<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Philosophy, Technology and Math</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?feed=comments-rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mrrives.com/Technology</link>
	<description>Software and Papers Related to Game Theory, Math and Philosophy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:00:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Don&#8217;t be an Anode. Protect your Cathode. by SUgen</title>
		<link>http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=924&#038;cpage=1#comment-537</link>
		<dc:creator>SUgen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:00:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=924#comment-537</guid>
		<description>Great and useful</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great and useful</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The 10 Points of Marxism (Marxism: Part II) by Angela</title>
		<link>http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=195&#038;cpage=1#comment-514</link>
		<dc:creator>Angela</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 07:26:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=195#comment-514</guid>
		<description>These 10 points are so blatantly our current administration, it is scary. 11/6/2012 cannot come quick enough.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These 10 points are so blatantly our current administration, it is scary. 11/6/2012 cannot come quick enough.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Part 3 of 3: Speed Comparison of C# BigInteger and C++ mpir by Patrick</title>
		<link>http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=703&#038;cpage=1#comment-484</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:23:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=703#comment-484</guid>
		<description>Thank you for replying and incorporating my findings. Just out of curiosity, were you using 32 bit or 64 bit in the original comparison? Interestingly, the 32-bit C# now takes 15 seconds to run on my computer. Just using 64-bit reduces its time to 2/3. The C++ sees this same benefit. I didn&#039;t consider that you were using C# 3. That could make quite a difference. It is good to see C# getting better. If it could ever get below 2x, I think I would drop C++ for most everything. Thank you for the comparison. 

Interestingly (and unrelated to the comparison you made), if I change BigInteger and mpz_class to long, I still get the same answer but in 1.53 seconds for the C# and 1.61 seconds for C++. This suggests that aside from arbitrary precision math, C# may be as fast or faster than C++.  What are your thoughts on this?

Another interesting point is that C++ still gets the right answers if I use double, while C# gives the wrong answer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for replying and incorporating my findings. Just out of curiosity, were you using 32 bit or 64 bit in the original comparison? Interestingly, the 32-bit C# now takes 15 seconds to run on my computer. Just using 64-bit reduces its time to 2/3. The C++ sees this same benefit. I didn&#8217;t consider that you were using C# 3. That could make quite a difference. It is good to see C# getting better. If it could ever get below 2x, I think I would drop C++ for most everything. Thank you for the comparison. </p>
<p>Interestingly (and unrelated to the comparison you made), if I change BigInteger and mpz_class to long, I still get the same answer but in 1.53 seconds for the C# and 1.61 seconds for C++. This suggests that aside from arbitrary precision math, C# may be as fast or faster than C++.  What are your thoughts on this?</p>
<p>Another interesting point is that C++ still gets the right answers if I use double, while C# gives the wrong answer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Part 3 of 3: Speed Comparison of C# BigInteger and C++ mpir by Steve Rives</title>
		<link>http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=703&#038;cpage=1#comment-483</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Rives</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:34:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=703#comment-483</guid>
		<description>Excellent work, Patrick.  Thanks for doing this.  I will update the body of the text to refer to your comment so that people can have the real low-down on speed comparison.  Also, I am sure it depends upon the version of C# and I think I was still on 3 when I first did this comparison.  C# is getting better and better!  And properly organized code helps as well.  Again, excellent work!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent work, Patrick.  Thanks for doing this.  I will update the body of the text to refer to your comment so that people can have the real low-down on speed comparison.  Also, I am sure it depends upon the version of C# and I think I was still on 3 when I first did this comparison.  C# is getting better and better!  And properly organized code helps as well.  Again, excellent work!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Part 3 of 3: Speed Comparison of C# BigInteger and C++ mpir by Patrick</title>
		<link>http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=703&#038;cpage=1#comment-482</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:25:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=703#comment-482</guid>
		<description>I just finished compiling and running both the C++ program and it&#039;s real equivalent in C# on my home computer. I get  9.083 seconds for the C# and 3.822 seconds for the C++. The C++ is only 2.37x faster. Give your readers the real comparison. Don&#039;t handicap the C# version with so much crap. Also, giving each the proper optimization helps a lot. Also, compiling for 64 bit dropped the C++ from nearly 5 seconds to the 3.822 reported above. The C# came down from 12 to 9 seconds. The other optimization should be on by default in the release config in Visual Studio. The Debug profile in Visual Studio left my C# taking more than 20 seconds to finish, but nobody cares how long a debug build takes to run.
Here is what I used for the C# (it is nearly identical to your C++)

