A game based on the simulation of an universe is a thing today that cannot be put off.
But where a person can start to learn how to program an universe?

Well. Start here and search the link on that course:
http://the-universe.freeservers.com

Write your comments about :-)

P.S.
Lessons are six, and are a bit long...

Ah, the author search programmers to write little demo for the children.
:-)
Bye.

i think it would be best if you submitted this link in the appropriate section... please?

Hi have_dinner. Thank you. I think this is not a question of programming but a general question, because I introduce a question that is a must. Not a problem in a line of code. Are you sure this is not a general question?

you asked the question and then answered it... by giving an URL... therefore you are in effect, advertising this site in soem form... if you feel that people should visit the site, like i said, submit it in the section for links... i do agree it is a general question, but is it you that is seeking the answer? or are you seeking people to go to this site for the answer?

I think you have told the right. It is probable that I wrote the question in a bad way. I was meaning only to open a discussion on the "how to program a universe". And I have included my site only because there is no site in the world about this argument. Only for this. I'm interested in the discussion, not in the link. It is for this I put the question in general message. And I hope this is a forum of people interested in programming.
Or I'll see my question with 10 reply in a year (for an argument like that)...

cc

An example: why schools don't teach this argument? It is not so difficult.
Programmers must eat, and sleep in a house, and to do that they must work. Or not? Because I'm thinking that for the schools a programmer is a rich person that do this only as an hobby.

From your site: "Please remember that the author reserve for itself some algoritms"

I'm sorry, but no. You have no legal claim to algorithms unless you go and patent them.

Also, your page on Echelon is totally useless. You (along with everyone but top NSA, MI6, etc. people) obviously have no knowledge of whether Echelon actually exists, and if it does, what it is and how it works. To claim it is useless because it could not predict the Sept 11 attacks is frankly naive. You have no idea if it's true or not, and you certainly don't know how effective Echelon has been in other instances.

"This system is called word code (or world code) and it is impossible to decrypt"

That's also completely untrue. Prior knowledge of the topic of conversation gives insight into what codes stand for what words, and if enough information is known, messages can in fact be decrypted. I think we (the US) did a good job of that during WWII.

"In few words, it hasn't got structure. It is not a secret. Simply nobody uses it. "

It has structure - every message has structure so that the recipient can understand it!

It's also not used because it's incredibly difficult to transmit the key between the two parties without it being intercepted - in a situation where someone would want to intercept it. Hence public key cryptology.

Your pages are aimed to teach certain things... but they certainly don't teach good English grammar. I'd think about proofreading too.

"Encryption depends from the computer speed"

That's also completely not true because it implies that we just have to get a 5GHz computer to have 5 times the protection. Real protection will come from better encryption algorithms more quickly than it will come from faster computers.

"you have seen the IBM researches with the prototypes"

AFAIK, that is a HUGE stretch of what the quantum computer tests can do. They are not computers. They are an assembly of particles arranged meticulously by scientists. To think that they have implemented a complex encryption algorithm into a quantum computer is absurd.

"quantum computers means to solve easily every existing mathematic encryption/decryption system in the world, of about all the communications of the world, in real time"

And ten years ago some would have said that the P4 would do the same thing. Duh. As computers get faster, the algorithms will become harder to break.

And so you have seen the wrath of submitting a link to TPU.

- taubz

Wow. What a mess!
I'll try to reply to all your questions (some like an attack to my person, or it is only my impression?)
1) "Please remember that the author reserve for itself some algoritms". It means "not all the algoritms are included". The unknown algoritms have no claims.
2) Echelon is a reality.
3) "This system is called word code (or world code) and it is impossible to decrypt". The world code is useless without an encription system.
4) "Encryption depends from the computer speed". Decryption depends from the computer speed (I'll go to see if it was a type error. Thanks)
5) "In few words, it hasn't got structure. It is not a secret. Simply nobody uses it". It means "with an encryption system like OTP".
6) "you have seen the IBM researches with the prototypes". These prototypes are capable to solve various mathematical problems. You need to study well the IBM documentation on these prototypes.
7) And so you have seen the wrath of submitting a link to TPU. Please, do not attack a person with the wrath only for a programming question. If you think it is offensive.

Thank you Taubz for your notes. I corrected "Encryption" with "Decryption", and I added the explanation that the world code is "a metalanguage associated with a an encryption system ...(like OTP)".
I'm very impressionated for the quality of your notes, because you have read the page in hours, finding two mistakes.

Sorry if I tried to rip the page apart... but, well, I stand by what I said.

Those changes were not what I meant.

The encryption/decryption thing could go either way, I guess. What I meant was that although computer speed certainly helps, real increases in encryption strength will come from better algorithms, not more powerful computers. If you meant decryption, then... I'm not sure. I think what I said still applies.

I "critique" your page because I feel that it does not present the information entirely correctly. Don't take it too personally.

- taubz

Ok. Thanks. :-)
There are only two persons in the world: the good writers and the bad writers. Probably I'm a bad writer :-(
So your notes are welcome.

My question is "why schools don't teach how to program an universe?".
If you must teach programming you must start with an argument, apart how to program a 2D scroll of the screen...
I think it is a good argument because with few you start learning how to use some phisical effect, some things of set theory, and a bit of knowledge about the environment in which you live.
I was thinking to open a movement!
Programmers must know only the indispensable to live. Not the best at the beginning... So a programmer became a guru only for a miracle. Or not?

cc: Because schools are too busy trying to teach plain old programming...

How would you go about programming a virtual universe? I think you're crazy

are you talking about like a space sim?

It seems to me that what he is proposing is like that "Game of life thing" where you've got the Red and Blue bacteria (or something) and they're governed by some rules of life, like they will die of overcrowding etc.

BOOOORING

Yes, except I think he means it on a huge scale. Something that is not reasonable to expect schools to teach.

What we can see... is what we know.
And what we can think about... is only our machines can find.
hehhhhh... bloody humans........! :)