Whoops! Forgot to extend manual LL exponent...
 

...and now it's been assigned to someone else.

I realized that I still had this LL from a CUDALucas GPU months ago, only last week when it had already gone 174 days without reporting, so I started a Prime95 worker on my new fast machine (to be finished in about 13 days total, January 5). In my haste (and with all the holiday distractions, we were going to a party that night), I neglected to request an extension for the exponent.

Today I saw that the exponent has been reassigned to someone else. Should I continue working on it? I don't want to get accused of poaching an exponent that I'd had.

Please advise.

Rodrigo

If it is a first time, [U]finish it.[/U] It will just be a fast DC. If you were doing a DC, wait and see if they turn it in soon. If they do and it does not match, you can do a quick TC.

Just to add to Uncwilly's response, and note that some people will disagree with me: if it's a first time test, do indeed finish it, but it's most polite to wait until the new assignee has turned in their result before you report yours (so that yours is a DC as Uncwilly suggests). Otherwise you can indeed be accused of poaching.

If the former assignee were to name the exponent, the current assignee might be able to offer some guidance, eventually. :whistle:

There seems to be no consensus as to how to handle this kind of situation?

It's a LL first-time test. It could take months for the exponent to be done, and I didn't find clear evidence that the new assignee participates in the Forum.

Maybe simplest, for all concerned, is to drop the exponent?

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;323192]There seems to be no consensus as to how to handle this kind of situation?[/QUOTE]
Why do you say that? I see no disagreement at the moment. Just several suggestions which complement each other. You could take up everything that has been suggested so far without any contradiction, or take up some of the suggestions and discard others, or just go your own way. It's your call.

[QUOTE]It's a LL first-time test. It could take months for the exponent to be done, and I didn't find clear evidence that the new assignee participates in the Forum.[/QUOTE]So ask yourself whether you are prepared to wait months or not; and try to make what you will of ckdo's interesting-sounding hint. Perhaps the fact that he made the hint is in itself evidence of forum participation...?:rolleyes:

[QUOTE]Maybe simplest, for all concerned, is to drop the exponent?

Rodrigo[/QUOTE]Now that would be a real waste of the cycles you've already put in, wouldn't it?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;323171]Just to add to Uncwilly's response, and note that some people will disagree with me: if it's a first time test, do indeed finish it, but it's most polite to wait until the new assignee has turned in their result before you report yours (so that yours is a DC as Uncwilly suggests). Otherwise you can indeed be accused of poaching.[/QUOTE]

It could get complicated either way if the number turns out to be prime. :O

[QUOTE=Brian-E;323197]Why do you say that? I see no disagreement at the moment. Just several suggestions which complement each other. You could take up everything that has been suggested so far without any contradiction, or take up some of the suggestions and discard others, or just go your own way. It's your call.
[/QUOTE]

Well, you yourself wrote that
[QUOTE]Just to add to Uncwilly's response, [B]and note that some people will disagree with me:[/B] if it's a first time test, do indeed finish it, but it's most polite to wait until the new assignee has turned in their result before you report yours (so that yours is a DC as Uncwilly suggests). Otherwise you can indeed be accused of poaching.[/QUOTE][emphasis added]

This suggests that there is disagreement (rather than a consensus) as to how to proceed generally in this type of situation.

There is also a specific disagreement there as to whether finishing the work and turning it in when it's done would be considered simply a fast DC, as Uncwilly wrote, or a case that could be viewed as poaching, as you point out.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;323197]So ask yourself whether you are prepared to wait months or not[/QUOTE]
Considering that I already let a manual assignment sit for almost half a year unaware of its existence, then the answer is that a choice is preferable if it simplifies the clerical work. Bottom line: I am not prepared to wait months for this to settle out. There is too much going on otherwise, to keep track of this.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;323197]

Now that would be a real waste of the cycles you've already put in, wouldn't it?[/QUOTE]
At this point it would be six days of one P95 worker out of three on one particular machine. I don't consider that a big price to pay for the sake of simplicity.

