Quote:
Would you consider changing 0 < n < (<next double check candidate> + 200K) to (<next double check candidate> ) < n < (<next double check candidate> + 200K)?
Or alternatively, changing the 0.2 in p > 40T, in 'active' window, 2 PRP tests performed, score = (n/1M ^ 2) * 125 * 0.2 formula to a much lower value,
Or simply putting a cap at 35 would serve the same purpose as well.
Nuri, thanks for the comments. Your first suggestion was how I'd originally planned to do it, but then I thought it was worth rewarding a factor however small, because it is final. I guess I could reduce the 0.2, but I figured that the scores will be so small in any case that I don't want to push it down too much. A factor at n=4M no PRPs = 2000, a factor at n=300K, 2 PRPs = 2.25. Since the margin between the double check SB and main SB are likely to remain this big, do we really need to penalise more?
Quote:
looks like a fine scoring system, but one thing is unclear: what happens to a large factor for <double check limit>+200K < n < <next candidate> that scores 35 (the cap) until the double check limit rises and the factor's n value enters the lower active window, at which point the factor's score would decrease if it's allowed to change. Will it decrease?
Mikael, again, thanks for the comments. Good point. Right now the score won't decrease, it will stay at 35. I feel that a different cap may be required, the current cap assumes that sieving could continue right up to 3500T, which is clearly crazzy :neener: