New milestone

[NBtarheel_33]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

PrimeNet has procedures to take care of those cases automatically! Once a machine fails to report within the time limit, PrimeNet reassigns the exponent.

But, as ET said, his lost machine *is* reporting within the time limit. What happens if only an infinitesimal amount of work is being performed within that time limit? I could hoard 10,000 exponents, as I said earlier, and report 100 iterations on each one, every 59.9 days, and you're saying that all 10,000 of my assignments should be protected for perpetuity? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. And before you dismiss the example as an exaggeration, what if I do it with 100 exponents, or 10 exponents, just to make a point?

You can unreserve any of your assignments any time you wish. Why not do that?

Because the "lost" computer keeps reporting in with the exponent, and getting it reassigned. Go check out the LL report on M28489829. That exponent was running on a borged box of mine which I lost access to. For whatever reason, after the assignment finished, that rogue computer kept running the LL and reporting the result over and over, some 20 times. What was happening was the computer was actually re-registering the assignment with PrimeNet *every single time* it finished the test. A similar thing has happened with M21934921, I believe (there's a whole thread on that exponent - it's had like 650 LL tests by the same user). I tried to unregister M28489829 - it wouldn't die.

No one has _ever_ described a situation in which poaching was justified, and you haven't either.

No one has _ever_ described a situation in which holding up a milestone or sitting on choice exponents for years was justified. By the way, it follows that ET hasn't described such a situation, if no one has...

PrimeNet has had procedures for dealing with the situation you describe, for years.

I, and perhaps others here, claim that these procedures still have loopholes that make them inadequate. These loopholes need to be tightened, if not closed completely.

Maybe you could stop squirming, in your messages, to try to justify poaching. You remind me of a kid who knows he's doing the wrong thing.

Frankly, you tend to treat anyone who doesn't share your point of view as a kid who is doing the wrong thing. No offense, but that is just the way it comes across. Your opinion is the right way, and anything in conflict is inherently wrong or evil. The analogy with Bob Silverman would be that anyone who does not study mathematics 16 hours a day doesn't deserve to discuss the subject.

Your "how to behave in life" is a straw-man exaggeration of what I actually said.

Oh $deity, ET, you've been hit with the infamous straw-man charge.

Then why do it here in "non-real life"?

Wow, I'm a thief? There's a deed and title to each exponent? I have fifty of them, each one a different integer. I hereby charge anyone $5 usage rights for any use of "my" exponents' names. I guess we have to start referring to M47 as "that number" or else we'll have to pay the discoverer for usage rights. Sorry, man, but you're taking a fun, volunteer project *way too freaking seriously*. As Dinah Washington sang (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lhuNh7TIwY), Relax Max.

Again, I'll ask the question: Suppose there is someone who loves milestones as much as you hate poaching. How would you feel if they did nothing but push their views on milestones and essentially refused to even consider your anti-poaching side of the issue? Because that is what you are doing, in reverse.

[NBtarheel_33]

Originally Posted by chalsall

@cheesehead...

With all due respect, it appears you have issues that perhaps you should deal with outside of GIMPS....

No, he just feels strongly about the poaching issue, because it is something that has affected him numerous times in the past. He is certainly entitled to his viewpoints, and to argue them, but I feel like he needs to let the wall down a little bit to consider the views of the other side.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33

I understand where Cheesehead is coming from, as for whatever reason, he was repeatedly a victim of poaching

I opposed poaching before it happened to me.

On the other hand, there are more than a few (just judging from participation in this thread alone) participants in GIMPS who are interested in a steady progression

Translation of your "interested in a steady progression":

"We can't control our impatience, among other impulses. Rather than learn self-control we pretend that our inability is superior to someone else's right to enjoy and process their assignment in accordance with GIMPS rules without usurpation."

of milestones and wavefronts, in both first LLs and double-checks (there is a level of concern about the time between the discovery of Mxx and proof of numerical order of Mxx that is so strong that there is a thread rallying support for GIMPS farmers to switch their cores to DCs).=

Note that that appeal does not involve poaching! It's conducted entirely according to GIMPS rules!

That's because that "level of concern" is not "so strong" that it exceeds individuals' ability to control themselves.

I bet that there are one or two people who might even feel as strongly in this direction as Cheesehead feels in the other direction,

"other direction"?? "other direction"??

Not only do I also fully support acting in accordance with GIMPS project rules, as those thread posters are doing, but I have even joined their effort! I'm running a DC right now.

