20200923, 17:05  #1 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
10101000100101_{2} Posts 
Trial Factor and P1 assignments squatting in Cat 0 and Cat 1 ranges
As of this moment there are 68 TF assignments in the DC Cat 0 and 1 range below 54M. All were assigned in the last month.
And they have not been showing progress like they should if they were using a GPU. https://www.mersenne.org/assignments...first=1&exp1=1 Why is this allowed? These are keeping other users from completing the DC on them. The assignments were (I am guessing) gotten from the manual GPU assignment page. It lists the bottom of the available DCTF range as the lowest exponent yet to get a DC. That should be moved up into Cat 3. The issue is the same with the FTCTF range. It is getting sorely tempting to just do the DC to kill them off. They are not even slow, they are stopped And with this many exponents not real likely to find a single factor. Last fiddled with by Uncwilly on 20200923 at 17:05 
20200923, 17:28  #2 
"Yves"
Jul 2017
Belgium
123_{8} Posts 
A majority of those TF's were assigned between 20200914 and 20200922.
Poaching those assigments after a couple of days or weeks (while the participants are not at fault) could imho discourage them definitively from contrinuting especially if they are relatively new participants. 
20200923, 17:59  #3 
Random Account
Aug 2009
Not U. + S.A.
4540_{8} Posts 
Curious: Why TF's on exponents which have a LL test needing verified? I looked at the detail for the first three.

20200923, 18:08  #4  
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
10,789 Posts 
Quote:


20200923, 18:14  #5 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
10,789 Posts 
If they had too little TF already That is not the case. Or they hope to find a factor and eliminate the need for a DC. Current DC TF range according to GPU72 should be in the 67M range. If someone wanted to hammer away at the 58M range, fine, that is way out in the Cat 3 area. Just take 2 weeks worth of work at a time and turn it in.

20200923, 18:25  #6 
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
5·683 Posts 
I sent a PM to Madpoo about this thread, lets see if he can fix it.
It is curious these cat0 and cat1 TF assignments are stuck so often with no progress. It might be deliberate attempts to stall / sabotage. Last fiddled with by ATH on 20200923 at 18:31 
20200923, 18:30  #7  
"Yves"
Jul 2017
Belgium
83 Posts 
Quote:
Assignment algorithmm is not 100 % waterproof but again, participants are absolutely not at fault. Do you think it's better to poach those exponents or to wait (worst case) for the 60 days expiry date ? Edit : @ATH, I'm not convinced of deliberate attempts to stall but it's not impossible (??) Last fiddled with by De Wandelaar on 20200923 at 18:39 

20200923, 19:14  #8 
"Vincent"
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow
5465_{8} Posts 
Or maybe do a short PM1 on those and hope for the best.

20200923, 19:46  #9  
"Jacob"
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium
2×929 Posts 
Quote:
Once again this would be poaching. Quote:
Jacob It is curious these cat0 and cat1 TF assignments are stuck so often with no progress. It might be deliberate attempts to stall / sabotage. 

20200923, 20:40  #10 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE
4D1_{16} Posts 
Yes, that's especially true if the assignees did not do this on purpose, which I cannot determine.
On the other hand, if someone is trying to hinder progress knowingly, I do not think we need to respect them doing this. 
20200923, 23:03  #11 
Random Account
Aug 2009
Not U. + S.A.
2^{5}×3×5^{2} Posts 
It seems to me that if anyone were going to stall / sabotage, they would do it with a lot more than 68. If Madpoo cannot do a fix, he may be able to give a clearer reason as to how this happened.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Trial Factoring  Factor Confirmation?  butera  PrimeNet  6  20210402 21:34 
possible overlapping Fermat factor ranges  MattcAnderson  FermatSearch  3  20210105 14:34 
Trial Factor Bit Depth  lavalamp  Operation Billion Digits  8  20100802 18:49 
trial division over a factor base  Peter Hackman  Factoring  7  20091026 18:27 
Shortest time to complete a 2^67 trial factor (no factor)  dsouza123  Software  12  20030821 18:38 