So: I'd like to finish this LL, but not if I have to ask around and start coordinating or making special arrangements.

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=ixfd64;323199]It could get complicated either way if the number turns out to be prime. :O[/QUOTE]
Good point!

I would then feel like the guy at the slot machine who stopped putting in quarters and the next guy hits the jackpot...

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;323200]So: I'd like to finish this LL, but not if I have to ask around and start coordinating or making special arrangements.[/QUOTE]
There is nothing you [I]have[/I] to do, Rodrigo.

You're quite right: if by consensus you meant a blueprint of the procedure for solving this situation, then no, there isn't one. This is a question of ethics and of how you treat another human being (the person who is currently assigned your LL test), and that is for you to decide.

People will disagree about which of various measures you could take are absolutely necessary and which are just special courtesies. But that is not in itself a reason to throw the well-meant suggestions you've been given into the trash and abandon the work you've done.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;323202]There is nothing you [I]have[/I] to do, Rodrigo.

You're quite right: if by consensus you meant a blueprint of the procedure for solving this situation, then no, there isn't one. This is a question of ethics and of how you treat another human being (the person who is currently assigned your LL test), and that is for you to decide.

People will disagree about which of various measures you could take are absolutely necessary and which are just special courtesies. But that is not in itself a reason to throw the well-meant suggestions you've been given into the trash and abandon the work you've done.[/QUOTE]
I'm not throwing anything into the trash, I'm simply asking what people think should be done in this situation, in the hope that a consensus had already been established as to what to do.

Certainly the suggestions are well-meaning, and I appreciate getting them, but unfortunately they haven't provided that consensus view I was hoping to get.

Look, I'm trying to do "the right thing" here. I don't want to report this LL if the current assignee could view it as poaching. If there is a way to turn it in and have it [B]ipso facto[/B] treated as a DC, no muss no fuss, then I'll simply go ahead and finish it. But as things (apparently) stand, the situation is not so clearcut and I have several factors to weigh against each other: my desire to do the right thing, my wish to do more work for GIMPS, and the administrative complications of dealing with this non-standard circumstance.

My controlling consideration is not to intrude on someone else's work. Together with the strong preference for keeping things simple, they outweigh the desire not to waste those CPU cycles.

So I would ask: if I reported this LL, would PrimeNet simply accept it as a DC and await the new assignee's result as a first-time test? Surely there is a clearcut answer to that.

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;323210]So I would ask: if I reported this LL, would PrimeNet simply accept it as a DC and await the new assignee's result as a first-time test? Surely there is a clearcut answer to that.[/QUOTE]

It's really "first come, first served" at Primenet.

I would suggest you submit your result. There is only something like a 20% probability the second assignee will submit theirs -- and possibly only a couple of years in the future... (A dirty little secret amongst the Primenet regulars -- CaptainEntropy, for example, has held 58239631 for 1044 days.)

The deep ethical question comes down to if this candidate is a Prime.

If it does turn out to be Prime, well then, you and we all have some ethics to consider... :smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;323214]
If it does turn out to be Prime, well then, you and we all have some ethics to consider... :smile:[/QUOTE]

Maybe if we talk about the possibility of it being prime, it's more likely to be prime :P

[QUOTE=Dubslow;323216]Maybe if we talk about the possibility of it being prime, it's more likely to be prime :P[/QUOTE]

thanks for that dubslow. very, and as always, helpful.

[QUOTE=chalsall;323214]It's really "first come, first served" at Primenet.

I would suggest you submit your result. There is only something like a 20% probability the second assignee will submit theirs -- and possibly only a couple of years in the future... (A dirty little secret amongst the Primenet regulars -- CaptainEntropy, for example, has held 58239631 for 1044 days.)

The deep ethical question comes down to if this candidate is a Prime.