Why do you try to falsely portray me as being in opposition to that entirely-proper appeal? Is it because you're desperately searching for a way to discredit my opposition to poaching?

Moreover, while we understand that poaching may drive participants away from GIMPS, it is important that we also note that sluggish progression of milestones/wavefronts/etc. may do just the same.

Have you considered that the best answer might be to develop metrics that will more vividly portray GIMPS progress to impatient individuals such as yourself?

Therefore, it seems as though we need to strike a compromise between the anti-poaching side of the aisle and the milestone-mowing side of the aisle.

Actually, the milestones are getting mowed just fine. Your proposed method of advancing one milestone just delays a future milestone by an equal amount! It's not that the milestones are slow, it's that your vision is so short that you can't see beyond the nearest one.

Poaching _never_ speeds up GIMPS progress. All arguments to the contrary are simply overlooking some factors.

With regard to the present PrimeNet assignment system, it is my understanding that an assignment (of "typical" size, as opposed to a 100Md assignment)

< snip >

is actually hurting GIMPS throughput, as such a machine would be better suited to increasing the throughput of TFing, DCing, or even P-1.

... which is just another variation on the "My judgment is superior to those employing 'slow' systems" argument.

In other words, we may not be looking at 101 mph vs. 100 mph, we may be looking at 100.0000000001 mph vs. 100 mph.

Can't do without exaggeration, can you?

If you had a legitimate argument, you wouldn't have to stretch any numbers.

And so my question is, at what point is the work from such a slow system no longer worth waiting on

... in the superior judgment of those lacking self-control of their impatiences, that is ...

and (2) may in fact generate new interest in the GIMPS project (in how many math classes, for instance, do you think that it was mentioned this week that M40 has been proven to really be M40? How many students will hence go home and give GIMPS a try?)

Not as many as would be the case if the proof of M40 were delayed until September or October, when many more math classes are in session than are now in July.

So, sometimes there's no advantage to hurrying up?

With respect to potential loss of discovery of a prime, yes, this is a possibility albeit a very rare one. Remember that the poacher has the same chance of hitting a prime as the original assignee - basically on the order of a few hundred thousand to 1.

You seem to have missed my point:

It's not a matter of the chances.

The assignee is the one who has a legitimate right to make the discovery, regardless of the odds. It's not the right of the poacher.

In the case of a poached doublecheck, it's even rarer that the poacher will hit a prime.

... but it's certain that rarity is not the important point in this argument.

On the other hand, one must ask the question of whether it is fair to allow an exponent to be held up for over a year when (1) a year is on the order of 6-12 times the time required for modern hardware to complete a first LL, and (2) George has set the maximum assignment age to a year.

If you accept George's choice of maximum age as legitimate, why isn't that same period of time "fair" in the first part of your sentence?

As an example, albeit a facetious one, why couldn't I simply reserve tens or hundreds of thousands of exponents (all it takes is a little patience and enough HD space for the worktodo file) and tie them up indefinitely, reporting mere hundreds of iterations per day, essentially locking out any discoverers of potential Mersenne primes in my cache?

So ... you're arguing that selfish behavior in one regard justifies selfish behavior in another regard?

Again, I know that the poaching issue looms larger for Cheesehead than it perhaps does for others here, but I would hope that he would agree that there needs to be some sort of consensus on how to handle exponents that are (1) aging well beyond what would be considered reasonable,

There already is a consensus: the existing PrimeNet procedures! :-)

(2) directly hindering GIMPS from achieving new milestones.

As I pointed out earlier, such short-sighted analysis leaves out the very relevant factor of whether the method of speeding one milestone is also delaying achievement of the following milestone by at least the same amount.

After all, as I mentioned above, there may be a participant who feels just as strongly as Cheesehead about reaching new milestones, but simply doesn't vocalize it.

So, you're conceding that some readers may support my position even though they don't post anything in threads? That's polite of you ... and also true! I have, indeed, received an occasional message from someone saying that he doesn't have time to do more than just read the forum, but supports my positions regarding poaching and other matters, and encourages me to continue my advocacy.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33

I understand where Cheesehead is coming from, as for whatever reason, he was repeatedly a victim of poaching

I opposed poaching before it happened to me. Do you understand that?

