Profile for Student of Trinity
Field | Value |
---|---|
Displayed name | Student of Trinity |
Member number | 3431 |
Title | Electric Sheep One |
Postcount | 3335 |
Homepage | |
Registered | Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
Author | Recent posts |
---|---|
Riddle Me This, Batman! in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, August 21 2006 13:05
Profile
Ah; I see your point. Thanks for the very clear answer. I guess I'm too used to physics, where one indeed often has to be careful about orders of limits, but where the right thing to do is almost always to keep everything finite until the final answer, and only then take the limit. Our limit ordering problems almost always arise because huge but finite quantities have been approximated as infinite, and although you can sometimes retain the infinite limits and come out okay with fancy footwork, the really correct thing to do is to remember that in fact it's all finite. [ Tuesday, August 22, 2006 02:39: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Riddle Me This, Batman! in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, August 21 2006 09:10
Profile
And I guess I'm asking, "Are you sure?" The answer you've given is old hat; I'm asking for a rethinking, not just a reiteration. If 0.999... is not by definition an infinite series, what is its definition? And if it is, isn't it indeed the limit as 1 is approached from below? -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Riddle Me This, Batman! in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, August 21 2006 03:28
Profile
I did not say it was approaching; I said it was the limit. I would be surprised if you could define infinite decimal representations without some invocation of limits. If you can, go ahead; I'd be happy to see it. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Riddle Me This, Batman! in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Sunday, August 20 2006 22:09
Profile
Isn't 0.999... more specifically equal to the limit as you approach 1 from below? It seems as though it ought to be. So then 1/(1-0.999...) would be positive infinity, with unambiguous sign. So how come we can't do things like this to make the limit as you approach 1 from above? Writing 1.000 ... 001 doesn't really work, does it? -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Idea for realsing creations in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Sunday, August 20 2006 12:48
Profile
I have no doubt the creations can get around any controls the Shapers could impose. What they can't get around is Jeff's G rating. Anyway, Eyebeasts just like to watch. [ Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:49: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
School in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Sunday, August 20 2006 11:53
Profile
The thing everyone says about writing is that you indeed learn it by writing. Why not write a bunch of little essays and get a degree that may later give you some security in which to write? Hunger is not inspirational. And life as an English major still leaves plenty of time to write your own stuff. And give yourself some credit. Nothing's going to screw up your own style if you don't let it. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Dinosaurs Are Alive in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Sunday, August 20 2006 04:01
Profile
Job 41:1-34: The speaker is God, questioning Job. (King James Version; I deleted the verse numbers and made up paragraphs.) quote:The four other Biblical references to Leviathan are much briefer, but one of them mentions that it is a type of serpent. I somehow have the idea that it is usually identified as a type of crocodile. [ Sunday, August 20, 2006 04:07: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Riddle Me This, Batman! in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Sunday, August 20 2006 03:48
Profile
The obvious answer is: ... -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Riddle Me This, Batman! in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Friday, August 18 2006 23:03
Profile
Since we're all having so much fun with this one, or at any rate the number of posts in this thread is becoming arbitrarily large, perhaps it's time for the Prisoner's Dilemma. Two partners in crime are being tried separately. A sharp prosecutor makes the same proposal to each one: rat on the other, for a reduced sentence of 5 years, so that the prosecutor can score a major conviction on the other one and get him put away for 20. If neither crook confesses anything, circumstantial evidence will send them both to jail for 10 years. If they both try to rat on each other, the credibility loss will make the biggest case fall apart, but they'll both look bad enough to pull 15 years. So each prisoner has the choice to collaborate with the prosecution or not. If both collaborate they get 15 each; if both keep quiet, they get 10; if only one collaborates, he gets 5 and the other gets 20. The orthodox, game theory answer to this problem is clear. Prisoner A should figure that if prisoner B collaborates, he should collaborate too to get 15 instead of 20 years. And if prisoner B doesn't, he should collaborate to get 5 instead of 10. So either way, he should collaborate. The funny part is that both prisoners' reasoning should be the same, so both should collaborate, and both get 15 years. Whereas if they had not bothered with game theory, and just stuck to the crooks' code, they would both have kept quiet and gotten away with 10 years each. Somehow game theory makes the outcome worse. If you haven't heard this one before, it's actually important. It is used as a simple model for all kinds of dismayingly bad real world problems. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
School in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Friday, August 18 2006 22:50
Profile
Yeah, classes just ended a couple of weeks ago here, and I began recovering, oh, yesterday. They start again near the end of October. September has a completely different meaning to me now. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Oopsie Daisy (Ver 5.5) in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, August 17 2006 13:33
Profile
Good translation should not generally be word-for-word; but if that were the goal, there is no 'the' in d'escalier. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, August 17 2006 12:39
Profile
High officials in the executive branch of the US government are always good at hitting people with shotguns. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Oopsie Daisy (Ver 5.5) in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, August 17 2006 04:13
Profile
I was just thinking of posting about pensée d'escalier, but now it's too late. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Oopsie Daisy (Ver 5.5) in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, August 17 2006 04:09
Profile
Absolutely. Everyone knows that the artificial gravity machine was front page news all over the world. Airlines would all be obsolete already, if they could just succeed in turning the thing upside down without it falling over like this. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Faustian theory of aging in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, August 16 2006 10:01
Profile
