Poaching (please don't!)

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by retina

Just because it has officially "expired" doesn't mean someone else has to jump in ASAP. Have a bit of patience. Relax.

In this case an unattended machine was assigned the exponent by PrimeNet with no interaction in my part. I was just lucky that when my machine asked for an assignment, the lowest DC was available. No haste on my part.

[retina]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

In this case an unattended machine was assigned the exponent by PrimeNet with no interaction in my part. I was just lucky that when my machine asked for an assignment, the lowest DC was available. No haste on my part.

No, I know. I meant no such accusation for a human. But the server can be told to reduce the haste.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by retina

the server can be told to reduce the haste.

But we want the next minor milestone reached, right now!

[slandrum]

60873187 is an assignment that was poached by two different people. All the more reason to not poach assignments.

If these poaching attempts were instead directed at actual new assignments it would actually further the goals of the project, instead of just wasting time and resources.

[tuckerkao]

Originally Posted by slandrum

60873187 is an assignment that was poached by two different people. All the more reason to not poach assignments.

If these poaching attempts were instead directed at actual new assignments it would actually further the goals of the project, instead of just wasting time and resources.

Poachers have the tendency to want to work on specific exponents than what are available on the table. If their targeted areas were modified to Category 4, then there will be a lot of open exponent choices for them, likely none of those will be currently assigned to other users.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by slandrum

If these poaching attempts were instead directed at actual new assignments it would actually further the goals of the project, instead of just wasting time and resources.

LordJulius also duplicates TF that was already done long ago IIRC. Like throwing darts blindfolded into the floor.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by kriesel

LordJulius also duplicates TF that was already done long ago IIRC. Like throwing darts blindfolded into the floor.

I would suggest that you PM that user.

[S485122]

Originally Posted by kriesel

LordJulius also duplicates TF that was already done long ago IIRC. Like throwing darts blindfolded into the floor.

This is not completely true, I just checked two results and LordJulius found three new factors (that even TJAOI missed if their systematic search went as far) : 194544733 and 194546867.

[axn]

Originally Posted by S485122

This is not completely true, I just checked two results and LordJulius found three new factors (that even TJAOI missed if their systematic search went as far) : 194544733 and 194546867.

https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/194544733 and https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/194546867 suggests the factors were previously known; merely that the "factor found" entry is not there in primenet.

Thus the original conjecture (waste of resources) is still valid.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by axn

merely that the "factor found" entry is not there in primenet.

Thus the original conjecture (waste of resources) is still valid.

I've seen others do this sort of thing too; rerun low TF that had been done before. IIRC some of that is removed from the database to manage its size. Then some people think that means they were skipped, and that they're helping by doing what was "missed". It's counterproductive. At least it tends to be small work amounts for individual exponents & bit levels.
https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...exp_hi=&full=1 is an example with multiple repeats listed, for both TF and LL. And excessive levels of TF and P-1.

[S485122]

Originally Posted by axn

https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/194544733 and https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/194546867 suggests the factors were previously known; merely that the "factor found" entry is not there in primenet.

Thus the original conjecture (waste of resources) is still valid.

Indeed I forgot that early factors don't necessarily have an entry in the history. (Which also invalidates my second conclusion. Some days it is better to refrain from posting :-(