Less than 10,000 left....

[retina]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

An obvious follow-up is: What's the difference between what you did and an assigned double-check?

I won't take the time for a full answer now, but here's just a couple of things:

1) You've robbed the properly-assigned user his/her legitimate chance of being a Mersenne prime discoverer!

Erm, but that kind of assumes that the primenet assignments allow ownership of exponents. Numbers can't be owned. "Robbed"? I would have thought that in the worst case the second (slower) result has now become a DC. If it is a credit thing then people still get credit for DCs. Otherwise I still can't see any real harm. Perhaps it is an ego thing?

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Think about what happens, from the assignee's point of view, if you poach someone else's assignment, and happen to discover, before they do, that the exponent you've poached is that of a Mersenne prime.

But primenet/GIMPS/anyone doesn't own any of the exponents. Right? Anyone is free to choose any exponent they wish and start checking it. It is only the order of completion that changes. Perhaps some people have the wrong perception that somehow primenet has worldwide rights to dish out exponents and no one else should be allowed to test them? If people do think that then I would have to seriously argue that they are very wrong. I've had two of my exponents be completed by others before I had finished, so what, they got there first, doesn't matter I still get to do a DC, I still get credit.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

2) One of the reasons for having an assignment system is to make the search for Mersenne primes efficient. By violating the rules of the assignment system, you reduce that efficiency.

Yes, agreed, efficiency is a good thing, and the reason I realised I had wasted work (as described above) was because I had not reported the result to anyone. But if I had reported the result then efficiency is restored. Or am I misreading your response above?

I know some people get hot under the collar if they think they have missed out on some credit they were due. I can kind of understand that but in reality the credit thing is nothing, it's just a number. And if it is a credit thing then just give people credit for any and all tests done, triple or quadruple checks also. Doesn't matter, it's not like giving credit costs primenet anything.

If some number turns out to be prime and it was "poached" then we have to go into the license agreement of using the software. If the agreement is silent about how the numbers are assigned then there can be no poaching: you took an exponent and it is an MP, you win. Instead, if the license agreement says something like "you can only get official recognition for a prime if the exponent was assigned directly to you ... blah blah blah" then that would solve the problem of "poaching", since there is no benefit to be gained by poaching a prime bearing exponent. {I am assuming that breaking the license agreement means that you are not eligible to get any benefits that might otherwise have been given}

[Kevin]

I'm actually done debating, since every time I try to clarify something I just get longer responses with more of the the same misunderstandings and accustations, but no new content. I'm truly baffled about how one can think that the statement "we shouldn't tell people their computer is too slow to work on certain assignments" doesn't conflict with the assignment system that says "you won't be assigned exponents less than 38,000,000 if your computer is less than 2400MHZ P4 equivalent". If somebody won't accept that, it's no use trying to argue anything else.

Since I'm pretty sure that the assignment system will do a satisfactory job, I'm willing to call cheesehead the winner by filibuster, place him on my block list, and consider myself better off for having done it.

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by Kevin

...I'm willing to call cheesehead the winner by filibuster, place him on my block list, and consider myself better off for having done it.

Block lists won't stop people from posting in the forums, only PM's. At least, you both kept it civil.

I am pleased the server attaches assignment numbers to exponents. Anyone poaching would be wasting their own time. The holder of the valid assignment gets the credit.

Poaching is just another way for juveniles to act out.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by retina

Erm, but that kind of assumes that the primenet assignments allow ownership of exponents. Numbers can't be owned.

Of course not -- but when you knowingly poach someone else's assignment, you know very well what you're doing.

I would have thought that in the worst case the second (slower) result has now become a DC.

Why do you skip over the matter of priority of discovering a Mersenne prime? Of the propriety of knowingly preventing someone else from having that chance?

If it is a credit thing then people still get credit for DCs. Otherwise I still can't see any real harm.

... because you don't think discovering a Mersenne prime is worth anything? Is that why you don't refer to that aspect of the situation?

