The "(W)TF Depth Debate" state of the bunion - Page 19

garo · 2013-12-27, 21:28

@Aramis and chris2be8
A recycled exponent is one which is not at the leading edge of LL testing and has been assigned for LL testing before. The original assignee either didn't start the test or left it incomplete and has not updated the status of the exponent - i.e. not run Prime95 with the computer connected to the Internet - for 60 days. Such exponents are "expired" at 0000 UTC every day and thrown back in the LL pool for assignment. Anyone can get these exponents for testing, the list or potential assignees is the same as regular LL testers.

It doesn't really matter whether these exponents have had a partial test done since the new assignee will have to restart the LL test from scratch.

@chris2be8: Occasionally, people do continue testing but not communicate with Primenet. When they eventually report the result it is counted as a doublecheck. Not sure how often this happens but can't be more than 1 in every 10,000 first time tests.

garo · 2013-12-27, 21:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by davieddy

If I were offered two 60M exponents, one at 72 and the other at 74 I would say "Why the **** were these not both TFed to 73?"

Because this is a recycled exponent and when it was assigned for LL testing we were letting exponents go after TF to 72 bits. Now that we have more fire-power we will give it a more thorough rogering. Capisci?

Quote:

Originally Posted by davieddy

Define sufficuent. If the bit level was deemed fit for a virgin, it should be fit for an old hag which has been round the block a few times.

Sufficient is what the community decides. With George as primus inter pares. Currently, we feel that 74 bits is sufficient for 60-69M exponents even though James' site says that given infinite TF power we could take these to 75.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davieddy

It is throwing good money after bad. It will get LLed eventually, and TFing a 54M (I ask you) from 72 to 73 does not add to the LL assignment pool. The effort would be MUCH better spent taking a 66M expo to 73.

Why? And we will take the 66M to 74 bits anyway. Didn't you just agree that you would prefer a 54M over a 66M?

Quote:

Originally Posted by davieddy

Let us at least start from a point of concensus: ...
Now we come to the crunch: this depends on the number of virgins assigned each day.

No it doesn't. Not even close. It depends on how many people complete an LL test each day. And that is it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davieddy

Currently this is decided by Chris, who has an ingenious ploy which ensures that the assignment of virgins does not exceed their production rate.:

I think you misunderstand what Chris is doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davieddy

BTW Garo, I assume you intend to delegate your moderation here with the same frankness and humility as Chris.

Agreed. I usually don't moderate posts in discussions I am an active part of. I do release your posts from the moderation queue when I see them. Except when I find them pointless in which case I let another mod make the call.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davieddy

Sigh.
Hasn't anyone heard of Kirchoff's Current Law?

And pray tell what relevance does that have to our present discussion?

davieddy · 2013-12-28, 15:36

>63M:
8000 virgins in.
Big number out and same big number straight back in.

<63M
0 virgins in.
Big number out. 1500 opt for extra rogering and 16 ~~die of ecstacy~~ are factored. Big number - 16 back in.

8500 LLs completed.

Who is winning this debate?

Aramis Wyler · 2013-12-28, 19:52

This discussion seems to have gone into territory far more pointless than usual. I even made a couple of bizarre logical leaps there just to try and tie down an anchor point because the basic premise (virgin assignments are better/worse to LL/TF than recycled ones) is so ridiculous on it's face.

We need to TF the smallest ones we can to whatever our firepower can support (not exceeding James' line) and release them. The level we TF them to needs to be based on the amount of assignments going out vs the amount we can complete. Whether or not a number has been partially LL'd before doesn't even remotely matter - the number hasn't gotten any more or less likely to be prime.

We should always aim high, because if we fail to get numbers to that 74th bit and they release at 73 then it's the same as if we'd aimed for 73. If we start releasing them 2 bitlevels low that would be a problem, but we're not even releasing them 1 bitlevel low right now. I mean really, saying omg we should release at 73 because someday if we might fail to release at 74 and be forced to release at 73 is farcical. It's like preemptive failure so as to say that we didn't fail.

davieddy · 2013-12-28, 21:04

Sorry about any confusion Bill, but it's NMFP^MT.
The delay to my posts causes mystification and embarrassment to everyone except me.

I posted the 30 day profit/loss accounts some hours ago. I expect they are being audited.

D

chalsall · 2013-12-28, 21:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by davieddy

Who is winning this debate?

Clearly not you.

(Sorry for the delay in the reply, but by your own rules I was not allowed to approve your post.)

Prime95 · 2013-12-28, 21:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by davieddy

Who is winning this debate?

