TF: A job half done?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Prime95

However, GIMPS has a surplus of TF resources and a deficiency in P-1 resources. Under GIMPS current scheme, when the LL wavefront passes the P-1 wavefront, LL testers will be assigned exponents that need P-1, TF, and then LL testing. This increases our surplus of TF resources.

What to do?

With respect...

You've said before publicly on this forum that it is an important policy of GIMPs that participants are able to choose the work they do.

So why, then, are those choosing to do LL work forced to do TF and P-1 work; hard-coded into the client?

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by chalsall

So why, then, are those choosing to do LL work forced to do TF and P-1 work; hard-coded into the client?

Because there are no LL assignments available that don't require P-1 and TF.

In an ideal world, enough users would select TF and P-1 work to prevent this from happening

[davieddy]

I used to think GW stood for Gates William.
Was I mistaken?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Prime95

Because there are no LL assignments available that don't require P-1 and TF.

In an ideal world, enough users would select TF and P-1 work to prevent this from happening

But, empirically, not enough users are selecting TF and P-1 work.

So why then are those who choose LL work burdened with lessor work? Why not let them work what they choose?

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by Prime95

Because there are no LL assignments available that don't require P-1 and TF.

In an ideal world, enough users would select TF and P-1 work to prevent this from happening

An interpretation of http://www.mersenne.org/primenet/ might help me and others: If I look at the current LL wavefront 50-53M and columns near the end I see:

----------Available
Exponent  P-1  LL
50000000 5484 
51000000 4977 15668
52000000 17651 3274
53000000 16981 3723

Am I incorrectly interpreting this as telling me that in the 51M range for example there are 4977 exponents that need P-1 (and then potentially LL) and 15668 that are available for LL (implying P-1 is already done for these)?

============================================

And secondly, I take your comment to imply that we STILL DO NOT have enough people doing P-1?? Not to suggest any priorities for you but I can say that one reason I have reduced my P-1 participation (and one other has commented the same on this forum) is that I have two PC's; both E6550 Dual Cores for which Prime95 crashes at least half of the instances that either of these PCs finds a factor whether in Stage 1 or 2.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davieddy

No.
I think it was based on reading posts #1 and 2 more
carefully than you seem to have done.

Please explain why you think that's so.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by chalsall

You've said before publicly on this forum that it is an important policy of GIMPs that participants are able to choose the work they do.

... within the framework of the choices GIMPS offers in service of its overall goal of finding Mersenne primes.

For instance, GIMPS/PrimeNet does not offer the choice of doing an LL test while someone else is assigned to do P-1 on the same exponent. Similarly, GIMPS/PrimeNet does not offer the choice of doing LL-only on exponents for which a certain amount of TF and P-1 have not yet been done.

So why, then, are those choosing to do LL work forced to do TF and P-1 work; hard-coded into the client?

GIMPS has a goal of finding Mersenne primes.

GIMPS does not have a goal of assigning an LL-only test to everyone who wants an LL-only test assignment if demand exceeds availability. If it can't assign an LL-only test, it assigns the next closest thing it has: an LL test preceded by the last parts of prescribed TF and/or P-1.

Assigning LL tests is only one part of the overall method of finding Mersenne primes. TF and P-1 are other parts.

For some fractions of candidate exponents, the prescribed TF and P-1 will identify which of the numbers are composite faster than LL tests on those same candidates would identify them as composite. Doing that TF and P-1 work maximizes GIMPS's overall efficiency for finding Mersenne primes.

Originally Posted by chalsall

But, empirically, not enough users are selecting TF and P-1 work.

Not enough to produce an idealized situation in which everyone who wants LL-only can get LL-only, no.

So why then are those who choose LL work burdened with lessor work?

"Burdened"? Lesser work?

What's "less" about TF and P-1?

Added: As I pointed out above, TF and P-1 are more efficient at detecting compositeness of some Mersenne numbers than the LL test. How, then, are they "less" than LL?

Why not let them work what they choose?

See above.

Also: Some guys choose to LL-test exponents that are assigned to other folks; why then do we not let them do that within the GIMPS framework? Answer: Because that's detrimental to GIMPS's overall goals.

Once one accepts the GIMPS software license, one has accepted GIMPS/PrimeNet rules. It's a user agreement.

Anyone who wants to operate outside GIMPS/PrimeNet rules can do so -- except that they can't ethically use GIMPS software to do that.

Anyone's free to write their own Mersenne-prime-finding software!

The problem is that some folks want to mooch off the goodies/benefits/rewards that GIMPS offers without obeying GIMPS rules. The GIMPS organizers, who've put in many years of work in order to create those goodies/benefits/rewards, decline to cater to those not agreeing to follow the rules. (Sorta like other aspects of society, eh?)

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

For some fractions of candidate exponents, the prescribed TF and P-1 will identify which of the numbers are composite faster than LL tests on those same candidates would identify them as composite. Doing that TF and P-1 work maximizes GIMPS's overall efficiency for finding Mersenne primes.

You're easier to play than a fiddle.

Please let the record show that according to Cheesehead it is perfectly OK for PrimeNet to make its client's work on work units they didn't agree to work on....

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by chalsall

You're easier to play than a fiddle.

Please let the record show that according to Cheesehead it is perfectly OK for PrimeNet to make its client's work on work units they didn't agree to work on....

Wrong.

Added: Your "Please ..." statement is factually incorrect. PrimeNet never makes its clients work on anything. Anyone who doesn't like an assignment they receive from PrimeNet is free to relinquish his/her assignment back to PrimeNet without doing any work on it.

You seem not to have remembered the GIMPS user license by which you were granted the right to use GIMPS software, and not to have read my latest post after my numerous later edits to it, which included a reminder about the GIMPS user agreement.

When you started to use GIMPS software, you agreed to GIMPS rules. If you don't like GIMPS rules, then cease using GIMPS software. Write your own Mersenne-prime-finding software.

Let the record show that chalsall either does not remember the GIMPS software user agreement or does not understand the concept of agreeing to certain restrictions in order to receive certain benefits, despite the fact that this basic tradeoff concept has been a feature of human societies for thousands of years.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

When you started to use GIMPS software, you agreed to GIMPS rules. If you don't like GIMPS rules, then cease using GIMPS software. Write your own Mersenne-prime-finding software.

To what rules are you referring?

The included license.txt, or http://mersenne.org/legal/ ?

I don't actually understand what you are trying to claim from this language and the above.

I am simply arguing that those who wish and ask to do LL testing might reasonably expect to actually be assigned (and the client software do (and only do)) LL testing.

Is that an unreasonable expectation?

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Please explain why you think that's so.

I thought I'd booked the full half hour argument rather than the
five minutes.