Perhaps it is an ego thing?

Yes, it's kind of egotistic to think that the project is better off if you poach someone else's assignment, isn't it?

But primenet/GIMPS/anyone doesn't own any of the exponents. Right? Anyone is free to choose any exponent they wish and start checking it.

Legally? - Yes. But I'm not arguing on the basis of legality. I'm arguing on the basis of ethics. It's unethical to poach.

It is only the order of completion that changes.

"Only"?

Okay, then why is so urgent for someone to poach someone else's assignment?

Perhaps there's something more than "only the order of completion" involved.

Perhaps some people have the wrong perception that somehow primenet has worldwide rights to dish out exponents and no one else should be allowed to test them? If people do think that then I would have to seriously argue that they are very wrong.

How about sticking to the actual dispute under discussion? I'm trying to discuss the GIMPS project as it is, not as someone else's distorted view has it.

I've had two of my exponents be completed by others before I had finished, so what, they got there first, doesn't matter I still get to do a DC, I still get credit.

So?

You wouldn't be trying to argue that since you don't care no one else will care, either, would you?

Yes, agreed, efficiency is a good thing, and the reason I realised I had wasted work (as described above) was because I had not reported the result to anyone. But if I had reported the result then efficiency is restored. Or am I misreading your response above?

Yes, but you do have a point in regard to reporting. When I wrote above, I was not addressing the aspect of reporting except insofar as it complicates things if a prime were discovered.

I know some people get hot under the collar if they think they have missed out on some credit they were due. I can kind of understand that but in reality the credit thing is nothing, it's just a number.

So is the balance of your bank account. Care to transfer it to my account, since it's nothing, just a number?

Or maybe there are other aspects than "just a number", eh? Such as what the number represents. Effort, accomplishment, time, ...

If some number turns out to be prime and it was "poached" then we have to go into the license agreement of using the software.

So, go read it.

But the license agreement doesn't cover all aspects that are important to participants -- at least, to some participants.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm actually done debating, since every time I try to clarify something I just get longer responses with more of the the same misunderstandings and accustations, but no new content.

You haven't had the grace to disown "prodding".

I'm truly baffled about how one can think that the statement "we shouldn't tell people their computer is too slow to work on certain assignments" doesn't conflict with the assignment system that says "you won't be assigned exponents less than 38,000,000 if your computer is less than 2400MHZ P4 equivalent".

Well, that's a new tangent not previously discussed. I'd be happy to explain what you're missing ... but you're leaving. Ta-ta.

[retina]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

So is the balance of your bank account. Care to transfer it to my account, since it's nothing, just a number?

This is a strawman argument. Money in bank accounts can gain real world advantages. Credit in primenet gets me what? I'm already on something like my 6th primenet account. The other 5 accounts have credit that I can't reclaim (I forgot the password). You can have those credits if you want. They won't do me any good so why should I bother to save them up?

cheesehead: I think you try too hard to be argumentative. I posted my position about how I perceived things. I didn't really have any points to make. Your demanding of me to prove points is not necessary. Indeed, I am asking for your ideas of why "poaching" has harmed primnet/GIMPS/whatever. I am quite willing to change my ideas if you have a good argument to make or have some good examples of where harm has really been done.

[S485122]

Originally Posted by retina

...
Credit in primenet gets me what? I'm already on something like my 6th primenet account. The other 5 accounts have credit that I can't reclaim (I forgot the password). You can have those credits if you want. They won't do me any good so why should I bother to save them up?
...
Indeed, I am asking for your ideas of why "poaching" has harmed primnet/GIMPS/whatever. I am quite willing to change my ideas if you have a good argument to make or have some good examples of where harm has really been done.

There are rules for assignment ownership for any GIMPS participant. See the "Legal" section on the GIMPS site.

To recover the credit pertaining to your lost accounts just ask George by EMail. He is quite willing to help in those cases (He even helps recovering credit for a single assignment !)

As for poaching and credit : if you have a doublecheck assigment that is finished by somebody else before you do, you get a "Result not needed" error when submitting the result and earn no credit, triplechecks earn no credit. Credit is just a number, but it is a matter of pride and/or an incitement to participate for some. Another consequence of poaching is unnecessary work. Some people quit GIMPS after repeatedly being the victims of poaching. Finally the most dramatic consequence of poaching would be to lose the pride of having found a Mersenne prime. As for the EFF prize, this is covered by the GIMPS and EFF rules : it is not enough to find a 100000000 digit prime, it must be done in a cooperative search...

You can get no credit for PrimeNet assigned work even if there is no deliberate poaching by somebody else. For instance :
- a machine is assigned a doublecheck,
- fails to communicate with PrimeNet for 60 or 90 days,
- the exponent is reassigned to you,
- the original assignee completes the check and reports it and gets an error that the assignment Id is not valid, but earns credit
- when you communicate with the server you get an "Invalid assignment error (or something like that), it is possible that this only happens after you already started work on that exponent, in wich case you have lost that work. If you communicate only after completing the check yourself, you get the "Result not needed" error and no credit.

GIMPS and PrimeNet are there to organise the search, it is only logical and efficient to follow its rules.

As for "prodding" people with assignment that need to be completed for a milestone to be reached, this seems important now because we have a lot of milestones in reach. But once those near milestones are reached the urgency will disapear.
* Countdown to testing all exponents below M(30402457) once: 57
* Countdown to testing all exponents below M(32582657) once: 236
* Countdown to testing all exponents below M(37156667) once: 680
* Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 313
The other milestones are more than 18000 workunits away. I have a recently (2009-08-25 05:13) assigned exponent holding up that first milestone. I moved it to the top of the workers queue, just after the then current assignment, otherwise it would have started in one more month. This is because I meddle a lot with my assigned work, but would one more month to reach that milestone be so important ? Part of the fun is watching those milestones being reached, you lose that once you reach them.

The new assignment system does a good job of clearing the trailing edge, even if the temporary coexistance of PrimeNet v4 and v5 dispersed the effort a bit.

Jacob

Perhaps this post is a bit long.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by S485122

As for "prodding" people with assignment that need to be completed for a milestone to be reached, this seems important now because we have a lot of milestones in reach. But once those near milestones are reached the urgency will disapear.
* Countdown to testing all exponents below M(30402457) once: 57
* Countdown to testing all exponents below M(32582657) once: 236
* Countdown to testing all exponents below M(37156667) once: 680
* Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 313

I don't think any action is needed as long as there's progress being made. If (for example) the countdown to 30402457 gets down at 10 and stays there for a few months, then we might want to look into what's going on. But without the intermediate updates like we used to have, you can't really presume somebody isn't making progress with waiting for a long time to make damn sure.

[Kevin]

Did some preliminary data-mining in the 27M range. I noticed there were a decent amount of exponents where they've been successfully tested once with no error, and have been assigned again as an LL test (not a double-check) to ANONYMOUS. An example would be 27577387. Anybody know what's going on there?

[Mini-Geek]

I can definitely see the negative consequences of poaching a DC assignment, but the only real problem with 'poaching' a first-time LL assignment is that in the exceedingly rare event that you find a prime before the other user, you rob them of being the first to discover the prime. Therefore I don't see poaching LLs as a particularly unethical thing. Anyone want to say why it is?

[S485122]

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

I can definitely see the negative consequences of poaching a DC assignment, but the only real problem with 'poaching' a first-time LL assignment is that in the exceedingly rare event that you find a prime before the other user, you rob them of being the first to discover the prime. Therefore I don't see poaching LLs as a particularly unethical thing. Anyone want to say why it is?

You are busy in a cooperative effort, so you are supposed to cooperate not to take work from others. Anyway I do not see what would be the motivation : it is not as exponents were a scarse resource !

Even for first time checks, by poaching you turn a first time check of someone else into a double check, you hinder that person if her goal was LL ranking and credit.

Jacob