Based on the number of people you've been able to convince that your theories are correct, I'd say you are losing the debate badly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramis

I mean really, saying omg we should release at 73 because someday if we might fail to release at 74 and be forced to release at 73 is farcical.

A superb and concise analysis of this whole mess.

ewmayer · 2013-12-28, 21:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by davieddy

The delay to my posts causes mystification and embarrassment to everyone except me.

The delay to your posts is no one's fault but your own.

kracker · 2013-12-28, 22:16

Indeed.

davieddy · 2013-12-29, 00:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by kracker

Indeed.

That's three times I told you to piss off and yet you are still here.

davieddy · 2013-12-29, 01:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramis Wyler

I mean really, saying omg we should release at 73 because someday if we might fail to release at 74 and be forced to release at 73 is farcical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime95

A superb and concise analysis of this whole mess.

Good posting from the two people who come anywhere near to seeing their way through this mess^TM as clearly as I do.

The mess^TM arises entirely through George permitting Chris to put double-speak into practice: TFing 63M exponents while assigning 69M exponents for LL goes under the Orwellian "TF is just keeping ahead of the LL wavefront".

George knows precisely what I am aiming for, and how to achieve it easily and quickly. It is what Garo, Aramis and I refer to as "Breathing Space".

David

2013-12-28, 15:36	#201
davieddy "Lucan" Dec 2006 England 14512₈ Posts	30 day account for LLs in progress >63M: 8000 virgins in. Big number out and same big number straight back in. <63M 0 virgins in. Big number out. 1500 opt for extra rogering and 16 ~~die of ecstacy~~ are factored. Big number - 16 back in. 8500 LLs completed. Who is winning this debate?

2013-12-28, 19:52	#202
Aramis Wyler "Bill Staffen" Jan 2013 Pittsburgh, PA, USA 3·137 Posts	This discussion seems to have gone into territory far more pointless than usual. I even made a couple of bizarre logical leaps there just to try and tie down an anchor point because the basic premise (virgin assignments are better/worse to LL/TF than recycled ones) is so ridiculous on it's face. We need to TF the smallest ones we can to whatever our firepower can support (not exceeding James' line) and release them. The level we TF them to needs to be based on the amount of assignments going out vs the amount we can complete. Whether or not a number has been partially LL'd before doesn't even remotely matter - the number hasn't gotten any more or less likely to be prime. We should always aim high, because if we fail to get numbers to that 74th bit and they release at 73 then it's the same as if we'd aimed for 73. If we start releasing them 2 bitlevels low that would be a problem, but we're not even releasing them 1 bitlevel low right now. I mean really, saying omg we should release at 73 because someday if we might fail to release at 74 and be forced to release at 73 is farcical. It's like preemptive failure so as to say that we didn't fail. Last fiddled with by Aramis Wyler on 2013-12-28 at 19:54

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Stockfish game: "Move 8 poll", not "move 3.14159 discussion"	MooMoo2	Other Chess Games	5	2016-10-22 01:55
Aouessare-El Haddouchi-Essaaidi "test": "if Mp has no factor, it is prime!"	wildrabbitt	Miscellaneous Math	11	2015-03-06 08:17
Specifing TF factor depth in "Manual Assignments"?	kracker	PrimeNet	2	2012-07-22 17:49
Would Minimizing "iterations between results file" may reveal "is not prime" earlier?	nitai1999	Software	7	2004-08-26 18:12

2013-12-27, 21:28	#199
garo Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 3×919 Posts	@Aramis and chris2be8 A recycled exponent is one which is not at the leading edge of LL testing and has been assigned for LL testing before. The original assignee either didn't start the test or left it incomplete and has not updated the status of the exponent - i.e. not run Prime95 with the computer connected to the Internet - for 60 days. Such exponents are "expired" at 0000 UTC every day and thrown back in the LL pool for assignment. Anyone can get these exponents for testing, the list or potential assignees is the same as regular LL testers. It doesn't really matter whether these exponents have had a partial test done since the new assignee will have to restart the LL test from scratch. @chris2be8: Occasionally, people do continue testing but not communicate with Primenet. When they eventually report the result it is counted as a doublecheck. Not sure how often this happens but can't be more than 1 in every 10,000 first time tests.

2013-12-28, 21:04	#203
davieddy "Lucan" Dec 2006 England 2×3×13×83 Posts	Sorry about any confusion Bill, but it's NMFP^MT. The delay to my posts causes mystification and embarrassment to everyone except me. I posted the 30 day profit/loss accounts some hours ago. I expect they are being audited. D

2013-12-28, 22:16	#207
kracker ἀβουλία "Mr. Meeseeks" Jan 2012 California, USA 3²·241 Posts	Indeed.