On the other hand, there are more than a few (just judging from participation in this thread alone) participants in GIMPS who are interested in a steady progression

Possible translation of "interested in a steady progression", I think:

"We can't control our impatience and craving for the security of 'steady' progress. Rather than learn self-control, or a more sophisticated appreciation of GIMPS's total progress, we find it easier to pretend that our inability is superior to someone else's right to enjoy and process their assignment in accordance with GIMPS rules without usurpation."

of milestones and wavefronts, in both first LLs and double-checks (there is a level of concern about the time between the discovery of Mxx and proof of numerical order of Mxx that is so strong that there is a thread rallying support for GIMPS farmers to switch their cores to DCs).=

Note that that rally does not involve poaching -- it's conducted entirely according to GIMPS rules.

That's because that "level of concern" is not "so strong" that it exceeds individuals' ability to control themselves.

I bet that there are one or two people who might even feel as strongly in this direction as Cheesehead feels in the other direction,

"other direction"??

Not only do I also fully support acting in accordance with GIMPS project rules, as those thread posters are doing, but I have even joined their effort! I'm running a DC right now. How is that any "other direction"?

Moreover, while we understand that poaching may drive participants away from GIMPS, it is important that we also note that sluggish progression of milestones/wavefronts/etc. may do just the same.

Have you considered that the best answer might be to develop metrics that will more vividly portray GIMPS progress to impatient individuals?

Therefore, it seems as though we need to strike a compromise between the anti-poaching side of the aisle and the milestone-mowing side of the aisle.

Actually, the milestones are getting mowed just fine. Your proposed method of advancing one milestone via poaching just delays a future milestone by an equal amount.

It's not that the milestones are slow, it's that your vision is focused only on the nearest one.

Poaching _never_ speeds up GIMPS progress. All arguments to the contrary are simply overlooking some factors.

With regard to the present PrimeNet assignment system, it is my understanding that an assignment (of "typical" size, as opposed to a 100Md assignment)

< snip >

is actually hurting GIMPS throughput, as such a machine would be better suited to increasing the throughput of TFing, DCing, or even P-1.

... which is just another variation on the "My judgment is superior to those employing 'slow' systems" argument.

In other words, we may not be looking at 101 mph vs. 100 mph, we may be looking at 100.0000000001 mph vs. 100 mph.

If you had a legitimate argument, you wouldn't have to exaggerate any numbers to convincingly make your point.

And so my question is, at what point is the work from such a slow system no longer worth waiting on

... worth, in the superior judgment of those lacking self-control of their impatiences, that is ...

and (2) may in fact generate new interest in the GIMPS project (in how many math classes, for instance, do you think that it was mentioned this week that M40 has been proven to really be M40? How many students will hence go home and give GIMPS a try?)

Not as many as would be the case if the proof of M40 were delayed until September or October, when many more math classes are in session than are now in July.

With respect to potential loss of discovery of a prime, yes, this is a possibility albeit a very rare one. Remember that the poacher has the same chance of hitting a prime as the original assignee - basically on the order of a few hundred thousand to 1.

You seem to have missed the point:

It's not a matter of the chances.

The assignee is the one who has a legitimate right to make the discovery, regardless of the odds. It's not the right of the poacher.

In the case of a poached doublecheck, it's even rarer that the poacher will hit a prime.

... but it's certain that that rarity is not the important point in this argument.

On the other hand, one must ask the question of whether it is fair to allow an exponent to be held up for over a year when (1) a year is on the order of 6-12 times the time required for modern hardware to complete a first LL, and (2) George has set the maximum assignment age to a year.

If you accept George's choice of maximum age as legitimate, why isn't that same period of time "fair" in the first part of your sentence?

As an example, albeit a facetious one, why couldn't I simply reserve tens or hundreds of thousands of exponents (all it takes is a little patience and enough HD space for the worktodo file) and tie them up indefinitely, reporting mere hundreds of iterations per day, essentially locking out any discoverers of potential Mersenne primes in my cache?

So ... you're arguing that selfish behavior in one regard justifies selfish behavior in another regard?

Again, I know that the poaching issue looms larger for Cheesehead than it perhaps does for others here, but I would hope that he would agree that there needs to be some sort of consensus on how to handle exponents that are (1) aging well beyond what would be considered reasonable,

There already is a consensus: the existing PrimeNet procedures! :-)

(2) directly hindering GIMPS from achieving new milestones.

As I pointed out earlier, such short-sighted analysis leaves out the very relevant factor of whether the method of speeding one milestone is also delaying achievement of the following milestone by at least the same amount.

After all, as I mentioned above, there may be a participant who feels just as strongly as Cheesehead about reaching new milestones, but simply doesn't vocalize it.

?

Are you conceding that some readers may support my position even though they don't post anything in threads? :-)

That would be polite of you ... and also true!

