

MehGerbil wrote: but the demonic clowns
All clowns are demonic, thus the adjective is redundant.
".45 ACP  because shooting twice is just silly"  JSOP, 2010  You can never have too much ammo  unless you're swimming, or on fire.  JSOP, 2010  "Why don't you tie a kerosenesoaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass."  Dale Earnhardt, 1997





Everyone else is saying use Steam, I'm saying for TSW you should go through Funcom's online store and not muck about with any physical media either. I've been playing it since beta and enjoying the game.
That said, I recently got a new rig and had to redownload it. My install is upwards of 32 gig at the moment. That coupled with hardware problems (random hard locks that follow no pattern, sometimes in a game, sometimes while browsing a website, sometimes while opening a folder in windows) has caused me to nuke my drive once, reinstall everything and still had the problem. So I just put in a different hard drive, nuked it again and hopefully today will be better. I left TSW to patch to the most recent stuff while I am at work.





I'm not a video game developer.
That said, I can still have an uneducated, off the cuff gripe.
I think there is an architectual problem when a game that is only 3 months old requires 16 GB of patches. It is as if the entire game has been replaced by the patch, which means it isn't really a patch in the traditional sense of the word. Either the entire thing was a total fail or maybe it's just easier to rely upon high speed internet so there is no need to optimize things? I dunno, it just seems wrong.
I'm not picking on The Secret World as I've ecountered this in every game I've purchased.
Obviously, Steam is the way to purchase a game provided the download is continiously updated. Perhaps developers should make the product available via Steam for the first 3 months (Steam Release) and then only print the physical media after a majority of the patching has been done so that customers aren't left buying a DVD that is really little more than a license.
Get a majority of the bugs worked out then release to DVD.





How much of that 16GB was textures, maps etc.? I can't see a great percentage of that being code.





Why replace a texture with a patch?
According to the download screen most of it was "database".





Maybe they made small changes to the rendering engine which required new textures? Maybe they added higherresolution textures?





The game is only 3 months old.
I see what you're saying though  obviously if textures are involved you'd have a larger download.





Hi,
This is basically a math question, but very much applicable to many of the computer algorithms.
I know the fact that,
 Any integer can be expressed as product of prime factors.
 Prime factors can be used to find LCM and HCF
 Prime factors can be used to check whether a number divides "N" ( N  Integer )
 Etc.. Etc...
My question is..
Why this unique ability for prime numbers ?
How is it possible that, any number can be expressed as product of prime factors ?
What is it, which makes these prime numbers special ?
I just found this article on web, which was informative, but was little hard to understand.
Can someone explain me this mystery behind prime numbers, any links web resources is much appreciated.





Vijay Sringeri wrote: Any integer nonprime can be expressed as product of prime factors.
FTFY.
/ravi





Well, if you consider a prime being the product of himself by 1, which is also prime, then you can extend it to any integer.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists.  Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll !  Common proverb
modified 27Sep12 8:41am.





That is indeed the definition of a prime (a number with no +ive divisors other than 1 and itself). But the OP wrote "Any integer can be expressed as product of prime factors." and 1 is not a prime.
/ravi





Ravi Bhavnani wrote: 1 is not a prime
I remember having had to copy this 100 times back when I still was in school. And still don't remember it. Grrrrr.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists.  Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll !  Common proverb





/ravi





It is, I think, fairly common that the trivial object is actually TOO simple. For example, the empty space is not connected, the trivial ring is not a field, and 1 is not a prime number. The reason is an existenceuniqueness one  in this case, the prime factor representation always exists for a number, but it's not unique unless 1 is considered to not be prime.






No, (by definition).
/ravi





Actually, when I went to school, I was taught that 1 WAS a prime number because a prime number is one that can't be divided by any other number other than itself or 1. 1 was excluded from the rules defining additional prime numbers because if it wasn't, there would only be one prime number: 1.
It comes in handy to remember 1 is a prime number when playing KenKen. (IE 4 squares in 6X6 array multipled together is 24. That's [1,1,4,6], [1,2,2,6]), or [1,2,3,4]. You can't have any more combinations because of the rules of KenKen.





See this definition[^] of a prime number. According to this[^] source, 1 was considered a prime number in pre19th century.
/ravi





In your first link it says :Many questions around prime numbers remain open, such as Goldbach's conjecture, which asserts that every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes, and the twin prime conjecture, which says that there are infinitely many pairs of primes whose difference is 2. It doesn't say all primes, but that wouldn't be true for 2. I could believe it's true for all odd prime numbers.
Also, your first link is Wikipedia which is well known to have misstatements posted in it. Back to Golbach, if 1 isn't prime, his conjecture is kind of screwed with 4 and 6, no?
Your second link is interesting, but the same quote that says that pre 19th century 1 was prime also lists several sources that printed 1 as a prime number up to 1956. I'd say that was post 19th century, but I don't know when it was published.
If 1 isn't prime you can't reach a prime number by multiplying two numbers together, which gets back to your Wiki link which makes a point of saying natural numbers can be reached by multiplying prime numbers. Which is kind of weird because that is the definition of what IS a natural number. Like I said, I was TRAINED that 1 is a prime number, that was more than a decade after that book was printed. Of course we weren't known for being current, I don't know how many 48 star flags I saw. I remember our first 50 star flag being brought into school with teachers being really relieved to finally get a current flag. (No , I wasn't born pre 20th century. Almost middle.)





You make several good points. I was also born close to the middle of the 20th century and was taught that 1 wasn't a prime number. I leave it to the mathematicians to cast the deciding vote.
/ravi





Rage wrote: Well, if you consider a prime being the product of himself by 1, which is also
prime, then you can extend it to any integer.
That's nitpicking. Which is of course totally in line with this forum.





Ravi Bhavnani wrote: Any integer nonprime natural number can be expressed as product of prime factors. 1 is the product of { }
p is the product of { p } for p is prime





Positive integers > 1, actually, not all natural numbers.
/ravi





No, 1 too. 1 is the empty product, and clearly an empty set contains only prime numbers





harold aptroot wrote: No, 1 too. 1 is the empty product, and clearly an empty set contains only prime numbers
No!
1 is no prime number and nothing isn't a prime number.
It's called prime factorization but in the prime factorization for 1 is no prime number.
The prime factorization for 1 is by definition 1 (and not the product of empty set).

Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem
How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night.
War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.



