Why NPLB and RPS should merge.

cipher · 2009-06-07, 20:14

Hello,
People just an observation, but i feel like RPS and NPLB should merge and combine there efforts. As they are both working on Riesel Numbers.

Thanks
cipher

p.s: Please let me know why its a good idea or not.

Brucifer · 2009-06-07, 23:14

I think that there is a bit of difference in some basic project thrusts, primarily being the basic one of the title of this one the thread is hosted by, No Prime Left Behind. Otherwise why would anyone have started this project?

cipher · 2009-06-08, 01:27

I agree brucifer RPS can be a subset of NPLB where ppl can work on individual K's

gd_barnes · 2009-06-08, 02:37

An understandable observation.

There are many phylosophical differences between the projects that aren't worth going into detail about here. The main technical difference is that RPS is completely manual whereas we are mostly automated LLRnet with manual ranges a smaller percentage of our efforts.

It's probably best the way it is. We've found, through experience, that its best that if there are areas that they search (namely k<300) to fill them in a k or 2 at a time here and there. We have a thread for misc. statuses for k < 300. RPS is also welcome to search a few of the k's that we search in advance of our drives, regardless of whether they reserve them before or after we started our drives because we claim no specific ownership of k-ranges. As long as neither project goes overboard with it, things work out quite well.

RPS is a good motivator for NPLB too (and I think visa-versa). With the 2 projects so close on total primes, you could say that a rivalry has developed, almost like between sports teams, that causes both of them to be better.

Gary

Brucifer · 2009-06-08, 02:46

And don't leave out the FDC prime searching effort too. But this is all like cars. Lots of different car makes and models in the world. They all do the same basic thing, like haul people around from point A ro point B. However for various reasons, people have preferences in the car they prefer. Same goes with DC projects. There are several areas of overlap in DC projects out there in the world, yet the different projects have their own main following of contributors. Doesn't mean any one project is any better than any of the others. Rather it just means that different folks have different preferences in the way they like to do things. And really, I think it's better that way as in the end analysis, the effort that the overlapping projects are working at benefits the field that they are all contributing towards.

vaughan · 2009-06-10, 04:42

I've tried both projects and settled over here because the automated LLRnet just makes crunching easy.

gd_barnes · 2009-06-10, 08:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by cipher

I agree brucifer RPS can be a subset of NPLB where ppl can work on individual K's

Not sure they would go for the idea of being a subset of us. :-) Nor would I if I were them.

People are welcome to work on individual k's here also. In addition to the individual-k drive that we have where we provide well-sieved files for anyone wishing to search a k or several k's on their own, several other people have started their own sieving and search efforts on the side for individual k's or a group of k's.

Ian has quite a few k's that he works on the side. In addition, the mini-drive for k=3010-3200 was started as individual k's by Chris (Flatlander) many months ago. After he searched it for a while, he found that he lost interest and was kind enough to provide his already sieved file to the group so I started it as a mini drive. That's a good manual range for members of our group that have less resources. I'm suggesting that only people with < 15 cores work on the drive for now and we are still getting more than enough response to keep it well above the 5000th place prime so we've had no reason to increase it's priority by opening it up to higher-resourced folks.

We may consider a group of individual k's for searching somewhere in the k=3000-3400 range of our current sieve effort. It's already decided that we'll have one huge drive for the k=2000-3000 range but we'll open it up for more discussion on what we can do with the k=3000-3400 range. (The k=3010-3200 mini drive is only for n=400K-500K and so is only a small subset of n=3000-3400 for n=50K-1M.)

Gary

AMDave · 2009-06-10, 12:05

All of the prime hunting projects are a collective sub-set of the "prime hunting" effort.

The fact that there are many projects demonstrates that there are different methods and styles for carrying out this pursuit.

Combining any of these variations would remove one or more of these variations that are currently available to those interested in this pursuit.

To complete that objective, of combining efforts, and maintain the number of people actively involved would require a substantial change-management and communications effort, carrying with it a not-insignificant risk that some would cease to participate.