I have, indeed, received an occasional message from someone saying that he doesn't have time to do more than just read the forum, but he supports my positions regarding poaching and other matters, and encourages me to continue my advocacy.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33

Because the "lost" computer keeps reporting in with the exponent, and getting it reassigned. Go check out the LL report on M28489829. That exponent was running on a borged box of mine which I lost access to.

I haven't had that exactly happen, but I have had pre-new-PrimeNet machines lost. If a zombie borg machine gets used 4 hours a week (during which it checks in) (and I have seen one that is fewer user hours than that) and otherwise sits idle, how long would it take to do a DC, that normally would take it 60 days?

(((60 * 24) / 4) * 7) / 365 = 6.9 years.

That is a bit long.

[mdettweiler]

I think the main crux of the issue is this: PrimeNet does have procedures to deal with tardy exponents (namely, the policy that exponents over 1 year old will be reassigned), but it's currently a manual procedure and is not widely enforced. It would seem that all parties here agree that within the bounds of that one year, the assignee has the sole "right" to perform the LL test on that and receive credit if it is a prime.

Beyond that one year limit, though, PrimeNet policies make it clear that the exponent is no longer the "property" of the assignee (in quotes because of course nobody really "owns" the exponents). The only reason why the server still considers it as such after that deadline, and consequently does not reassign it, is because the admins didn't yet get the chance to trigger the reassignment.

Thus, it would seem logical that PrimeNet policies do allow someone else to come in and claim an exponent that's been assigned for over a year. After all, it is no longer supposed to be assigned to the original assignee and therefore he has no claim on it. That leaves it up for grabs, just as it would be if the original assignment was canceled but it wasn't given out to anybody else yet.

Ideally, the PrimeNet server would cancel >1 year old assignments and reassign them on an automatic, timely basis. However, at this time such a system is not in place, which leaves enforcement of the PrimeNet assignment rules to humans (whether the admins in triggering the reassignment manually, or a so-called "poacher" in claiming an exponent that he has as much right to as anyone else).

Disclaimer: I do not, of course, advocate poaching of assignments that are still within the established 1-year assignment deadline. I suspect that everyone else participating in this discussion agrees with at least that much.

[imwithid]

These debates tend often to become nasty when it comes to efficiency vs. milestones accomplished with regard to the methods that underly the achievements of one,which detract to some extent from the other.

The wedge issue seems to be that some are satisfied that work is being done at a natural, but optimal, pace while others want to see somewhat arbitrary milestones verified and marked as complete at the cost (rightly mentioned) of future milestones via poaching or expiration policies.

This impatience can be somewhat ameliorated if reports could include greater detail. This would alleviate some of the anxiety that some have (and I will admit to some level) to seeing milestones resolved. I assume that there are those out there who want to see the meta data behind the tests to give them some idea as to when the next milestone will be completed based on how often a given test is reported, its status to completion ... etc. (sort of filling in the blanks by allowing one to search a given exponent to see some of the work history and progress).

I'm not sure if the servers themselves, in addition to reporting, run tests as well and perhaps this extra data that needs to be processed is a waste of resources and hence simply an indulgence of one's wanting to know more about less. If that is the case, then one should move on and worry about other things and accept the fact that milestones will take years to accomplish and I am prepared to accept that as part of the means to the goals of the project.

Let's cut the crap here and get to the point. Both sides of the argument seem to have their heels dug in to varying degrees (rightly, wrongly or arbitrarily). Compromise to the poaching rule is a slippery slope as tempting as it is to cheer at times from a showing of hands for varying reasons. Can more detailed information be a compromise?

[imwithid]

@ mdettweiler,

If the policies are as you have stated, then poaching x > 1a may be appropriate although breaches the optimal efficiencies implicit to the project and leads to other conflicts. I'd like to see what others think of this as grounds for appropriating poaching.

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

Ideally, the PrimeNet server would cancel >1 year old assignments and reassign them on an automatic, timely basis.

I am against such a policy with some exception. I had one system two months from the one year mark and was in the 70th percentage range. I nearly cooked it running it 24/7 to complete it in time (as I couldn't move it as I didn't have a spare computer to move to). It was a Centrino laptop running a DC in the 22k exponent range. If it didn't make it within the time alloted under a strict policy, it would have been a waste of time and resources. If there were a cutoff rule (i.e. if time elapsed >1a, progress on x <10%) perhaps then poaching / reallocation should be permitted.

But this leads to a slippery slope as who is to determine how much work should be done within the 1a period. I hope I have not implicitly contradicted myself here in this message.