If it does turn out to be Prime, well then, you and we all have some ethics to consider... :smile:[/QUOTE]
Wow, that's amazing. Wonder if CaptainEntropy asks for extensions?

Should the exponent in question turn out to be a Mersenne Prime, I would want the current assignee to receive recognition and the prize money for it. After all, it's my own fault that I got in this pickle, and he shouldn't be penalized for proceeding normally.

All I'd ask for is the GHz-days invested in doing the exponent. Whether my work on this exponent is treated as a first-time test or as a DC, doesn't matter to me.

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=Dubslow;323216]Maybe if we talk about the possibility of it being prime, it's more likely to be prime :P[/QUOTE]
LOL, if we could get that method to work reliably, then we could open a subforum with threads dedicated to discussing each of the current candidates...

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;323221]Should the exponent in question turn out to be a Mersenne Prime, I would want the current assignee to receive recognition and the prize money for it. After all, it's my own fault that I got in this pickle, and he shouldn't be penalized for proceeding normally.[/QUOTE]
Very noble. You could certainly arrange the prize money to be given to the other assignee. Unfortunately, though, you would not be able to change the historical fact of who discovered the Mersenne number to be prime.

[QUOTE]Whether my work on this exponent is treated as a first-time test or as a DC, doesn't matter to me.[/QUOTE]Many would take the same view as you.

Many others however would feel annoyed, cheated or disappointed if the work they were doing, which they had understood was a first-time test, turned out to have the status of a double check instead.

If you could find out in which of the above two categories the current assignee is, that would help you decide what to do. But if, as is most likely, you have no way of doing that, then you have to use your own judgment about how much risk you are prepared to take of upsetting anyone.

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;323221]Wow, that's amazing. Wonder if CaptainEntropy asks for extensions?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, he does.

[CODE]20120912/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 934 -849 2010-05-17 2012-09-28 2012-07-14 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20120914/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 936 -851 2010-05-17 2012-09-28 2012-07-14 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20120915/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 937 -852 2010-05-17 2012-09-28 2012-07-14 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20120916/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 939 -854 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20120918/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 941 -856 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20120919/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 942 -857 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20120920/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 943 -858 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20120922/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 945 -860 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20120923/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 946 -861 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20120924/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 947 -862 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20120925/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 948 -863 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20120926/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 949 -864 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20120928/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 951 -866 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20120930/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 953 -868 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121002/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 955 -870 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121003/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 956 -871 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121004/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 957 -872 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121007/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 960 -875 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121009/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 962 -877 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121013/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 965 -880 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121014/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 967 -882 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121019/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 971 -886 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121025/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 977 -892 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121029/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 981 -896 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121031/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 983 -898 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121104/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 987 -902 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121111/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 994 -909 2010-05-17 2012-11-27 2012-09-15 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121115/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 998 -913 2010-05-17 2013-01-26 2012-11-14 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121120/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 1003 -918 2010-05-17 2013-01-26 2012-11-14 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121121/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 1004 -919 2010-05-17 2013-01-26 2012-11-14 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121124/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 1007 -922 2010-05-17 2013-01-26 2012-11-14 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121128/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 1011 -926 2010-05-17 2013-01-26 2012-11-14 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121204/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 1017 -932 2010-05-17 2013-01-26 2012-11-14 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121206/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 1019 -934 2010-05-17 2013-01-26 2012-11-14 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121210/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 1023 -938 2010-05-17 2013-01-26 2012-11-14 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121212/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 1025 -940 2010-05-17 2013-01-26 2012-11-14 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121219/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 1032 -947 2010-05-17 2013-01-26 2012-11-14 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121223/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 1036 -951 2010-05-17 2013-01-26 2012-11-14 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121226/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 1039 -954 2010-05-17 2013-01-26 2012-11-14 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
20121229/58230000_58240000.txt: 58239631 TF 1042 -957 2010-05-17 2013-01-26 2012-11-14 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;323221]Should the exponent in question turn out to be a Mersenne Prime, I would want the current assignee to receive recognition and the prize money for it. After all, it's my own fault that I got in this pickle, and he shouldn't be penalized for proceeding normally.[/QUOTE]

Very "white" of you. (I've always hated that phrase, but it somehow seems appropriate.)

