|
Post by AnthroHeart on Mar 24, 2024 9:22:44 GMT
Update: Most updated version of my Intention Repeater MAX can always be found in my archive of my 13 programs. There is now a GUI for the Intention Repeater MAX: Intention_Repeater_MAX_GUI.exe
OK, I updated the Intention Repeater Max to v5.8 on my Github I had (on Line 915): intention_value = intention + PROCESS_STATEMENT; Instead Of: intention_value = intention_value + PROCESS_STATEMENT; So it was actually repeating the intention without using intention multiplying, but displaying repetition frequency as if it were. "I am Love." now repeats at a more accurate 1.610GHz with 1GB of RAM, which includes Intention Multiplying. Updated Code and Windows Executable: github.com/tsweet77/repeater-max/tree/mainIt now more accurately matches the Intention Repeater Simple.
|
|
|
Post by reden on Mar 24, 2024 13:47:55 GMT
OK, I updated the Intention Repeater Max to v5.8 on my Github I had (on Line 915): intention_value = intention + PROCESS_STATEMENT; Instead Of: intention_value = intention_value + PROCESS_STATEMENT; So it was actually repeating the intention without using intention multiplying, but displaying repetition frequency as if it were. "I am Love." now repeats at a more accurate 1.610GHz with 1GB of RAM, which includes Intention Multiplying. Updated Code and Windows Executable: github.com/tsweet77/repeater-max/tree/mainIt now more accurately matches the Intention Repeater Simple. >So it was actually repeating the intention without using intention multiplying, but displaying repetition frequency as if it were. Shouldn't it then stay at the same speed? Or did you mean "weren't"?
|
|
|
Post by reden on Mar 24, 2024 13:51:39 GMT
Also I am happy to report this Simple Repeater running at 7.409 YHz, the field that appears when instant physical manifestation is requested, is thicker and way more intense. Running with 3 GB VRAM, speed jumps up to 67.381 YHz instead of ~21, as one would expect. That's interesting. Yotta range is 10^24, within (or closer to) the range of Instant Physical Manifestation, as it had been said it was in the ~10 decillion range.
|
|
|
Post by reden on Mar 24, 2024 13:52:14 GMT
Add options like --intent and --imem
|
|
|
Post by reden on Mar 24, 2024 13:55:27 GMT
Is v5.8 as strong as v5.7? That's the question. If it isn't, maybe intention multiplying was only necessary to boost the numbers.
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on Mar 24, 2024 14:14:08 GMT
>>So it was actually repeating the intention without using intention multiplying, but displaying repetition frequency as if it were. >"Shouldn't it then stay at the same speed? Or did you mean "weren't"?" "Were" was correct. Because a multiplied intention tends to run faster with regard to total number of repetitions per iteration.
>"Add options like --intent and --imem" I wanted to keep it fairly simple. Do you think adding these would complicate it? What about "duration [HH:MM:SS]?
>"Is v5.8 as strong as v5.7?" Yes, 5.8 feels way stronger/thicker than 5.7
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Mar 24, 2024 22:47:41 GMT
Are we still able to run it with commands like -d 00:01:00 -m 5 -i intention.txt?
Because when I ran max 5.8 with a set duration, e.g. 20 mins, it updated the repetition amount really slowly. Like it took over 10 seconds to update from [00:00:01] to [00:00:02] and so on.
This was never a problem for me in MAX 5.7, since it updated every second, real time
Any help? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on Mar 24, 2024 23:25:03 GMT
Are we still able to run it with commands like -d 00:01:00 -m 5 -i intention.txt? Because when I ran max 5.8 with a set duration, e.g. 20 mins, it updated the repetition amount really slowly. Like it took over 10 seconds to update from [00:00:01] to [00:00:02] and so on. This was never a problem for me in MAX 5.7, since it updated every second, real time Any help? Thanks! Can you share all the values you are using to run it, and I can give it a look.
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on Mar 25, 2024 16:23:44 GMT
I updated the Intention Repeater MAX to v5.9 to use a new technique for repeating. I default it now to EXACT timer which runs a bit slower than the INEXACT method. In the old way it was possible that the compiler may be optimizing out the string assignment, because it may see it as redundant. The new method is actually faster when accounting for this.