Or you develop a nice signature, and then you have to change it again. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Icshi's Whereabouts in Richard White Games | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, August 16 2006 07:02
Profile
More of an Ex-exarch, then. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Story LIne in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, August 16 2006 06:55
Profile
I don't know about 'by far'. I think G2 and G3 work well as logical developments. But G1 was definitely a bit better. Everything kind of worked, and the only loose end that was there for me was that there was no indication of just how the PC was growing in power so quickly. That got taken for granted as part of CRPG convention, when in fact the Geneforge-y theme of the game offered a great opportunity to make it an important working part of the story. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Faustian theory of aging in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, August 16 2006 01:30
Profile
The next ten. From now on. It may be worth distinguishing serious learning of big things, like becoming fluent in a new language, from just picking up scraps of novelty. Most serious subjects have a learning surface that's pretty gently sloped around the periphery, and you can easily absorb some fun facts. At some point, though, you learn enough to realize that you've been playing on the beach of a continent, and that to explore the interior would take years of hard work. That's the part that is hard. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Riddle Me This, Batman! in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, August 16 2006 01:17
Profile
Right. You could have average probabilities equal (in the sense that I had in mind) if half of the families always had boys, and half always had girls. Then if nobody cared about the sex of their children there would be equal numbers of each; but if everybody wants one boy, you get half the families with one son and the other half with huge numbers of daughters, for a whopping gender imbalance. I think Shaw was kind of a loon, and I don't really know whether he ever propounded this theory. But it goes to show something, I figure. Maybe that there's often a fine line between idealized model and straw man. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Faustian theory of aging in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, August 15 2006 13:10
Profile
Here is my Faustian theory of aging, which is perhaps not wholly sincere, but which I do fear holds all too much truth. Middle age is about getting smart. You get smart by coming to take for granted all the things that took you years to figure out at first. Because the trick to being smart is that already knowing is a lot faster than learning. So the trick to being really smart is simply to stop learning and start already knowing. You stop wasting so much time and energy wondering whether you really understand anything, and start assuming that you already know the answer and just have to spit it out. And once you've done enough learning, you can do this. While it works, it works great. For ten years or so, I figure, you can be amazingly smart. Then all the things you take for granted, and that thereby make you smart, start not being true any more. Now you're Faustus in Act V. Now you no longer know anything, and even though you might not actually be so much worse than a young person at learning things, you're far too used to the speed of already knowing things to go back to the slowness of learning, which was after all so miserably slow that no-one who had ever tasted better could stomach it. So you become a stupid old person. I'm currently trying to decide whether trying to beat this pattern is worth risking the loss of those ten good years. Because in the end you're going to die, no matter how long you keep learning, and to achieve anything significant, maybe you need those ten years of higher efficiency than learning can ever deliver. The tragedy isn't that you get seduced away from life-long learning; learning really is horribly slow, and a human lifetime of learning is unlikely to dent the universe. The tragedy is that the time of knowing doesn't last. But it would be worse if it did, because it could only last if the world stood still and no-one ever achieved anything. It's mortality's first harmonic, the inherently necessary mortality of human competence. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Riddle Me This, Batman! in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, August 15 2006 12:57
Profile
That is indeed the easy answer. If every birth gives equal chances for girls and boys, no rule for deciding when to try another birth can change the odds. Alorael, do your infinite sums again. I might confess that I didn't see it so well the first time I heard it, myself. Maybe I had a hunch even then about the hard answer. Or maybe I was kind of dumb as a beginning grad student, and slowly got somewhat better. Thuryl has the right idea for the hard answer. [ Tuesday, August 15, 2006 13:14: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) in Geneforge Series | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, August 15 2006 01:45
Profile
quote:Web boards are the beta version. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Quick thought about boss battles in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, August 15 2006 00:54
Profile
You're fighting with blades, fire, teeth, acid, all those good sorts of things. And after 14 rounds your enemy is going to suddenly drop dead, without a scratch, as if from a heart attack? You have to see the damage accumulating. Without creating a dozen or so extra skins for every creature in the game, which is not exactly Spiderweb's level of graphical sophistication, a health bar is the only way. For special monsters that showed no apparent damage until suddenly collapsing, for whatever reason, Jeff could always keep the health bar at full and then kill with a script. [ Tuesday, August 15, 2006 00:55: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Brief Geneforge 4 Update in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, August 15 2006 00:48
Profile
But if you're a Servile put lots of points into Leadership, or else whenever you take one of those dialog options that ends in '(Lie.)', your nose will grow even longer. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Riddle Me This, Batman! in General | |
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, August 15 2006 00:24
Profile
Another little statistical puzzle. I once heard the following theory attributed to George Bernard Shaw. Suppose the average probabilities of a baby being born male or female are equal (and to forestall pointless kibitzing, let both be 50% for the sake of this discussion). Nevertheless (the theory argues) there end up being more girls born than boys, because many families want to have at least one boy, so they keep having children until they get one, resulting in disproportionately many families with several sisters and one baby brother. The easy version of the puzzle, which is the one I heard, is to show that this theory couldn't possibly work. The slightly harder version, which I believe I invented, is to show that it easily could. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |