found at lower bit levels can be penalised by only counting the remaining TF work/P-1 work as being saved (under the theory that more TF/P-1 might also have found another factor). Only TF at the highest (optimal) bit level gets the full 2LL effort as saved.

I would not change it. It is getting too complicate. Let it like it is. First, as axn said, the saved work is _real_, second, at the end, all this credits are just "for fun", only for guys like me to make fun of Sid and Andy, "hey, I saved more work than you" and viceversa :razz:

If ye have time to program, ye would invest it in other more important things, like bringing back the missing millions of exponents in g-visu, and/or adding the 75 columns to those tables, and/or checking why do we sometime get pm1 assignments from gpu72 when we request first LL, and/or....

I'm happy knowing I save roughly 8,000,000,000 GHz-days of work every day in the 3800M range TF'ing up to 2[sup]64[/sup].

:smile:

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;398207]I'm happy knowing I save roughly 8,000,000,000 GHz-days of work every day in the 3800M range TF'ing up to 2[sup]64[/sup].[/QUOTE]

In a thousand years, George's great * ~50 grandson will thank you... :wink:

Any chance you might consider throwing a few THzDays at LLTF'ing? Even going to "just" 74 would help; things are *really* tight at the moment.

P.S. You know, it sometimes blows my mind just how much computing power we have as individuals now-a-days. I remember implementing a program to render the Mandelbrot set on a Commodore 64 after reading about it in SciAm -- 6502 @ 1 MHz with 64 KB of RAM. Took over an hour just for the zoomed-out view!

[QUOTE=chalsall;398210]Any chance you might consider throwing a few THzDays at LLTF'ing? Even going to "just" 74 would help; things are *really* tight at the moment.[/quote]

I'll do an extra 70 73M 72->74 this weekend.

[quote]P.S. You know, it sometimes blows my mind just how much computing power we have as individuals now-a-days. I remember implementing a program to render the Mandelbrot set on a Commodore 64 after reading about it in SciAm -- 6502 @ 1 MHz with 64 KB of RAM. Took over an hour just for the zoomed-out view![/QUOTE]

My first computer was also a 6502, at 1.023 MHz in an Apple IIe. 128 KB of RAM with the extension card :D

[QUOTE=chalsall;398210]Any chance you might consider throwing a few THzDays at LLTF'ing?[/QUOTE]Since you asked nicely I'll divert my 580 to do a THz-day worth of work for you. Without that diversion I expected to have the entire 1-4G range TF'd to 2[sup]64[/sup] within 30 days, after 2.5 years of effort, after which I could do some more crunching for GPU72.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;398215]Since you asked nicely I'll divert my 580 to do a THz-day worth of work for you.[/QUOTE]

As Moz from BBC's Ideal would say "Nicely nicely" (read: thanks).

[QUOTE=chalsall;398210] Even going to "just" 74 would help; things are *really* tight at the moment.
[/QUOTE]
Hm... I only get 74 - 75 ...

[QUOTE=blip;398227]Hm... I only get 74 - 75 ...[/QUOTE]

Which, at the end of the day, is the most important.

If you choose "Let GPU72 decide" it will balance between TF'ing to 74 or 75 based on the demand in the different categorises. If you choose any other option (including "What Makes Sense") it will honour the "Pledge level", although that defaults to 75 bits. If you want to go lower (perfectly acceptable) choose a lower pledge.

Please know that we're /really/ close to keeping up with all the other work-types. And, it's not the "end of the world" if a few 66Ms get handed out at only 74 but I don't want any >70M candidates handed out for P-1'ing at less than 74, and certainly none handed out for LL'ing at less than 75 bits of TF'ing and having a P-1 run already done.

OCD anyone? :smile: