LL vs. DC ... am I reading this right?

[petrw1]

If an unnamed exponent says this:

No factors below 2^66 
P-1 B1=210000, B2=3045000 
Unverified LL xxxxxxx
Suspect LL yyyyyyy

OR

No factors below 2^66 
P-1 B1=105000, B2=1995000 
Unverified LL xxxxxxx 
Unverified LL yyyyyyy

and the Residues do NOT match will the next assignment be a DC?

And, further would it be illegal, immoral or naughty for me to assign myself the DC via the worktodo.add process?

[starrynte]

I believe both are DC's
as for assigning yourself one, if you performed the ll you probably shouldn't as the server won't trust your doublecheck, but otherwise it is perfectly "legal"

[henryzz]

the same person shouldnt do the same ll test twice

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by henryzz

the same person shouldnt do the same ll test twice

Yes, as you and Starrynte both said....I understand. I did NOT do the LL test. I just might want to do the DC.

[cheesehead]

Proposal:

A new PrimeNet function, conditional specific assignments.

A conditional specific assignment would be requested by someone _for a specific exponent_ and type of assignment (TF, P-1, L-L, DC ...). Then PrimeNet would:

if that exponent was not currently assigned to anyone else (for any purpose), then assign it as requested (and return a code indicating that success),

else

return a code indicating that the conditional assignment request was refused.

(Exponents in ranges not currently available for assignment would be in the latter category.)

The refusal return code could be elaborated:

the exponent was already assigned to someone else for some purpose,

the exponent previously had been L-Led (first-time or later) by the requestor of a conditional L-L assignment -- to prevent two L-L test assignments to the same person on an exponent,

the exponent is already assigned to the (apparently forgetful) requestor :-),

range not currently available for assignment,

and so on.

This wouldn't prevent anyone from doing whatever they can do now, such as performing two L-Ls on the same exponent or doing a test on an exponent currently assigned to someone else; it would just provide folks a better means to avoid doing so accidentally or unknowingly, by cooperating with PrimeNet instead of going around it by perusing a report then forcing a manual communication to squat on an exponent (hoping that PrimeNet had not assigned it since the report's epoch, but not having any assurance of that).

[garo]

petrw1,
At the moment it would be immoral/worng. You need to wait 90 days as George is in the process of ring-fencing v4 assignments that did not get copied over to v5 correctly. Wait till Jan 20th or george gives a signal.

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by garo

petrw1,
At the moment it would be immoral/worng. You need to wait 90 days as George is in the process of ring-fencing v4 assignments that did not get copied over to v5 correctly. Wait till Jan 20th or george gives a signal.

OK

Ring-Fencing???

[garo]

Yeah making sure those exponents that were assigned in v4 cannot be registered by other users in v5. The horse has bolted a bit on this but George was away so we should at least not make the situation worse by poaching v4 assigned exponents.

[petrw1]

Ceasing and Desisting....

[garo]

Cheers!