"It doesn't mean you are smart" - Dr. Richard Haier

General Discussion
65

Yes. That is literally the point. It is absolute proof that discretization errors exist in every equation involving PI or any other transcendental number, which utterly destroyed the trolls claim that discretization errors only exist in computer science.

Discretization errors are everywhere in math but they are rarely impactful outside of iterative algorithms (algorithms that repeatedly feed their own output back into their input). The reason discretization errors become relevant here is because the errors compound exponentially. It’s such that in weather simulations, for example, a 1,000,000x increase in the accuracy only increases the stability of the simulation by roughly 3x.

So if you are trying to solve really simple problems, like those found in highschool physics class, then discretization errors aren’t relevant. But if you are trying to solve any open modern problem, ranging from cosmic simulations of galaxy formation to deciding how water will flow inside a pipe to whether or not it will rain next week, discretization errors are an extreme challenge.

Basically smooth curves only exist in theory. They never exist in the real world. In the real world cylinders aren’t perfectly round, materials aren’t perfectly homogeneous. The reason mathematicians in ages past would use continuous functions is because they can approximate the real world using basic shapes like ellipses and circles, which provides answers good enough for their purposes. Well the real world isn’t a nice clean set of basic shapes. To represent abstract objects you have to break them down into points, a process known as discretization, which then suffers from discretization errors. But, it allows you to represent the shape of abstract objects much more accurately which is better than approximating their behaviour using basic shapes & continuous functions.

So basically the entire realm of mathematics ranging from fluid dynamics to einsteins theory of gravity is heavily plagued by this problem. You simply can’t approximate the movement of stars in a galaxy using basic shapes. The very idea of representing such a complex shape as a sphere is bonkers insane especially over the time-scales you are calculating for (more time = more error).

66

Dude… I have written a big response to all that BS but I deleted it because it’s not worth it. All I’m gonna say is this:

I have taken a minor discipline on meteorology, Markov chains and stocastic process and you don’t know wtf you talking about. It’s very statistics intensive and have 0 to do with discretization.

Take a course on differential equations to see how wrong you are.

You don’t like discrete numbers, just find a convergent series to that number and you can aproximate as accurate as you wish. Or build a computer good enought to represent continous points and his adhrerent points.

67

I love how you always say this yet can never demonstrate how/where meanwhile I can easily do that for you. In fact what you would rather do is this:

Translation: you have no argument.

Markov chains are used all over the place, not just weather, and if you think discretization has no place in the models, then you’re literally delusional. It is not possible to input infinitely precise data into your models and your models themselves cannot represent space nor time with infinite precision. Anytime you have anything less than infinite precision, you have descretization errors, PERIOD. It is an immutable fact of numbers. You have no clue what you are talking about.

You completely miss the point: nothing short of infinite precision is adequate for iterative algorithms, which is utterly impossible to achieve. Anytime you approximate or round, you run into discretization errors, which compound exponentially in an iterative algorithm. This is VERY simple.

So when you say you can solve the discretization errors by using a convergent series, you are 100% unequivocally wrong.

Weather models alone are so bad that they can’t even predict the weather accurately a day in advance, BUT you say we can just plug in a convergent series and do simulations of entire galaxies over BILLIONS of years with accuracy? Keep dreaming.

68

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhgwIhB58PA

Here you go. Teachers believe all sorts of wild and illogical things, almost to the point of flat-earth levels of delusion. In this case they believe there are different types of learners and try to group students by their mode of learning, which actually does the opposite of what they intend it to do - it hurts education rather than helping - because these “modes of learning” are a pure figment of imagination!

How is it possible that 85 million people just assume something is true and take it for granted, e.g. that they are duped and hold beliefs wildly inconsistent with reality, unless there is some kind of right-think hive-mind mechanic, like what happens with CNN’s absurdly biased news reporting? Is there such a tremendous lack of basic critical thinking skills in at least a majority of these people? Clearly so!

Humans are very social creatures and they will assume something is true just because a lot of people have said so, and even if they know it is wrong (or suspect so) they will choose not to contradict the popular narrative because going against the grain is much more difficult. People would rather have a popular opinion than be right. This is basically called “group think”.