Whilst I understand the motivation for your proposition, I hope that you can also understand that it is not as practical as it sounds at first and also likely to be counter-productive in the long run.

But thank you for taking an interest and showing your support with new ideas.
Please keep throwing them at us.
There are always some grains under the hay stack when baling is done.

2009-06-07, 20:14	#1
cipher Feb 2007 211 Posts	Why NPLB and RPS should merge. Hello, People just an observation, but i feel like RPS and NPLB should merge and combine there efforts. As they are both working on Riesel Numbers. Thanks cipher p.s: Please let me know why its a good idea or not.

2009-06-08, 02:37	#4
gd_barnes May 2007 Kansas; USA 3³·5·7·11 Posts	An understandable observation. There are many phylosophical differences between the projects that aren't worth going into detail about here. The main technical difference is that RPS is completely manual whereas we are mostly automated LLRnet with manual ranges a smaller percentage of our efforts. It's probably best the way it is. We've found, through experience, that its best that if there are areas that they search (namely k<300) to fill them in a k or 2 at a time here and there. We have a thread for misc. statuses for k < 300. RPS is also welcome to search a few of the k's that we search in advance of our drives, regardless of whether they reserve them before or after we started our drives because we claim no specific ownership of k-ranges. As long as neither project goes overboard with it, things work out quite well. RPS is a good motivator for NPLB too (and I think visa-versa). With the 2 projects so close on total primes, you could say that a rivalry has developed, almost like between sports teams, that causes both of them to be better. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2009-06-08 at 02:37

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
cannot merge computers	Unregistered	Information & Answers	2	2012-04-18 21:26
Can't Merge CPUs	Rodrigo	PrimeNet	11	2012-03-03 19:45
Why NPLB and RPS should merge.	cipher	Riesel Prime Search	1	2009-06-07 20:19
Too many merge attempts etc.	hhh	Aliquot Sequences	28	2009-05-14 19:54
can't seem to merge old account	ixfd64	PrimeNet	2	2008-08-30 22:27

2009-06-07, 23:14	#2
Brucifer Dec 2005 313 Posts	I think that there is a bit of difference in some basic project thrusts, primarily being the basic one of the title of this one the thread is hosted by, No Prime Left Behind. Otherwise why would anyone have started this project?

2009-06-08, 01:27	#3
cipher Feb 2007 11010011₂ Posts	I agree brucifer RPS can be a subset of NPLB where ppl can work on individual K's

2009-06-08, 02:46	#5
Brucifer Dec 2005 100111001₂ Posts	And don't leave out the FDC prime searching effort too. But this is all like cars. Lots of different car makes and models in the world. They all do the same basic thing, like haul people around from point A ro point B. However for various reasons, people have preferences in the car they prefer. Same goes with DC projects. There are several areas of overlap in DC projects out there in the world, yet the different projects have their own main following of contributors. Doesn't mean any one project is any better than any of the others. Rather it just means that different folks have different preferences in the way they like to do things. And really, I think it's better that way as in the end analysis, the effort that the overlapping projects are working at benefits the field that they are all contributing towards.

2009-06-10, 04:42	#6
vaughan Jan 2005 Sydney, Australia 5·67 Posts	I've tried both projects and settled over here because the automated LLRnet just makes crunching easy.

2009-06-10, 12:05	#8
AMDave Jan 2006 deep in a while-loop 292₁₆ Posts	All of the prime hunting projects are a collective sub-set of the "prime hunting" effort. The fact that there are many projects demonstrates that there are different methods and styles for carrying out this pursuit. Combining any of these variations would remove one or more of these variations that are currently available to those interested in this pursuit. To complete that objective, of combining efforts, and maintain the number of people actively involved would require a substantial change-management and communications effort, carrying with it a not-insignificant risk that some would cease to participate. Whilst I understand the motivation for your proposition, I hope that you can also understand that it is not as practical as it sounds at first and also likely to be counter-productive in the long run. But thank you for taking an interest and showing your support with new ideas. Please keep throwing them at us. There are always some grains under the hay stack when baling is done.