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;323221]All I'd ask for is the GHz-days invested in doing the exponent. Whether my work on this exponent is treated as a first-time test or as a DC, doesn't matter to me.[/QUOTE]

That's what Primenet does.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;323223]If you could find out in which of the above two categories the current assignee is, that would help you decide what to do. But if, as is most likely, you have no way of doing that, then you have to use your own judgment about how much risk you are prepared to take of upsetting anyone.[/QUOTE]
I just checked, using the "Exponent Status" function in PrimeNet. According to that, the new assignee has it as an LL test.

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;323226]I just checked, using the "Exponent Status" function in PrimeNet. According to that, the new assignee has it as an LL test.

Rodrigo[/QUOTE]
Yes, but it will be credited as a DC if you turn in your result first and the new assignee turns his/hers in afterwards.

[QUOTE=chalsall;323225]That's what Primenet does.[/QUOTE]
Great to know that the work would be credited regardless. The next question becomes, for those who know the ways of PrimeNet, how it would handle this situation where one person has an LL assignment but a second person finishes and reports it before they do. Does PrimeNet respect the official assignment and therefore treat the second person's work as a DC? (That's what I would want.)

BTW, I wonder if CaptainEntropy's "Mom" knows that her Dell is being used (or not used, given the backlog) for TF. :wink:

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;323226]I just checked, using the "Exponent Status" function in PrimeNet. According to that, the new assignee has it as an LL test.[/QUOTE]

This is expected. The candidate hasn't been tested yet.

I would argue you should submit your result as soon as you have it. The other assignee will receive a DC credit rather than an LL credit.

As you've said, if it turns out to be a MP you'll give the official credit to the second assignee iff they submit it.

Not the end of the world....

[QUOTE=Brian-E;323227]Yes, but it will be credited as a DC if you turn in your result first and the new assignee turns his/hers in afterwards.[/QUOTE]
Ahh, the answer to my question came before I posed the question!

Just to make sure -- it would be the current assignee's result that would be treated as a DC, right?

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=chalsall;323232]This is expected. The candidate hasn't been tested yet.

I would argue you should submit your result as soon as you have it. The other assignee will receive a DC credit rather than an LL credit.

As you've said, if it turns out to be a MP you'll give the official credit to the second assignee iff they submit it.

Not the end of the world....[/QUOTE]
And there's the pre-answer to the next question!

Thank you very much, chalsall, Brian-E and all who've weighed in.

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;323229]Great to know that the work would be credited regardless. The next question becomes, for those who know the ways of PrimeNet, how it would handle this situation where one person has an LL assignment but a second person finishes and reports it before they do. Does PrimeNet respect the official assignment and therefore treat the second person's work as a DC? (That's what I would want.)[/QUOTE]

Like I said above, it's "first come, first served" at Primenet.

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;323229]BTW, I wonder if CaptainEntropy's "Mom" knows that her Dell is being used (or not used, given the backlog) for TF. :wink:[/QUOTE]

:smile: Probably not.

In some jurisdictions this could be considered illegal and actionable.... :wink:

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;323233]Ahh, the answer to my question came before I posed the question!

Just to make sure -- it would be the current assignee's result that would be treated as a DC, right?

Rodrigo[/QUOTE]

Yes, if you complete yours before him/her.

My question is about the bit-shuffling: as both exponents have been released as LL, will the second result be considered as a correct double-check?

Luigi

Last time I checked, if you had a "Test" line in your Prime95 worktodo.txt, you would get LL credit no matter how many other LL results an exponent had, although this might have changed.

Manually reserved assignments are handled differently, of course, for obvious reasons.