

That could come in handy if one were planning on going offline for a while (budget crunch or something).
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.





I don't even have a CD/DVD drive in my computer anymore because of Steam. My old one broke and I saw no reason to replace it, instead I just repurchased a few older games I had when they fell under $5 (like Morrowind), probably paid about as much as a new drive would have total. And because of the sales, I haven't felt the need to go through the hassle of obtaining games through...less legitimate means (and ended up buying the ones I liked that I had gotten that way too). In fact, now I have too many games...I buy games faster than I can finish them
And now Steam has Big Picture (still in beta), which is convenient because I play most games with a controller anyways, so now I can navigate Steam and play games without having to switch between mouse/keyboard and a controller.





lewax00 wrote: a few older games I had when they fell under $5
I started doing that to. Every now and then you see the older games (sometimes the whole series) for just a few bucks. While I doubt I will put massive hours in like a use to it is nice to have a digital lic of it. So I can toss the disc or simply not have to find it if I get a craving for it.
I seem to remember paying about $10 for the Master of Orion series. Felt like giving MoO3 another chance. Played it for an hour and then remembered why I abandoned it. But it was still worth the $10 bucks just for MoO2
lewax00 wrote: And now Steam has Big Picture (still in beta)
What is that?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.





Collin Jasnoch wrote: What is that?
It's a new interface you can use, designed for use on TVs so you can hook up a laptop to your TV or use a media PC to play games without needing a mouse and keyboard to navigate (it supports at least the XBox 360 controller, probably some other ones, and I think remotes as well). It's kind of like Windows Media Center but for games. Steam's page[^] about it has more information (and probably describes it better than I can).
It's not installed by default though, you have to go into your settings and optin while it's still in beta.





Sounds cool. I will have to check it out.
Thanx!
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.





I'm with the other guys... Use Steam.
Seriously, Steam is incredibly convenient. I've gotten to the point that I frown whenever I go to download a game and see it's NOT on Steam.
Sure, there's a bit of DRM, but it's transparent and doesn't mess with your machine.





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.





ihoecken wrote: The prime factorization for 1 is by definition 1 Yes, but he didn't say that, the question was: "can 1 be written as a product of prime numbers?"
And it can be, an empty set is a perfectly valid set of prime number, it just happens to be empty.





harold aptroot wrote: And it can be, an empty set is a perfectly valid set of prime number, it just happens to be empty.
No! That's wrong by mathematical definitions!
By definition the empty set is the unique set having no elements and the axiom of extensionality shows that there is only one empty set.
So there is no empty set of prime numbers. There exists only one empty set. No prime numbers at all.

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.





The empty set contains 'only prime numbers' in that it doesn't contain any nonprimes. If the product of an empty set is defined to be 1, and I think it is, then Harold's statement is true.
We're into somewhat abstruse mathematical definition territory here, though.





BobJanova wrote: The empty set contains 'only prime numbers' in
No, that's wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set[^]
Quote: "the empty set is the unique set having no elements; its size or cardinality (count of elements in a set) is zero"
http://www.proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Empty_Set[^]
Mathematically it's not true that it contains prime numbers. The definition says: There is nothing in it.
Take a look of "Axiom of empty set" it states that there is only one empty set, no matter what you want to describe. If you have a set of colours {blue, red, green}, it's the same empty set. There is only one. Containing nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_empty_set[^]
BobJanova wrote: I think it is, then Harold's statement is true.
It's wrong. As it's not the definition of the empty set. Read it, then you see.

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.





Uh, I know what the empty set is.
But the statement 'set S contains only thing X' is equivalent to 'set S has no members which are not X': in this case 'the empty set contains only primes' is equivalent to 'the empty set has no nonprime members'. And since it has no members at all, that is clearly true!
The empty set also only contains blue items, nonprime items, even numbers, or any other set. Empties are weird like that, a bit like zero being divisible by everything.





BobJanova wrote: in this case 'the empty set contains only primes' is equivalent to 'the empty set has no nonprime members'
That is logically and mathematically incorrect. This is no equivalence, because there are no members and so both statements are correct:
It contains no nonprime member AND it contains no prime members.
Mathematically it's wrong, you can't change it. It has nothing to do with your interpretation: empty is empty. Nothing in there. If you don't believe ask another one who studied mathematics or your professor from university, they will say the same.
Edit: By the way. If you can proove, that you are right. Do it. I will make my mind up, if you can. I gave you links to the definitions that support what I said. Do the same for a real discussion.

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.





