readerrrr

Do you have any code examples?

The article talks mostly about purity, and that is easily achieved.

The thing is I know about the rule of equal number in each row and column, and have used it to solve a few 10x10, but when switching to a 4x4 I forgot it exists. I took some time and went trough the rules I knew, before posting this "error", but that one rule was gone.

Well that's embarrassing.

edit: I'm wrong.

I have found a correct solution, yet the game doesn't accept it:

B r r B

r B B r

B B r B

B r B r

The correct solution was:

B r r B

r B B r

B B r r

r r B B

My guess to this is that there are more than one solutions to the problem and checking if the board is solved is done by finding the first solution and comparing it to yours.

And even that not completely...

More constrains does not necessary translate to less choices. And even when it does, less choices do not necessary make it an easier game.

For example: I remove undo move, then you certainly have less choices but, the game is harder( even for a computer ), since you have to remember previous states which were previously accessible via undo.

10x10 solved. It seems too easy. It is almost an auto solver, you just have to find two blocks of the same color together, or two blocks with the same color with an empty block in-between.

Great for a young person, but I would like to see a version with more rules and constraints to follow.

The UI and the UI feedback is outstanding though.

There are two non-parallel lines in 4513( and I'm not talking about the two sets of parallel lines crossing each other ). Look carefully, and ignore other parallels. I haven't seen any such clear example in other primes( or any other number for that matter ).

I though it was interesting so here is a picture: http://i.imgur.com/KpbfuSz.jpg

Between the purple and blue lines, there are a couple of segments desperately trying to form a line, but failing.

::blush::

Because it grows exponentially. ( And it is interesting )

In reality you will use a O( (log n)^6 ) algorithm.

It never stops generating primes, but it doesn't give a prime for every n.

There is such a formula, it is very simple

  n^2+n+41

It doesn't generate sequential primes.

That doesn't really matter, checking if a number is prime can be done in sublinear time complexity. The real problem is factoring large numbers.

Try 4513 for two divergent lines in the first million and almost complete randomness in the 50th million.

A couple of characters less in C ( I didn't count whitespace in both ):

void qs( int* a , int z )

{

if(z > 1){ ; int p = a[z/2], s = 0, e = z-1, t; while(s <= e) {

for(;a[s] < p; s++); for(;a[e] > p; e--); if(s <= e) { t = a[s];

a[s++] = a[e]; a[e--] = t; } } qs( a , e+1 ); qs( a+s , z-s ); }

}

I believe the fading starts at 0 ( a comment starts with 1 point ).

That is also a problem. One downvote later and the comment is immediately biased toward future readers.

That sounds like an incorrect fix. Since the comments are separated by trees, they should be positioned and compared to comments relative to that tree, not relative to the master tree. Being at the bottom of a sub-tree marks the comment automatically as the most downvoted in that tree.

Applying fading to all the comments just because a downvoted comment has a parent that happens to be at the top, seems wrong.

If I understand the rules correctly, downvoting is used for not agreeing with a comment, and flags are used for inappropriate comments.

But is fading the comment really the correct behaviour. Isn't the position on the page deciding whether the community agrees with the comment?

My suggestion is: remove the fading; let downvoting only move the comments down, since the comment is appropriate yet the community doesn't agree with it; and let flagging remove inappropriate comments.

Science is not profitable, its application is.

And in a perfect world, wouldn't it be great if science was profitable?

No, that would make it vulnerable to abuse, look at what happened to lawyering, college fees, private health care. Capitalizing it only makes it worse. Science shouldn't be influenced by money. Imagine if it were, and compare it to politics. Do you want scientists to make decisions while funded under young earth creationists or big oil?

Can you provide more information? How do you determine which paper is patented?

That is nice, but I'm afraid the primary motivation was money. Which in the perfect world shouldn't be the case.

I guess the end result is still better than most movies, a paper, and some science promotion for the general public.

Given their motivation, which is to promote the movie and the book, I'm skeptical that this is a real discovery and not just something visualized that was previously in a mathematical form.

If this is a real breakthrough, then where is the paper?

We know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

An electric field is generated by electric charge and time-varying magnetic fields

Charge is the fundamental property of forms of matter that exhibit electrostatic attraction or repulsion in the presence of other matter. Electric charge is a characteristic property of many subatomic particles.

Really? Could you share the titles.

The talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUZvvvIFU9c&list=PLAc7HoDe-0...

Yes! And hopefully you aren't using them.

You must be joking.

Why don't you "prove" that all the metadata is not used for commercial purposes, and that metadata isn't available to government agencies.

You are trading your so far rarely touched privacy for solving minor first world annoyances.