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Numerics;

namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            Stopwatch start = Stopwatch.StartNew();

            long b, a = 0;
            double guess, root = Math.Sqrt(61.0);

            BigInteger bi_a;
            BigInteger bi_b;

            while (a &gt;= 0)  // when a wraps around negateve, bail
            {
                a++;
                guess = a * root;
                b = (long)Math.Floor(guess);
                bi_a = 61 * a * a + 1;
                for (long j = 0; j &lt; 1; j++) // change j &lt; 1 to j &lt; 2 if no answer found...
                {
                    b += j;
                    bi_b = b * b;
                    if (bi_a == bi_b)
                    {
                        Console.Write(&quot;61 * &quot; + a + &quot;^2 + 1 = &quot; + b + &quot;^2\n&quot;);
                        Console.Write(&quot;\n\nFinished in Seconds: &quot; + start.Elapsed.TotalSeconds + &quot;\n&quot;);
                        Console.ReadKey();
                    }
                }
            }
        }
    }
}</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just finished compiling and running both the C++ program and it&#8217;s real equivalent in C# on my home computer. I get  9.083 seconds for the C# and 3.822 seconds for the C++. The C++ is only 2.37x faster. Give your readers the real comparison. Don&#8217;t handicap the C# version with so much crap. Also, giving each the proper optimization helps a lot. Also, compiling for 64 bit dropped the C++ from nearly 5 seconds to the 3.822 reported above. The C# came down from 12 to 9 seconds. The other optimization should be on by default in the release config in Visual Studio. The Debug profile in Visual Studio left my C# taking more than 20 seconds to finish, but nobody cares how long a debug build takes to run.<br />
Here is what I used for the C# (it is nearly identical to your C++)</p>
<p>using System;<br />
using System.Collections.Generic;<br />
using System.Linq;<br />
using System.Text;<br />
using System.Diagnostics;<br />
using System.Numerics;</p>
<p>namespace ConsoleApplication1<br />
{<br />
    class Program<br />
    {<br />
        static void Main(string[] args)<br />
        {<br />
            Stopwatch start = Stopwatch.StartNew();</p>
<p>            long b, a = 0;<br />
            double guess, root = Math.Sqrt(61.0);</p>
<p>            BigInteger bi_a;<br />
            BigInteger bi_b;</p>
<p>            while (a &gt;= 0)  // when a wraps around negateve, bail<br />
            {<br />
                a++;<br />
                guess = a * root;<br />
                b = (long)Math.Floor(guess);<br />
                bi_a = 61 * a * a + 1;<br />
                for (long j = 0; j &lt; 1; j++) // change j &lt; 1 to j &lt; 2 if no answer found&#8230;<br />
                {<br />
                    b += j;<br />
                    bi_b = b * b;<br />
                    if (bi_a == bi_b)<br />
                    {<br />
                        Console.Write(&quot;61 * &quot; + a + &quot;^2 + 1 = &quot; + b + &quot;^2\n&quot;);<br />
                        Console.Write(&quot;\n\nFinished in Seconds: &quot; + start.Elapsed.TotalSeconds + &quot;\n&quot;);<br />
                        Console.ReadKey();<br />
                    }<br />
                }<br />
            }<br />
        }<br />
    }<br />
}</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 2 + 2 = 4?  I don&#8217;t think so! by Steve Rives</title>
		<link>http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=303&#038;cpage=1#comment-476</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Rives</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:47:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=303#comment-476</guid>
		<description>Dear None@yahoo.com,

Thanks for coming and leaving a comment.  It is instructive for my main point, for you are involved in question begging where you tell me what I can&#039;t prove.  But that&#039;s the point of discussion.  That&#039;s the topic. What is proof? 

I am glad you spent a week proving that numbers exist. [Aside: Was this at BYU?  You wouldn&#039;t happen to be a Mormon would you? Just curious, and that has nothing to do with anything.] 

Your comments are doubly instructive, because you proved that numbers exist. That&#039;s a very strange thing to do.  I don&#039;t prove that my phone exists, I just use it.  I don&#039;t prove that my chair exists, I just sit in it.  Why would you prove that a number exists?  Which makes me wonder, what do you think that it means for something to &quot;exist&quot;? Especially numbers?  It is interesting that you appeal to your credentials and my lack of math courses.  What you have done is made an appeal to facts that do have no bearing on your point.  That my English is conversational or not, is neither here nor there (as my Numerical Analysis professor used to say).