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33

With regard to the present PrimeNet assignment system, it is my understanding that an assignment (of "typical" size, as opposed to a 100Md assignment) remains "checked out" to an assignee for a maximum of one year, before being subject to reassignment. I may be misunderstanding the way the system works, but it seems to me that I've read where this reassignment may happen *despite* the assignee's checking in with the PrimeNet server (someone please correct me on this if I am wrong).

I can tell you from person experience that I had a borged PIV PC that has ended up in a situation where:
a. the people literally use it only a couple hours a WEEK / MONTH
b. the PC is no longer accessible to me

It is still running Prime95 and is still in V4. It gets assignments that I am quite certain are TF (I seem to recall that was my last setting) but for some reason the V5 servers lists them as LL. The other evidence that it is a LL assignment is the estimated completion is in days and NOT weeks and they are in the 55-65M range. Because of that others get assigned the TF and if this PC ever completed a TF it would be deemed as not required.

ANYWAY; last year it still had assignments that were over a year old (maybe 370-380 days) and then they were gone!!! I was quite certian the people using it did NOT discover it was there and cleaned it up. I was proven correct when a couple weeks later the PC reappeared with a new batch of assignments - which once again have yet to finish.

So in short and in my experience assignments over a year old even if making some progress have been deleted.

P.S. because it is still V4 I CANNOT unreserve the exponents myself from the server interface.

P.P.S. Probably a silly question but why not simply have the server DISALLOW taking (or reporting in) a LL/DC assignment that someone else has assigned?

[Oddball]

Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33

I understand that we do not want to discourage users with slow systems, 101 mph is faster than 100 mph
...
In other words, we may not be looking at 101 mph vs. 100 mph, we may be looking at 100.0000000001 mph vs. 100 mph.

Actually, the milestones are getting mowed just fine. Your proposed method of advancing one milestone via poaching just delays a future milestone by an equal amount.

...Can't do without exaggeration, can you?

If you had a legitimate argument, you wouldn't have to stretch any numbers.

For those of you who're interested, GIMPS does about 800 doublechecks a week and about 200 first time tests a week. So for every doublecheck that's poached, a future milestone is delayed by 12-13 minutes, and for each first time test that's poached, a future milestone is delayed by 50-51 minutes.

[ET_]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

So what?

PrimeNet has procedures to take care of those cases automatically! Once a machine fails to report within the time limit, PrimeNet reassigns the exponent.

--- snip ---

Notice how much of your argument would disappear if you erased all non-poaching-related content.

English is not my language, so maybe I failed to express my thoughts...

Let's try to rephrase.

I am against poaching as you are.
I strongly believe in respecting laws and rules.
I believe that anyone, anytime, is free to reserve exponents and complete in the time they like, as long as they make slow progress on them.

So far, we have the same ideas, do you agree?

Now, let's go on as you like, disputing and quoting...

you wrote:

PrimeNet has procedures to take care of those cases automatically! Once a machine fails to report within the time limit, PrimeNet reassigns the exponent.

You did not carefully read my post, or I failed expressing it.

In fact, I wanted to say that my PCs were still working and connecting to GIMPS, although with a very slow pace.

So, there's no justification for poaching because a machine is "virtually lost".

Did you read in my previous sentences that I mildly justify poaching?
What I intended was that, from my point of view, abandoned machines from users not registered anymore or that left GIMPS that hold exponents may be seen as a problem as well as poaching them.

You also said:

You can unreserve any of your assignments any time you wish. Why not do that?

I don't follow you... :surprised

You are against poaching (and I repeat it's fine), then you ask users to keep their assignment clean from lost assignments. You blindly believe in the perfection of GIMPS system, and do not accept glitches that happen from time to time on its platform (and that, I repeat, do not justify poaching).

That's why I said you'd like to live a perfect [GIMPS] life in a perfect [GIMPS] universe, and keep pushing people to keep that universe ordered, tense and tidy (see, my words don't lose meaning if I put them into GIMPS environment). I objected that your ideas, although correct, may not find their place in our human [GIMPS] reality, because of fallacies of man and nature. It's just my 2 cents opinion, but in no way you can change it.

That's all I wanted to say, that's what I meant. No calling names, no judgment, no moral suasion nor indications. You keep thinking as you like and go on verbally attacking people that don't follow your idea. It's your choice of freedom.

I have mine, and don't blame who has different ideas: at most, I try to communicate with him/her, as long as there is a communication link, stopping when I see that the link is broken.

Thank you for the brainstorming, I keep reading your posts with interest. Even if sometime I won't comment.

Luigi