1. Challenge for EUPHORIA Programmers
I was wondering and considered this:
Is EUPHORIA "powerful" enough for running the "Flying Windows" screensaver?
I'd like to see a EUPHORIA version, if it runs as fast or is as capable.
Of course, you will use a EUPHORIA icon in place of the Windows icon. :)
<\<
2. Re: Challenge for EUPHORIA Programmers
C. K. Lester wrote:
> I was wondering and considered this:
>
> Is EUPHORIA "powerful" enough for running the
> "Flying Windows" screensaver?
Yes, all you're doing is blitting a graphic onto the screen. You can call
the Win32 function StretchBlt() to automatically resize the source bitmap
onto the destination. If you use a monochrome bitmap, just change the
background color of the destination before blitting it, and it'll
automatically draw it in that color for you.
-- David Cuny
NB: The actual implementation is trivial enough that I'll leave it as an
exercise for the reader. I have an elegant solution, but it's a bit to
large to fit into the margin...
3. Re: Challenge for EUPHORIA Programmers
On 10 Sep 2001, at 22:39, David Cuny wrote:
>
> C. K. Lester wrote:
>
> > I was wondering and considered this:
> >
> > Is EUPHORIA "powerful" enough for running the
> > "Flying Windows" screensaver?
>
> Yes, all you're doing is blitting a graphic onto the screen. You can call
> the Win32 function StretchBlt() to automatically resize the source bitmap
> onto the destination. If you use a monochrome bitmap, just change the
> background color of the destination before blitting it, and it'll
> automatically draw it in that color for you.
>
> -- David Cuny
>
> NB: The actual implementation is trivial enough that I'll leave it as an
> exercise for the reader. I have an elegant solution, but it's a bit to
> large to fit into the margin...
This reminds me of the boastful claims that the Amiga was the only puter to
be able to execute it's splashy screen. Within a week, someone had the
good ole C64 with a 1 megahertz 8bit cpu running the same screen.
Kat
4. Re: Challenge for EUPHORIA Programmers
> From: Kat <gertie at PELL.NET>
> To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
> Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
> Subject: Re: Challenge for EUPHORIA
> Programmers
> Date: 12/09/2001 7:41:47 AM
> This reminds me of the boastful claims
> that the Amiga was the only puter to
> be able to execute it's splashy screen.
> Within a week, someone had the
> good ole C64 with a 1 megahertz 8bit cpu
> running the same screen.
The trick that the Amiga people pulled off was to make it look like the red
and white checked ball was rotating while bouncing around the screen. What
it was actually doing was color-cycling. Each colored patch on the ball was
actually made up of stripes of color-indexes and the program just pointed
the color indexes to red or white as required to make it look as if the ball
was rotating. The bouncing part was just moving the ball through the
pre-calculated X,Y locations. That was the first take. In the second and
subsequent version of this "demo", they really did do the real-time
calculation of the colors and had the ball tilted with a bright "shine"
patch remaining stationary as the ball rotated. Now that was something the
C64 couldn't do.
----
Derek
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CAUTION - This email and any files attached may contain privileged and
confidential information intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of
this message you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you have
received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may
not necessarily reflect the views of Global Technology Australasia Limited.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Re: Challenge for EUPHORIA Programmers
On 12 Sep 2001, at 9:22, Derek Parnell wrote:
>
> > From: Kat <gertie at PELL.NET>
> > To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
> > Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
> > Subject: Re: Challenge for EUPHORIA
> > Programmers
> > Date: 12/09/2001 7:41:47 AM
>
> > This reminds me of the boastful claims
> > that the Amiga was the only puter to
> > be able to execute it's splashy screen.
> > Within a week, someone had the
> > good ole C64 with a 1 megahertz 8bit cpu
> > running the same screen.
>
> The trick that the Amiga people pulled off was to make it look like the red
> and
> white checked ball was rotating while bouncing around the screen. What it was
> actually doing was color-cycling. Each colored patch on the ball was actually
> made up of stripes of color-indexes and the program just pointed the color
> indexes to red or white as required to make it look as if the ball was
> rotating.
