pecelot wrote:indeed guys, forts are pretty situational, it's risky to put them in decks as they may turn out to be uneffective!
OUT!!
pecelot wrote:indeed guys, forts are pretty situational, it's risky to put them in decks as they may turn out to be uneffective!
last time i cryed was because i stood on Legoļ»æ
Jerom wrote:What I dont really get is that the limit almost enforces that statement, or at least enforces that assumption. After all you approach the problematic point infinitely closely. In other words, your basically zero away from it. The only reason not to call it that is because of a mathematical formalism, because itd interfere with other algebraic rules. That is why I feel relatively comfortable claiming that there is no real scenario in which an existing limit gives an inappropriate solution for a problematic point of a function.
In a sense division is the farce of mathematics, because it doesnt always work properly. The idea that x^3/x isnt equal to x^2 is the most counter intuitive thing ever and honestly a small failure of our mathematical formalism. Good thing the Jeromapproach is generally applied to that scenario, aswell as the x/x scenario.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Legoļ»æ
Well, not exactly. Turns out there's a pretty good practical reason for why we can't divide by zero: Try distributing 10 cookies to 0 people, how many cookies is that per person?Jerom wrote:What I dont really get is that the limit almost enforces that statement, or at least enforces that assumption. After all you approach the problematic point infinitely closely. In other words, your basically zero away from it. The only reason not to call it that is because of a mathematical formalism, because itd interfere with other algebraic rules.
Division does work properly, it's just that you can't divide something into zero parts. This is obvious both in theoretical maths and in practice. x^3/x is indeed equal to x^2, except for x = 0. I don't like exceptions either, but I don't see the farce there.In a sense division is the farce of mathematics, because it doesnt always work properly. The idea that x^3/x isnt equal to x^2 is the most counter intuitive thing ever and honestly a small failure of our mathematical formalism. Good thing the Jeromapproach is generally applied to that scenario, aswell as the x/x scenario.
iNcog wrote:This thread got two more pages since yesterday evening. lol
Goodspeed wrote:Well, not exactly. Turns out there's a pretty good practical reason for why we can't divide by zero: Try distributing 10 cookies to 0 people, how many cookies is that per person?Jerom wrote:What I dont really get is that the limit almost enforces that statement, or at least enforces that assumption. After all you approach the problematic point infinitely closely. In other words, your basically zero away from it. The only reason not to call it that is because of a mathematical formalism, because itd interfere with other algebraic rules.Division does work properly, it's just that you can't divide something into zero parts. This is obvious both in theoretical maths and in practice. x^3/x is indeed equal to x^2, except for x = 0. I don't like exceptions either, but I don't see the farce there.In a sense division is the farce of mathematics, because it doesnt always work properly. The idea that x^3/x isnt equal to x^2 is the most counter intuitive thing ever and honestly a small failure of our mathematical formalism. Good thing the Jeromapproach is generally applied to that scenario, aswell as the x/x scenario.
I'm curious at this point, when has dividing by zero ever helped you get to a result where you otherwise couldn't? It seems to me that if that happened it would probably mean it helped you get to the wrong result.
pecelot wrote:indeed guys, forts are pretty situational, it's risky to put them in decks as they may turn out to be uneffective!
Goodspeed wrote:The fact that it's not possible to divide something into zero parts is an imperfection in maths? Why exactly? I see no problem with it because practically it's just as impossible to divide by zero as it is in mathematics, which means maths is still able to perfectly describe real world situations.
There's no such thing as almost in maths. "Almost inconsistent" means nothing to me here.
Still eagerly waiting on that example
Jerom wrote:notification
last time i cryed was because i stood on Legoļ»æ
So you are now saying you generally can't divide by zero but you can divide zero by zero?Jerom wrote:Goodspeed wrote:The fact that it's not possible to divide something into zero parts is an imperfection in maths? Why exactly? I see no problem with it because practically it's just as impossible to divide by zero as it is in mathematics, which means maths is still able to perfectly describe real world situations.
There's no such thing as almost in maths. "Almost inconsistent" means nothing to me here.
Still eagerly waiting on that example
Because the limit of some functions implies strong that it is possible to divide zero by zero.
If you want to define it that way, then yeah it seems right, no idea why you'd do that though. I think convention where the existing limit is the value in a problematic point of a function would be more useful.ovi12 wrote:notification
To me the fact that you don't seem to understand the implications of what you're saying is disappointing. Your position is that "problematic points" in a function, which is to say whenever you divide by zero, should be assigned the value of that function's limit as x approaches that problematic point. Correct?Jerom wrote:My official position is that the limit of x/x is 1 and nothing less, but I like to go beyond that.
Unfortunately all you guys then say is that yo ucant divide by zero which is disappointing.
Jerom wrote:My official position is that the limit of x/x is 1 and nothing less, but I like to go beyond that.
Unfortunately all you guys then say is that yo ucant divide by zero which is disappointing.
@ovi12If you want to define it that way, then yeah it seems right, no idea why you'd do that though. I think convention where the existing limit is the value in a problematic point of a function would be more useful.ovi12 wrote:notification
Goodspeed wrote:To me the fact that you don't seem to understand the implications of what you're saying is disappointing. Your position is that "problematic points" in a function, which is to say whenever you divide by zero, should be assigned the value of that function's limit as x approaches that problematic point. Correct?Jerom wrote:My official position is that the limit of x/x is 1 and nothing less, but I like to go beyond that.
Unfortunately all you guys then say is that yo ucant divide by zero which is disappointing.
What this practically does is allow division by zero. By stating the above, you are saying that 1/0 = infinity, 0/0 = 1 etc. If you disagree with those statements then you are not being consistent.
(you are also saying everything equals everything but let's not get into that one)
Goodspeed wrote:pecelot wrote:indeed guys, forts are pretty situational, it's risky to put them in decks as they may turn out to be uneffective!
Still not as ineffective as refrigeration and royal mint. People love those cards but it's totally undeserved, they are only viable in very long games which are rare and unpredictable which means you have to put the card in every deck just in case. The last time I sent either of these cards is when I was in a long fortress war and there were very little resources left on the map and it was my last fortress card. If I had colonial unit shipments left I would have sooner sent those, or better yet land grab.
pecelot wrote:Goodspeed wrote:pecelot wrote:indeed guys, forts are pretty situational, it's risky to put them in decks as they may turn out to be uneffective!
Still not as ineffective as refrigeration and royal mint. People love those cards but it's totally undeserved, they are only viable in very long games which are rare and unpredictable which means you have to put the card in every deck just in case. The last time I sent either of these cards is when I was in a long fortress war and there were very little resources left on the map and it was my last fortress card. If I had colonial unit shipments left I would have sooner sent those, or better yet land grab.
Although to be fair, you gain a lot in the late game. It's pretty similar to factories ā you have to have them in your decks, despite the fact that you are able to send them in like 1/10 games. Had you not put them there, though, you'd be put on a major disadvantage, and the same applies to Royal Mint and Refrigeration IMO ā when the vill numbers are maxed out and you have around 35ā40 vills gathering both food and coin, it gives you a huge boost overall. It gets less significant when the game ends in the Imperial Age, as there are a lot of other upgrades and these two cards enlarge only the base gathering rates, but still I think it's a must in most cases. Sometimes, when I don't have too much space in the Fortress Age, I leave Refrigeration in and put the āCigar Roller" card (age 2, 20%).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?
Which streams do you wish to see listed?