Anywhere you have a large social structure you ALWAYS get group-think. The views of the individual people within the group will trend towards the average view of the group as a whole, as people with incompatible views are expelled from the group (in worst case scenarios) or give way to increase their standing in the group. If you are a teacher at a liberal university, for example, and you make a spicy speech condemning left-wing fascism, you will have effectively nuked your career. Just look at what the left-wing fascists tried to do to Jordan Peterson, for example, and all because he defended freedom of speech in front of the Canadian Parliament. JP happened to succeed against the mob, but he is a VERY lucky man in that regard.

Mathematics is no different. There is a hive-mind of group-thinkers who will shun anyone for engaging in “wrong” thinking. We saw that in this very thread. I am 100% correct my argument that mathematics suffers from discretization errors and that this undermines long term predictions and/or predictions of volatile systems and fluids. And for this I was accused of being a lunatic, told I don’t understand some pretty basic calculus, and even called a “math denier”.

The same exact thing happens with climate change, for example. A vast majority of the published literature is just pure garbage, but nobody wants to be the one who calls it out because you are immediately smeared by your colleagues and the news-media as being an anti-science neanderthal who literally wants to set the planet on fire.

Math is no longer about math. Science is no longer about science. Everything is about politics at the detriment to everything else, and this is ALWAYS true for large social structures. This is why I will ALWAYS have great skepticism about the work being done by these large institutions and/or the people they train. They are simply too big and when they are that big it’s all about politics.

1 Like
69

You just posted a link of a proper scientific process, people come with an hypotesis and science comes to prove it right or wrong, by professors, researchers, academia. Refuting whatever you rambled about politics above.

Batz, let me be very honest now. You are the actual very single least inteligent person I have ever met in my entire life, I’m not even kidding. I have met dumb people that from time to time don’t make sense in basic sentences, but you are the kind of people that makes negative sense, and it’s your stuborness that makes it too late for you, your mind is drawn in your own reality. I just feel sad for your pathetic existence because the quality of my thoughts and reasoning is the most valuable thing for me and yours is objectively bad.

Sometimes we as humans dealing with everyday problems needs to come up with hypotesis vulnerable to being wrong, science’s job is to prove the hypotesis right/wrong, and what I mean by “quality of thoughts” is to try your best to come up with hypotesis more right than wrong before resorting to science. Since you completely disregards science you are lost in your world made by your own hypotesis, to make it worse your bias will go against science producing hypotesis in even worse quality, to make thing even worse your stuborness will rocksolid those wrong hypotesis as truth. You are so lost lmao.

I mean it, you can try to get professional help but I don’t realy think it’s possible anymore for you because to reach the point for you to get professional help you’ld have to give up your stuborness, challenge your own worldview, your biases, and that’s never gonna happen. I’m not pretending that I care because I don’t. I just feel very fortunate and also sad for you. Well, it is what it is.

70

Eh, I’d disagree with this, though much of the post is accurate. SC2 requires many different skills, and not all of them are directly related to intelligence, like APM (IE: mechanical skill/ability and reaction speed), which has more to do with physiology, health, and time spent playing than intelligence. And APM does play a significant role in skill. There’s a pretty strong correlation between APM and ladder position/MMR (obviously there are also outliers, and APM is not at all the whole story - that’s where intelligence/strategic decisions come into play).

A person just picking up the game will simply not have the same APM as someone who’s played regularly (and competitively; you can play regularly, but non-competitively with no intent to improve and not really build the muscle memory/neural connections for high APM) for a long time, all other things being equal.

If I had to guess, intelligence would probably make up something like 10-20% of “skill”, with mechanical ability making up 50-60%, and experience/game knowledge making up the remaining 20-40% - with effective experience being influenced by intelligence (IE: a more intelligent person will gain experience/game knowledge faster).

The thing is, this isn’t just a matter of intelligence, but experience. He makes a living out of playing the game at a very high level. You don’t have to be notably intelligent to learn how to play the game well. Intelligence will just affect how quickly you learn. Intelligence will certainly affect your initial ladder placing and how quickly you learn the game, but it will only be a small part of things once the experience, knowledge, and muscle memory are there.

We can see from players like sOs that intelligence certainly plays a role in skill. He practically makes his name off of tricking his opponents and catching them off guard by exploiting the meta, and takes games/series fairly often vs more mechanically skilled players, and that’s absolutely dependent on intelligence.