> The bouncing part was just moving the ball through the pre-calculated X,Y
> locations. That was the first take. In the second and subsequent version of
> this
> "demo", they really did do the real-time calculation of the colors and had the
> ball tilted with a bright "shine" patch remaining stationary as the ball
> rotated. Now that was something the C64 couldn't do. ---- Derek
I agree. My point was there is usually some way to do anything. For
instance, with the "flying windows" screen, if the video chip in the C64 had
better resolution (vga or better, instead of low-end ntsc), the flying windows
would simply be assorted-sized sprites, pointed to with the cpu, timed with
interrupts from the VIC chip. So there must be a easy way for Eu to do this,
like several people have said. After all, you can have dynamically resizeable
windows, running multitasked programs, with wordwrap, and mouse
interrupts, on the C64.
Kat
PS: On the C64, if you like hardware hacking, the sound chip has enough
addresses assigned to it to address 16 of those sound chips, just drop in a
74LS154 and more chips. CBM didn't fully decode that address block. Or
use it to mux memory chips. Is anyone going to port Eu to the C64?
6. Re: Challenge for EUPHORIA Programmers
I was wondering if anyone got David's joke, thought Kat would spot it. :)
Dan Moyer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Lewis"
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Cuny
>
> > NB: The actual implementation is trivial enough that I'll leave it as an
> > exercise for the reader. I have an elegant solution, but it's a bit to
> > large to fit into the margin...
>
> ROTFLMAO. Thank you Mr Fermat.
>
> =====
> Matt Lewis
7. Re: Challenge for EUPHORIA Programmers
On 14 Sep 2001, at 6:59, Dan Moyer wrote:
>
> I was wondering if anyone got David's joke, thought Kat would spot it. :)
Kat spotted it! I got a good laugh from it too, but i did figure most would, and
there would be a flood of replies, so i restrained myself. I have not been
following The Fermat's Last Theorem Solution Quest, since so many have
publicly bombed out with it the last decade, has it been found yet?
Kat
> Dan Moyer
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Lewis"
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Cuny
> >
> > > NB: The actual implementation is trivial enough that I'll leave it as an
> > > exercise for the reader. I have an elegant solution, but it's a bit to
> > > large to fit into the margin...
> >
> > ROTFLMAO. Thank you Mr Fermat.
> >
> > =====
> > Matt Lewis
>
>
>
8. Re: Challenge for EUPHORIA Programmers
- Posted by munchr at mac.com
Sep 14, 2001
At 12:13 PM 9/14/2001 -0500, Kat wrote:
>On 14 Sep 2001, at 6:59, Dan Moyer wrote:
>
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone got David's joke, thought Kat would spot it. :)
>
>Kat spotted it! I got a good laugh from it too, but i did figure most
>would, and
>there would be a flood of replies, so i restrained myself. I have not been
>following The Fermat's Last Theorem Solution Quest, since so many have
>publicly bombed out with it the last decade, has it been found yet?
>
>Kat
Yes, Andrew Wiles has published a proof of Fermats Last Theorem using
the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture. It was published in the May 1995 issue of
"Annals of Mathematics". Details of his search for the proof, and previous
searches are covered in Simon Singe's book "Fermat's Last Theorem"
ISBN 1 85702 669 1, at http://www.simonsingh.com/fermat.htm.
Also see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/proof/wiles.html for NOVA's interview
with Andrew Wiles.
James Powell
9. Re: Challenge for EUPHORIA Programmers
On 14 Sep 2001, at 18:58, munchr at mac.com wrote:
>
> At 12:13 PM 9/14/2001 -0500, Kat wrote:
> >On 14 Sep 2001, at 6:59, Dan Moyer wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I was wondering if anyone got David's joke, thought Kat would spot it.
> > > :)
> >
> >Kat spotted it! I got a good laugh from it too, but i did figure most
> >would, and
> >there would be a flood of replies, so i restrained myself. I have not been
> >following The Fermat's Last Theorem Solution Quest, since so many have
> >publicly
> >bombed out with it the last decade, has it been found yet?
