Newer milestone thread

[Dubslow]

Originally Posted by chalsall

And there is your bug.

I'm inclined to agree. The rules clearly state per worker, and that's what the intended design was.

George, could you examine the details on my computer? GUID = 929FEE33E0FD3CC86AA18BBAB7314AC0 (that's not sensitive is it?)

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

I'm inclined to agree. The rules clearly state per worker, and that's what the intended design was.

George, could you examine the details on my computer? GUID = 929FEE33E0FD3CC86AA18BBAB7314AC0 (that's not sensitive is it?)

Four workers.

[rudy235]

All exponents under 71'000,000 have been checked once.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by rudy235

All exponents under 71'000,000 have been checked once.

Bummer... "The Prime Minister" poached it from "Albert Pettersson" who was legitimately assigned it and was making reasonable progress.

George et al... Perhaps this will motivate you to implement the assignment rules as they were intended, to avoid this kind of thing in the future.

[ric]

Originally Posted by rudy235

All exponents under 71'000,000 have been checked once.

aka, the latest occurrence of premature <el><el>-calculation... ah, emotions!

Not much in favour of strict rules, however I'd be grabbing popcorn, should one of these "emotions" turn out a success...

[rudy235]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Bummer... "The Prime Minister" poached it from "Albert Pettersson" who was legitimately assigned it and was making reasonable progress.

Yes, but if Albert Pettersson perseveres he'll make the double-check. There is someone else who is more advanced (83.3%) but seems to have abandoned the task!

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by rudy235

Yes, but if Albert Pettersson perseveres he'll make the double-check. There is someone else who is more advanced (83.3%) but seems to have abandoned the task!

Yes... But...

Mr. Pettersson (AKA "GAPa") didn't understand why he was given this assignment. Based on all of our understanding of the assignment rules, he shouldn't have -- exactly for the reason which has just been empirically demonstrated.

Computers are harsh mistresses; they do exactly what you tell them to do (currently).

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by rudy235

All exponents under 71'000,000 have been checked once.

Huh... noted and updated. Yeah, I wasn't expecting it yet and the poaching caught me off guard.

[rudy235]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

I wasn't expecting it ... poaching caught me off guard.

That _IS_ the definition of poaching!

[GAPa]

Originally Posted by chalsall

George et al... Perhaps this will motivate you to implement the assignment rules as they were intended, to avoid this kind of thing in the future.

Today, I received a category 1 assignment (https://www.mersenne.org/M71737427), so perhaps the issue has been resolved now?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by GAPa

Today, I received a category 1 assignment (https://www.mersenne.org/M71737427), so perhaps the issue has been resolved now?

Possibly. Possibly not...

Cat 0's (the lowest 200 candidates) only become available occasionally. You just happened to get "lucky" with the assignment, and demonstrated a rarely executed flaw in the coded logic.

Within the software development industry this is sometimes referred to as a "Once a Month Bug". Absolutely no reference to some of our partner's moods...