mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > New To GIMPS? Start Here! > Information & Answers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-09-23, 04:00   #1
phillipsjk
 
Nov 2019

3×19 Posts
Lightbulb PRP+VDF and the "sunk cost fallacy"

Quote:
According to classical economics and traditional microeconomic theory, only prospective (future) costs are relevant to a rational decision.[5] At any moment in time, the best thing to do depends only on current alternatives.[6] The only things that matter are the future consequences.[7] Past mistakes are irrelevant.[6] Any costs incurred prior to making the decision have already been incurred no matter what decision is made. They may be described as "water under the bridge,"[8] and making decisions on their basis may be described as "crying over spilt milk."[9] In other words, people should not let sunk costs influence their decisions; sunk costs are irrelevant to rational decisions. This is known as the bygones principle[7][10] or the marginal principle.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost


Since version 30 reduces the amount of work required for verification by something like 99%, it makes sense to:
  1. Upgrade to version 30.3
  2. Discard work for first-run PRP test less than about 95% complete (technically 99%, but the gain would be small).
  3. Run the test again with a certificate
I noticed this while contemplating what to do with double-check work my one computer downloaded during the upgrade. Because it is running under-clocked (and at a 33% duty cycle -- during the low power demand time), the PRP run and doublecheck work are not expected to complete before the doublecheck work expires.


I plan to stop the client, rename the relevant work files (only 23% done), move the doublecheck work to the beginning of the queue (to check the software for bugs), and re-run the PRP test with VDF. If needed, I can run the machine at full clock speed for a month or two (it is more efficient that way anyway due to disk array overhead).
phillipsjk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-23, 05:24   #2
phillipsjk
 
Nov 2019

3×19 Posts
Exclamation Update

It looks like the PRP assignment format has changed slightly.


I had to append ",3," to the PRP assignment line in the worktodo.txt file.


I got that from the replacement assignment lines in the web interface when you check your current assignments.
phillipsjk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is "mung" or "munged" a negative word in a moral sense? Uncwilly Lounge 15 2020-04-14 18:35
Stockfish game: "Move 8 poll", not "move 3.14159 discussion" MooMoo2 Other Chess Games 5 2016-10-22 01:55
"Honey, I think our son's autistic." "Okay, I'll buy him some crayons." jasong jasong 10 2015-12-14 06:38
Aouessare-El Haddouchi-Essaaidi "test": "if Mp has no factor, it is prime!" wildrabbitt Miscellaneous Math 11 2015-03-06 08:17
Would Minimizing "iterations between results file" may reveal "is not prime" earlier? nitai1999 Software 7 2004-08-26 18:12

All times are UTC. The time now is 13:44.

Sat Oct 31 13:44:59 UTC 2020 up 51 days, 10:55, 2 users, load averages: 2.79, 2.63, 2.47

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.