Math is broken.
ihoecken wrote: This is no equivalence, because there are no members and so both statements are correct: It contains no nonprime member AND it contains no prime members. Why is that a problem? That's just the result of a vacuous truth. ∀x∈X:P(x) and ∀x∈X:¬P(x) can both be true, that just implies that X is the empty set. No problems there. And the equivalence ∀x∈X:P(x) = ¬∃x∈X:¬P(x) is a real thing.
So there you go, the statements are equivalent, but that means that an empty set can be typed (because a type is just a predicate as well  the elements of the empty set are of all types simultaneously but lets not get hung up on that, they don't exist anyway), and thus math is broken. QED.





harold aptroot wrote: So there you go, the statements are equivalent, but that means that an empty set can be typed (because a type is just a predicate as well  the elements of the empty set are of all types simultaneously but lets not get hung up on that, they don't exist anyway), and thus math is broken. QED.
The proof for the equivalence is true, but the usage of equivalence for our problem is not.
BobJovana said:
'the empty set contains only primes' is equivalent to 'the empty set has no nonprime members'.
But:
harold aptroot wrote: ∀x∈X:P(x) = ¬∃x∈X:¬P(x)
That would be ∀x∈X:P(0) = ¬∃x∈X:¬P(0)
Statement and proof are not corresponding!

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.





So maybe math is not broken, that's always nice..





harold aptroot wrote: and thus math is broken
yes, we know math is broken since the russell paradox.
harold aptroot wrote: but that means that an empty set can be typed (because a type is just a
predicate as well  the elements of the empty set are of all types
simultaneously
you really want to get on the Principia mathematica? we both know that Kurt Gödel was the only one crazy enough to ready and understand it all.
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)





No, really, let's not get into that, it's a bit too crazy for me





You posted links to the definition of 'empty set', which is not in question. I think you're having trouble with English.
Let's introduce a bit more maths language into the sentence. 'Set S contains only X' is equivalent to 'Set S is a subset of the set X'; in this case X being the set of primes. The empty set is a subset of every other set, so 'The empty set contains only X' – equivalent to 'The empty set is a subset of X' – is true for any X.





BobJanova wrote: You posted links to the definition of 'empty set', which is not in question.
I didn't started with empty set. It was used to support a statement, but it wasn't brought together correctly, so I stated the definition, which is proof that is doesn't support statement.
BobJanova wrote: 'The empty set is a subset of X' – is true for any X.
That I said.
It's a subset.
It's a subset of all primes.
It's a subset of all nonprimes.
But it doesn't contain any nonprimes nor does it contain any primes.

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.





I don't think those statements are equivalent, hence the issue. This is somewhat tangential to my favorite mindbender: you're in a room with an angel, a devil and two doors, one leading to heaven, the other to hell. You don't know which being is the angel or devil, nor do you know which door leads the way. The angel will always tell the truth, and the devil will always lie. You can ask one being one question in order to save your soul; what do you ask?
The answer to this question is similar to the issue of asserting those two statements are equal.





I don't get any of these arguments. There is nothing in it, yes, so what? "The nothing" can, so far, still be "zero prime numbers". Or zero of anything else for that matter because the same vacuous truth of "all elements are of type t" is true for all t.
The definition of the empty set doesn't say anything about that.
ihoecken wrote: Mathematically it's not true that it contains prime numbers. The definition says: There is nothing in it. It doesn't have to contain prime numbers, it only has to contain only prime numbers, which is the same as saying that all numbers in it are prime, which is vacuously true.





harold aptroot wrote: It doesn't have to contain prime numbers, it only has to contain only prime numbers, which is the same as saying that all numbers in it are prime, which is vacuously true.
No! It contains nothing of everything. So it contains no prime number and no not prime numbers. And that is obviously true.
I think we won't come to an agreement. Let's say there are differences between us, but I could agree that there are nearly nothing

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.





ihoecken wrote: No! It contains nothing of everything. So it contains no prime number and no not prime numbers. And that is obviously true. Yes I completely agree, I just don't see why this is an issue. This means it doesn't contain any nonprimes, so it passes the test.





harold aptroot wrote: Yes I completely agree, I just don't see why this is an issue
Well, perhaps we talked past each other.
I just diagreed with that statement:
harold aptroot wrote: an empty set contains only prime numbers
Of course I agreed with:
harold aptroot wrote: 1 is the product of { }
p is the product of { p } for p is prime
So I said nothing against the original statement of yours. I think that it's correct, I was just agaist the statement the empty set would contain only prime numbers.
harold aptroot wrote: This means it doesn't contain any nonprimes, so it passes the test.
I totally agree to that.

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.





Ok, now this is getting somewhere. What's the issue with "an empty set contains only prime numbers" exactly?
I wrote that in part to be funny really, but to me that statement means the same as "for all x in the empty set, x is a prime number", and that would make it not only amusing but true.