I really am curious where you did your undergraduate work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear <a href="mailto:None@yahoo.com">None@yahoo.com</a>,</p>
<p>Thanks for coming and leaving a comment.  It is instructive for my main point, for you are involved in question begging where you tell me what I can&#8217;t prove.  But that&#8217;s the point of discussion.  That&#8217;s the topic. What is proof? </p>
<p>I am glad you spent a week proving that numbers exist. [Aside: Was this at BYU?  You wouldn't happen to be a Mormon would you? Just curious, and that has nothing to do with anything.] </p>
<p>Your comments are doubly instructive, because you proved that numbers exist. That&#8217;s a very strange thing to do.  I don&#8217;t prove that my phone exists, I just use it.  I don&#8217;t prove that my chair exists, I just sit in it.  Why would you prove that a number exists?  Which makes me wonder, what do you think that it means for something to &#8220;exist&#8221;? Especially numbers?  It is interesting that you appeal to your credentials and my lack of math courses.  What you have done is made an appeal to facts that do have no bearing on your point.  That my English is conversational or not, is neither here nor there (as my Numerical Analysis professor used to say).</p>
<p>I really am curious where you did your undergraduate work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 2 + 2 = 4?  I don&#8217;t think so! by None</title>
		<link>http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=303&#038;cpage=1#comment-475</link>
		<dc:creator>None</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:18:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=303#comment-475</guid>
		<description>Please, Take a few higher level math courses. You can&#039;t prove 2+2=4 in just a few lines of text. I was a mathematics major and a philosophy minor in college. We spent an entire week proving that numbers exist and that they can be added. Your fox example is little more than conversational english using the words for some basic mathematical terms. If you had used A+B=C it would have been correct both ways and an absolute truth. 2+2=4 by definition and any other result is in error. Rigorus mathematical proofs are no easy matter. Please stop trying to push your agenda to the masses with pixie dust and make belive science.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please, Take a few higher level math courses. You can&#8217;t prove 2+2=4 in just a few lines of text. I was a mathematics major and a philosophy minor in college. We spent an entire week proving that numbers exist and that they can be added. Your fox example is little more than conversational english using the words for some basic mathematical terms. If you had used A+B=C it would have been correct both ways and an absolute truth. 2+2=4 by definition and any other result is in error. Rigorus mathematical proofs are no easy matter. Please stop trying to push your agenda to the masses with pixie dust and make belive science.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on About by Steve Rives</title>
		<link>http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?page_id=2&#038;cpage=1#comment-472</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Rives</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:25:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?page_id=2#comment-472</guid>
		<description>Thomas,

Sorry so late to reply, I was in Saudi Arabia when I saw your comment -- just now back to the US having a chance to look over your request.  Do you still need assistance?  I can send you whatever you need.  I can also send you y .EXE program that does what you speak of -- but it sounds like you would like the source code to compile.

Steve</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thomas,</p>
<p>Sorry so late to reply, I was in Saudi Arabia when I saw your comment &#8212; just now back to the US having a chance to look over your request.  Do you still need assistance?  I can send you whatever you need.  I can also send you y .EXE program that does what you speak of &#8212; but it sounds like you would like the source code to compile.</p>
<p>Steve</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on About by Thomas Hemingford</title>
		<link>http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?page_id=2&#038;cpage=1#comment-470</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas Hemingford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:06:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?page_id=2#comment-470</guid>
		<description>Hi,

I&#039;m trying to write  a c# windows application that will allow me to post Tweets.

I noticed you had written a similar project, but the link on the site took me  to a page saying project not uploaded yet.

All I really want to do for now is post tweets - can you help &amp; advise me on how to do this please?

I working (free) on a campaign to raise public awareness of disability issues in the UK. Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks
Tom</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m trying to write  a c# windows application that will allow me to post Tweets.</p>
<p>I noticed you had written a similar project, but the link on the site took me  to a page saying project not uploaded yet.</p>
<p>All I really want to do for now is post tweets &#8211; can you help &amp; advise me on how to do this please?</p>
<p>I working (free) on a campaign to raise public awareness of disability issues in the UK. Any help would be much appreciated.</p>
<p>Thanks<br />
Tom</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 11 Ways to Make Your Brain Stronger by mel</title>
		<link>http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=10&#038;cpage=1#comment-457</link>
		<dc:creator>mel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2011 18:29:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=10#comment-457</guid>
		<description>Just stumbled across http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=10.
Remembering Biblical address&#039;s has been a painful failure for me.  Thank you for the directional tips on memorization.  I now have a direction to follow.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just stumbled across <a href="http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=10" rel="nofollow">http://www.mrrives.com/Technology/?p=10</a>.<br />
Remembering Biblical address&#8217;s has been a painful failure for me.  Thank you for the directional tips on memorization.  I now have a direction to follow.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