> >
> >Kat
>
> Yes, Andrew Wiles has published a proof of Fermats Last Theorem using
> the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture. It was published in the May 1995 issue of
> "Annals of Mathematics". Details of his search for the proof, and previous
> searches are covered in Simon Singe's book "Fermat's Last Theorem" ISBN 1
> 85702
> 669 1, at http://www.simonsingh.com/fermat.htm.
>
> Also see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/proof/wiles.html for NOVA's interview
> with
> Andrew Wiles.
But Wiles was disproven after the NOVA show aired.
Kat
10. Re: Challenge for EUPHORIA Programmers
Kat wrote:
> But Wiles was disproven after the NOVA show aired.
Was he? From the show, I got the impression that there was an error in his
proof, but he was able to 'repair' it after about a year.
-- David Cuny
11. Re: Challenge for EUPHORIA Programmers
- Posted by r.schr at t-online.de
Sep 14, 2001
David Cuny wrote:
>
>
> Kat wrote:
>
> > But Wiles was disproven after the NOVA show aired.
>
> Was he? From the show, I got the impression that there was an error in his
> proof, but he was able to 'repair' it after about a year.
>
> -- David Cuny
>
Yes, that's true, David is right. Fermat's Last Theorem is proven.
Rolf
12. Re: Challenge for EUPHORIA Programmers
- Posted by munchr at mac.com
Sep 15, 2001
At 10:35 PM 9/14/2001 -0500, Kat wrote:
>On 14 Sep 2001, at 18:58, munchr at mac.com wrote:
> > At 12:13 PM 9/14/2001 -0500, Kat wrote:
> > >On 14 Sep 2001, at 6:59, Dan Moyer wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering if anyone got David's joke, thought Kat would spot
> it. :)
> > >
> > >Kat spotted it! I got a good laugh from it too, but i did figure most
> > >would, and
> > >there would be a flood of replies, so i restrained myself. I have not been
> > >following The Fermat's Last Theorem Solution Quest, since so many have
> publicly
> > >bombed out with it the last decade, has it been found yet?
> > >
> > >Kat
> >
> > Yes, Andrew Wiles has published a proof of Fermats Last Theorem using
> > the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture. It was published in the May 1995 issue of
> > "Annals of Mathematics". Details of his search for the proof, and previous
> > searches are covered in Simon Singe's book "Fermat's Last Theorem" ISBN
> 1 85702
> > 669 1, at http://www.simonsingh.com/fermat.htm.
> >
> > Also see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/proof/wiles.html for NOVA's
> interview with
> > Andrew Wiles.
>
>But Wiles was disproven after the NOVA show aired.
>
>Kat
He found a problem in his original proof, and was able to repair it within
a year or two. Simon
Singe's book covers the whole sordid mess from start to final, academically
accepted proof.
It makes for a pretty good read, for a mathematics book. 
13. Re: Challenge for EUPHORIA Programmers
On 15 Sep 2001, at 8:07, r.schr at t-online.de wrote:
>
> David Cuny wrote:
> >
> >
> > Kat wrote:
> >
> > > But Wiles was disproven after the NOVA show aired.
> >
> > Was he? From the show, I got the impression that there was an error in his
> > proof, but he was able to 'repair' it after about a year.
> >
> > -- David Cuny
> >
>
> Yes, that's true, David is right. Fermat's Last Theorem is proven.
Then why is it still called a theorem?
Kat
14. Re: Challenge for EUPHORIA Programmers
Kat writes:
<snip>
> Then why is it still called a theorem?
</snip>
In mathematics, a thorem is a proposition which has been proven, as opposed
to an axiom which is defined as true without proof. Technically, "Fermat's
Last Theorem"" was a misnomer until the proof. Some writers used the more
correct term "Fermat's Last Conjecture"; those who used "Theorem" were
expressing faith that Fermat did in fact find a proof. (Which he may have,
but he equally well could have found one of the many false proofs that exist
for this theorem.)
-- Mike Nelson
