Your involvement in GIMPS
 

Since GIMPS isn't just about finding record-size primes, I'm a little curious as to how everyone participates in the project. So, what kind of work do you do for GIMPS, if any?

The majority of my computers are currently set to fetch work that makes the most sense. However, PrimeNet must think my computers are outdated as I haven't gotten any LL tests in a very long time. As such, I'm doing mostly P-1 and TF right now.

Some of these options are not mutually exclusive.
Also the option "I am in it for the money" is regrettably absent.

I call :poop: on Batalov's poll answer...:bs meter:

[QUOTE=ixfd64;304436]Since GIMPS isn't just about finding record-size primes, I'm a little curious as to how everyone participates in the project. So, what kind of work do you do for GIMPS, if any?

The majority of my computers are currently set to fetch work that makes the most sense. However, PrimeNet must think my computers are outdated as I haven't gotten any LL tests in a very long time. As such, I'm doing mostly P-1 and TF right now.[/QUOTE]
Since the "MPS" bit stands for "Mersenne Prime Search" I fail to see the source of your mystification. No mention of records, although this is always likely.

What TF/P-1 are you doing?
This may be useful or effectively the opposite.

I do virgin LL tests (P-1 if needed). The smaller the better, and if inadequately TFed, ask a guy with a GPU to do a few more bits.

David

[QUOTE=Batalov;304438]Some of these options are not mutually exclusive.
Also the option "I am in it for the money" is regrettably absent.[/QUOTE]

It's a little hard to deal with those considering that the forum software does not allow users to put in more than one set of questions per thread.

FYI: the "money" option would best go under "finding a new prime."

[QUOTE=Batalov;304438]
Also the option "I am in it for the money" is regrettably absent.[/QUOTE]
Albeit understandable

[QUOTE=c10ck3r;304439]I call :poop: on Batalov's poll answer...[/QUOTE]
Maybe because that is as much as you know, dude.
You probably also don't know the list of members who cleared more than 2,000,000 exponents (when it was still easy). I'll give you a hint: there was a few of us. ;-)

[SPOILER]I am quoting from an anecdote: When a certain scientist was asked for an opinion of the true modern genii in physics, he answered "Well, there's a few of us".[/SPOILER]

Here are my lifetime stats, normalized so that the lowest value = 1
TF 33699
P-1 139
LL 6665
LL-D 3569
ECM 1
ECM-F 29

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;304446]Here are my lifetime stats, normalized so that the lowest value = 1
TF 33699
P-1 139
LL 6665
LL-D 3569
ECM 1
ECM-F 29[/QUOTE]

How much of that TF is GPU?

[QUOTE=Batalov;304445]
[SPOILER]I am quoting from an anecdote: When a certain scientist was asked for an opinion of the true modern genii in physics, he answered "Well, there's a few of us".[/SPOILER][/QUOTE]
Give us a clue.
What era?

D

[QUOTE=davieddy;304454]Give us a clue.
What era?

D[/QUOTE]

Witten?