IDK, 3 years wasted stuck at the start of something being tried to be proven so much with:
- anecdotal of “Bro trust me I know”
- Sourcing from the same exact and nothing else
Is just seems kinda unproductive, don’t you think?
2 Likes
Not sure what you are trying to do or say, but to each his own.
And you hv 15873 posts… i hv 179 posts…talking about 3 years wasted unless u r a dev.
1 Like
Wasted on different conversation and discussion that isn’t only just MM and why its 50%.
Multiple topics of different conversation.
I think I spent them well instead of copy pasting the same sentence as an argument.
3 Likes
When you see this you know someone is deeeeep down in the rabbithole.
No one can ever be 100% sure. Those who claim otherwise are usually not smart, or just lazy and rather exaggerate than using actual facts, and they’re more likely to rely on their emoitons over rational facts and stats.
2 Likes
Why?
You KNOW…
No, I’m not 100 sure what your vague “clue” is about.
2 Likes
Obviously because they’re referring back to a previous post of mine where I point out the reality that everyone is quote “stupid” because nobody knows everything. Since words like idiot/stupid are denoted as qualities as not-knowing things, and there is far more that any of us don’t know than what [we] do, [we] must therefore all be of said quality.
Oh wait, his reply is a truncated if/then statement, with the ‘if’ likely being “oh if you can’t be 100% sure” rather than “if there’s more you don’t know than know” and they may be relying on the derogatory intension for “idiot” rather than the philosophical one used to deflect the toxicity that comes with ‘name calling’ tactics. However, since they didn’t actually specify their ‘if/then’ statement, I can’t be 100% certain and I’m just drawing an inference from the present evidence.
So let’s turn this back on itself and ‘prove’ the deflect.
What things we know are entirely based on their context. Stuff many may consider to be “super smart” – like Newton and Einstein (newtonian physics and einsteinian relativity respectively) – reach a point where they actually conflict with each other. That’s because that stuff is based on its context and aren’t as universal or ‘fool proof’ as is usually conveyed in simplified terms. (for intent of brevity, I won’t post the ‘proofs’ of that conflict, but people can attempt to look it up)
A lot of people like positivism, the physical ‘proof’ that something is and is according to their expectations of ‘proof’. So math is awesome because stuff can always be put to the test to ‘prove’ the claim.
Factorials are an expression of the product of positive integers that happens to coincide with the number of permutations those integers could be arranged.
That is to say, if you have 4 objects, There are 4! ways to arrange them – or 24 (1x2x3x4) possibilities.
If you want the long end of how useful factorials can be, then one can look into cryptology or at least the history of the Enigma machine.
Anyway, part of the thing about factorials is that the particulars of those have two key assumptions:
- That is uses positive integers and
- That 0! = 1
Part of the issue of that is that 0 is not a something, it’s a nothing. Philosophically, someone might say that there’s only 1 way to ‘sort’ all the permutations of ‘nothing’ and that’s to leave it as it is, but that’s more a philosophical declaration, and not a ‘proof’. Conceptually there are “zero” ways to ‘sort’ nothing because there is nothing to sort, or rather if someone could ‘sort’ it, it wouldn’t be nothing, it would then be something, so it’s changing the identity of the object and action.
Similarly, zero is not a “positive” integer.
So some of the tl;dr for explaining 0! is out of convenience and not so much ‘proof’ (as even the formula for ‘proving’ it makes the assumption that 0!=1 to prove itself and associates it to the multiplicative identity)
If Factorials are expressed as
Then n! for n=0 shouldn’t be 0.
However, the context of exceptions can be expressed with the gamma function to find factorials for other numbers that don’t suit what people are usually taught about factorials. That function allows for decimals to be plugged into a factorial formula and get values for things less than 1, but greater than 0.
Anyway, the whole point of my bringing that up is that the assumption that 0!=1 condenses other proofs and is especially applicable in logic and computer programming. The point there being that it condenses the proofs, and not so much changes them as the long-hand versions can still prove what we know for other values, it just takes more steps to show it without the shortcut/assumption of the ‘Empty Product’ assumption.
However, the idea still follows that, like Newtonian physics, if the context should shift enough to change our understanding of a concept (such as gravity) then the assumption for those proofs may end up having to change and transition to a different system instead.
The more people ‘know’ about something (after reaching a certain threshold of knowing something about it,) the more likely they are to accept that their ‘proof’ can change accordingly. Einstein’s relativity is always a fun example because the basis of that isn’t grounded in positivism – during his life there wasn’t anyway to ‘prove’ or test relativity, it was all theoretical. It’s only in recent years that we have the technology to ‘test’ some of it and find that proof in the pudding (so to speak) to the methods that allowed Einstein to make the theory as sound as it is takes qualities that people usually neglect in their assumptions about ‘facts’ and ‘proofs’ around them. slight sass intended here against some celebrity scientists popularized by the internet because of their decrying theoretical fields
So there’s 3 ‘morals of the story’ from this obviously excessively long post.
