![]() |
![]() |
#1 | |
Oct 2004
Austria
2·17·73 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Maybe the "poacher(s)" do(es)n't even do this deliberately - I guess he/she/they doesn't know about the efforts / coordination done heere on mersenneforum. Can you please add a message to the aliquot sequence page of the DB? Maybe something like "Work on aliquot sequences in the range up to 1M is coordinated on mersenneforum <with link>. Please post your reservation there to avoid duplication of effort, if you want to work on one or more sequences in this range."? Last fiddled with by Andi47 on 2011-12-26 at 15:04 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS
2×3×23×61 Posts |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Jun 2003
22×32×151 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Besides, just what exactly do _you_ (you, as in, the person who has reserved the sequence) lose by someone else "poaching" a sequence? It is not like you spend extra effort due to the poaching. Last fiddled with by axn on 2011-12-26 at 16:46 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Oct 2004
Austria
2·17·73 Posts |
![]()
This time it has hit somebody else, but it already happened to me one or two times. And when I found out, that somebody else has advanced the sequence, which I had reserved, quite a bit more than me, it was some kind of loss: I could have used the cpu-week for something else if I had known before...
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
25·163 Posts |
![]()
It is disappointing to find that someone with more "horsepower" has already done your sequence that has been running a big composite for a week. A note on the aliquot sequence page would be nice.
I do not like the idea of locking anything other than the composites and certificates that are specifically "issued" by the db. After all, the db is there to collect factors. Let's not turn any help away. In the overall picture, the db should be the winner and I accept the occasional disappointment. But, I also safeguard my work a little, by normally not uploading factors for sequences until gnfs is working on a composite >=110 digits. Of course, that doesn't ensure no other work will be done, but the composite workers are still a little lower than that from what I can tell. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Oct 2004
Austria
2·17·73 Posts |
![]() Quote:
(and I don't think that this is due to bchaffins workers, since his workers frequently check the reservation threads (the main thread and the subproject threads) to avoid "poaching". And I also don't think that this special case has been caused by workers picking random composites, since the smallest composites are currently around c50. c116's should be rather save from random picks.) Last fiddled with by Andi47 on 2011-12-27 at 10:09 Reason: typo |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Nov 2008
1001000100102 Posts |
![]()
From looking at a few examples, poaching only seems to occur on sequences that have the downdriver (e.g. 4788 where someone poached some c13x composites) and sequences that are stable, such as the ones mentioned in this thread.
The best idea is probably never to upload your current status to the DB on these sequences, but upload up to a large composite that you have already done, so that poachers have to do more work than you do. For example, on my sequence 570280, the current status shows a c120 on line 869. In fact, I have already factored this and there is now another c120 on line 871. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | ||
Jun 2003
22·32·151 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Quote:
At this point, my guess is that the person(s?) who does the poaching are not aware (either that or they don't care about it). Either way, the paranoia exhibited here is only going to harm ourselves -- the poacher seems to be least bit affected. Sheesh! |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Oct 2004
Austria
2×17×73 Posts |
![]()
So you won't consider your effort wasted if you used e.g. ~a cpu-week on factoring a composite and it turns out that somebody else was faster? I do because I could have used the cpu-week for something else if I would have known that somebody else was already working on the composite...
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
"Tapio Rajala"
Feb 2010
Finland
32·5·7 Posts |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS
2·3·23·61 Posts |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Broken aliquot sequences | fivemack | FactorDB | 46 | 2021-02-21 10:46 |
Broken aliquot sequences | schickel | FactorDB | 18 | 2013-06-12 16:09 |
A new theorem about aliquot sequences | garambois | Aliquot Sequences | 34 | 2012-06-10 21:53 |
All the open-ended Aliquot sequences. | Greebley | Aliquot Sequences | 14 | 2011-03-15 00:13 |
New article on aliquot sequences | schickel | mersennewiki | 0 | 2008-12-30 07:07 |