You can run INEXACT method to make it faster using flag: --timer INEXACT I wanted the MAX to run similarly to the Intention Repeater Simple. They run at the same speed now.
Use --timer INEXACT to run faster, but time display will be off. Intention Repeater MAX: github.com/tsweet77/repeater-max
|
|
|
Post by reden on Mar 25, 2024 16:29:52 GMT
I updated the Intention Repeater MAX to v5.9 to use a new technique for repeating. I default it now to EXACT timer which runs a bit slower than the INEXACT method. In the old way it was possible that the compiler may be optimizing out the string assignment, because it may see it as redundant. The new method is actually faster when accounting for this.
You can run INEXACT method to make it faster using flag: --timer INEXACT I wanted the MAX to run similarly to the Intention Repeater Simple. They run at the same speed now.
Use --timer INEXACT to run faster, but time display will be off. Intention Repeater MAX: github.com/tsweet77/repeater-max But we always felt it running, so this concern does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on Mar 25, 2024 17:02:46 GMT
I updated the Intention Repeater MAX to v5.9 to use a new technique for repeating. I default it now to EXACT timer which runs a bit slower than the INEXACT method. In the old way it was possible that the compiler may be optimizing out the string assignment, because it may see it as redundant. The new method is actually faster when accounting for this.
You can run INEXACT method to make it faster using flag: --timer INEXACT I wanted the MAX to run similarly to the Intention Repeater Simple. They run at the same speed now.
Use --timer INEXACT to run faster, but time display will be off. Intention Repeater MAX: github.com/tsweet77/repeater-max But we always felt it running, so this concern does not exist. Yeah, it might not have optimized it out. The update though runs faster. Got optimization tips from GPT4.
If you use --timer INEXACT it is even faster.
I just wanted to make sure that the compiler doesn't optimize it out, just in case.
I also cleaned up the Repo and moved all the old versions into an Archive folder. I did the same for my Cuda version.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Mar 25, 2024 22:13:57 GMT
I updated the Intention Repeater MAX to v5.9 to use a new technique for repeating. I default it now to EXACT timer which runs a bit slower than the INEXACT method. In the old way it was possible that the compiler may be optimizing out the string assignment, because it may see it as redundant. The new method is actually faster when accounting for this.
You can run INEXACT method to make it faster using flag: --timer INEXACT I wanted the MAX to run similarly to the Intention Repeater Simple. They run at the same speed now.
Use --timer INEXACT to run faster, but time display will be off. Intention Repeater MAX: github.com/tsweet77/repeater-max Ok, so if I use --timer INEXACT, and do -d 00:20:00 (20 mins) and run the program for 20 minutes to charge an audio file, even if it doesn't display "[00:20:00]" on the displayed time, it has still charged the file fully with 20 mins of energy, but just hasn't updated the value in time? If so, may I close the program? Or must I wait for the displayed time to reach, in this case, 20 minutes too? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on Mar 25, 2024 22:15:57 GMT
Yeah correct. INEXACT runs faster because it uses a benchmark (the value of which can change every second).
Just run for 20 minutes and that should be good. The timer may show different.
EXACT is better timer option if you want better timing.
|
|
|
Post by nathanmyersc on Mar 25, 2024 22:46:03 GMT
Yeah correct. INEXACT runs faster because it uses a benchmark (the value of which can change every second). Just run for 20 minutes and that should be good. The timer may show different. EXACT is better timer option if you want better timing. Should add no timer option for once you get the idea of what it broadcasts at just to minimizecpu usage and maximize spd.
|
|
|
Post by AnthroHeart on Mar 25, 2024 22:54:56 GMT
I found when I got a benchmark value (like 1B iterations per second) then the next second that could take 0.9 billion iterations per second. If I just use benchmark, it throws the time off.
I was still having it do that benchmark within a 1-second checker, so sometimes it would do that inner loop twice, and it would take like 2 seconds to a second.
|
|