- 100% certainly is generally an exaggeration and used by those that don’t know as much, so they aren’t actually 100% certain, and they don’t even know it.
- Since there’s more ‘stuff’ we don’t know than not, being an ‘idiot’ (to borrow the choice of term) is more a description of reality than a derogatory expression. If people don’t know that, then that’s one more thing they didn’t know in comparison to the rest who do, so there’s some irony in that usage.
- Computer logic assumes something from nothing; that’s part of why automated processes don’t make “sense” to us. There are conceptual conflicts to something like a ‘matchmaker’ that draws a different conclusion than what we would do because the core assumption that [we] make and the one these systems are programmed to make have a fundamental difference from the onset.
So you gotta ask yourself one question: “Do you feel lucky [about Zero factorial equalling 1,] punk? Do ya?”
2 Likes
It would be more accurate to say “Do you feel lucky [about Zero factortial equalling 1,[without blowing up the mathematical universe,]]punk?”
1 Like
so you are a dev in plainclothes ?
Your post is mostly nonsensical, and wrong.
Newton’s fomulation of gravity and Einstein’s formulation have nothing to do about context.
Newton knew his theory was incomplete, he just did not know the how or why of it, nor did he know how to complete it.
The idea of physical fields was required to (more) fully explain gravity.
Einstein’s genius was that he could as very simple questions that turned classical assumptions on their head. And it turned out that he was right in all the cases we have been able to test thus far.
Zero factorial is a well understood concept, so are the properties of zero. There IS exactly 1 way to sort zero. Without this, there is also no way of dealing with infinite values (As zero is simply the polar opposite of infinity)
The gamma function, is a more generalized function that also happens to give noninteger values of factorials. It can be used as a way to define factorials, and from that formulation, you run into seemingly odd manifestions of factorials.
You can use the gamma function as a way to define Pi for example. (Since Gamma (1/2) = sqrt (Pi).
I stopped reading at some point since your arguments have no real validity.
2 Likes
Depends on how you look at it.
Automated processes are quite easy to understand. The applied math behind them is usually very simple.
Just saying…
Ok after my predictable loss spree due to disconnections and loss spree from visiting America, it seems the MMR range is slowly stabilising itself as predicted. All of suddenly I’m slowly coming out of the twilight zone. My allies are slowly able to hold a teamfight, they can soak and they can last long enough for the team to fight and I’m starting to feel a synergy with them again. Before-hand I couldn’t connect with them. There was alot more AFK’s and no-one soaking but me, or if top-laner died and I was down bot, then no-one from mid lane would literally cover it as to opposed now, players will rush to catch top lane’s soak if top-laner gets ganked.
So things that mess around with your MMR range are:
-
disconnection. You lose about 3-4 games worth of MMR, and the MMR range then has to deal with a jump of missing MMR, and thus, your MMR range slides down a scale. This is where it destabilized and end up with assortment of characters. I don’t rage-pull, but I get disconnected due to Australian internet or a few times because I hover over tank, someone else picks the tank while I tabbed out and couldn’t change in time.
-
Don’t go on a losing spree if you can help it. I could’ve avoided a losing spree altogether if I didn’t visit America server. Losing spree is considered like 10 games or more. I tried playing like 30 games in America with a majority of them as losses.
That’s a somewhat yes. You want to elaborate?
Not a blizzard dev, though I like coding and developing games and mods for other games.
No it doesn’t. That is the whole wonderful thing about this universe. The physical laws are the same, no matter what your perspective is.
Read the post I replied to.
In this thread:
I dont understand the math so its wrong!
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE FORCED 50% WIN RATE IM A GOD BUT BLIZZARD MAKES ME SUCK!!!
However, Newton’s laws (combined with universal gravitation and classical electrodynamics) are inappropriate for use in certain circumstances, most notably at very small scales, at very high speeds, or in very strong gravitational fields. Therefore, the laws cannot be used to explain phenomena such as conduction of electricity in a semiconductor, optical properties of substances, errors in non-relativistically corrected GPS systems and superconductivity. Explanation of these phenomena requires more sophisticated physical theories, including general relativity and quantum field theory.
Newton’s laws are based on the context for when they are applicable and while the general rule of thumb has then apply in circumstances people commonly encounter compared to extremes they do not, that’s still context-based applicability that demonstrates there are conditions and when they don’t apply and the extent of that is possible to expand as more is learned about the universe. That isn’t to say that they’re ‘wrong’ but that it demonstrates more stuff needs to be known, and when more things become known, the extent of what was previously found does change.
On a post pointing out the significance of finding out information one doesn’t know, and how to react to it, it’s rather ironic that you would choose to neglect perspectives you don’t know, act empowered by not-reading something and choosing to not adapt to change because you think yourself having enough knowledge of something as is.
Wow, it’s like there’s some sort of predictable outcome of people not reading something through, and then missing the point. 