I misread that as Radeon 9700 for a second and thought I had jumped back in time twenty years.
christian
joined 4 years ago
There are only finitely many prime numbers and I will not hear otherwise.
I don't remember where I read this quote originally and I can only paraphrase it, but observing people living in a capitalist society and concluding that human nature is self-centeredness and greed is equivalent to observing workers in a factory that is poisoning their lungs and concluding that human nature is to cough.
I don't think this is the year. I think our roster is probably still a bit too inexperienced, in spite of the few leadership guys we still have. I'll definitely be unhappy if we're knocked out, but we haven't won a round since the run so if we can get back to the second round I'll call it a successful season and be hopeful for next year.
I've really been enjoying the caps games I've seen this season. Carbery seems like a lock for Jack Adams at this point.
I barely remember this anymore but the downgrade had certain things deactivated. Something like my card had four "pipelines" and the high-end one had eight, so a minor hardware modification could reactivate them. It was risky though, because often imperfections came out of the manufacturing process, and then they would just deactivate the problem areas and turn it into a lower-end version.
After a little while, someone put out drivers that could simulate the modification without physically touching the card. You'd read about softmod and hardmod for the lower-end radeon cards.
I used the softmod and 90% of the time it worked perfectly, but there was definitely an issue where some textures in certain games would have weird artifacting in a checkerboard pattern. If I disabled the softmod the artifacting wouldn't happen.
I played this as a kid. I loved the game except for the fights. I would press '0' to sucker punch every time. I don't even know what Indy Quotient is, why should I care about it going down?
I remember trying yacy over ten years ago and I really wanted to like it but it was functionally useless. The results I was getting would be unrelated to my query almost every time. I checked back periodically over the years but that never seemed to improve much.
It's the first thing I thought of too though.
He's earned more than you want your backup goalie to be making, but fuck it, I'm okay with that. If one guy sags we can ride the hot hand.
You don't necessarily need to. There's a possibility of defining instructions for winning without that. The idea may just be hard to imagine because chess is complicated.
You can make up stupid examples of games that defy this. Maybe we dream up a game with an ungodly number of states that has an action X that is an available option every turn. If the winning strategy is just "player 1 chooses action X every turn", you can imagine there may be a way to show that's true without needing to simulate every single state, and there's certainly a way to easily store and communicate this strategy.
For a ludicrously dumb win condition, maybe the first playet to press X 10,000,000 times wins, in spite of having lots of other options each turn which introduce lots of other gamestates. You should be able to show that pressing X every turn is a winning strategy without computing every potential state. This can be true of more complicated games too, it would just be much less obvious. Just because no one has conceived of a way to do that yet with a game such as chess doesn't mean no one ever will.
49
Had to check online to be 100% sure the superPAC that mailed it was Trump-linked. I've never heard of Elissa Slotkin before, but apparently she's a US rep for another district in Michigan. Our rep is Rashida Tlaib, who is Palestinian descent, so I'm guessing the PAC's thought process in designing this was they don't want to link Harris to our actual representative so just pick some other random rep nearby.
As someone who does not want Trump to be re-elected, it's at least relieving to know how easy it will be for the democrats to counter these dirty tricks. All they need to do is have their candidate make clear public statements to clarify that she doesn't want this linked to her campaign. Of course, she'll have to clearly point out which specific parts are offensive, so people don't just think she fine with antisemitism. Explaining that being anti-apartheid is not the same as being antisemitic is pretty straightforward though, so this should be no big deal.
view more: next ›
If you want to show there are infinitely many primes, one way is to first note that every integer greater than 1 has a prime factor. This is because if an integer n is prime, n is a prime factor of itself, and if n is not prime then it must have a smaller factor m other than 1, 1< m < n. If m is also not prime, it too must have a smaller factor other than 1, and you can keep playing this game but there are only so many integers between 1 and n so eventually you'll get to a factor of n that has no smaller factors of its own other than 1, which means it is prime.
Let's now suppose there is only a finite number of primes, we'll try to show that this assumption leads to nonsense so can't be possible.
We can multiply any finite number of integers together to get a new integer. Let's multiply all of the primes together to get a new number M. Then M + 1 gives a remainder of 1 when you divide by any prime number. Since dividing by a factor will always give a remainder of 0, none of the prime numbers can be a factor of M + 1. So M + 1 is an imteger bigger than 1 with no prime factors. This is impossible, so there must be a mistake somewhere in this argument.
The only thing we said that we're not 100% sure is true was that there are a finite number of primes, so that has to be our mistake. So there must be infinitely many prime numbers.