It’s just a matter of degree; even at the very highest level, there’s a very strong correlation between a persons measurable mechanical skill (APM with respect to their race/etc… as different types of actions equate to different amounts of APM, thus making it not really work as a measure independent of race) and their average performance.

71

Let me get this right. I post a link to research performed by a small set of researchers which prove that 84 million teachers have beliefs that are detached from reality, and this somehow, in your mind, proves that I am wrong in my claim that group-think is real, that group-think causes them to have beliefs that are both non-factual and incorrect, and that people who are willing to call out these incorrect beliefs are rare / in the minority? :rofl: :joy:

Bold words for someone who just lost a debate because he didn’t realize rounding errors exist in mathematics. Tell me, what does the sampling distribution of max(Xi, n) converge on as n → infinity given X ~ U(9, 3)? It is a very simple question. Surely you know the answer, since I do and you consider me, and I quote, “the actual very single least inteligent [sic] person” you have ever met. By the way, “[sic]” is added so people know the spelling error is a result of directly quoting the source material. It’s called a “thus” marker (short for “thus it has been written”) and it’s considered a little rude to use the professional world, but this is a video game forum so I think it’s appropriate especially given your overly hostile posts.

72

Why does the study linked deeper in the thread conclude that the only correlation between SC2 performance and external variables is with a reduction in the brain’s ability to regulate impulsive thoughts? The theory being that SC2 requires such insanely fast reactions that it must bypass all the higher-order thought processes and rely on reactions alone, because there simply isn’t time for those processes to complete.

If intelligence is a big factor in deciding performance, why didn’t SC2 performance correlate with intelligence metrics like IQ, and are you saying the ability to regulate impulsive thoughts doesn’t reduce intelligence?

73

ya it doesn’t matter HOW smart YOU tell us YOU are batz… we KNOW better.

2 Likes
74

Oh hey look it’s another troll account parroting the same exact narrative in lockstep with all the other troll accounts, in the same thread where I talk about sociological mechanisms like group-think. How ironic!

76

I will tell you what’s ironic. You stating that psychology is a pseudo-science and then eating the same plate (that you sh.ited before) by using the same “pseudo-science” as argument for the next BS.
There are several reasons that people don’t take you seriously (even a sanctimonious scumbag like Kelthar): this: (hypocrisy and cheap-opportunism) is one of them (reasons).

With love and deep respect.
Goba.

P.S. BatZ: don’t abuse of my magnanimity!. As the moderator of this forum i have no choice but to follow the rules. Till now i have refrained myself from banning you and have resorted only to giving you notices of misconduct in private.
Now, if you will continue to follow this pattern (to BS the whole community), i will be forced to act.

2 Likes
77

Hey man, if you did that trick where you say something offensive then delete the comment before anyone can see it and flag it, while hoping the person you are insulting did see it, I must inform you I did not see it so you’ll have to post it again. You gotta work on your timing. Other trolls are much better at that move. Frankly I am kinda disappointed that I missed out.

1 Like
78

Sociology is very different from psychology. It studies groups of people and their behaviors as a group. Psychology is unreliable because behavior on a per-individual basis varies radically. That’s not how it works for groups. Groups behave predictably. Walmart is going to continue stalking shelves and checking out customers. An individual Walmart employee may do anything from become the next Nobel prize winner to burglarizing the very Walmart they work at.

All imaginary “crimes”.

:kissing_heart:

79

that’s not what i meant to do, but after it deleted i was like, you know what? it really isn’t worth my time. get over yourself already. omfg.

80

the farmers almanac that i bought from wal mart in 2017 was never wrong about the weather. How is that possible?

81

He says he has a “minor discipline in meteorology”. It has been several days since I asked him this question:

It’s an extremely simple question. Basically you are taking the maximum of a set of samples each with size n. The samples are taken from a distribution X which is uniformly distributed from 9 to 3. As n goes to infinity, the probability that there is a 9 in your sample goes to 1. Since you are taking the maximum value of the sample, it converges on 9. So the answer is 9.

Meteorology has a lot of emphasis on computer science and statistics. This guy has never been anywhere near any of these subjects. Combine the lies with his hostile posting (insults etc) it’s crystal clear he’s just trying to start a flame war.

82

You didn’t answer my question either. How my almanac always right, weatherman so much wrong? Big confused.

83

This moron thinks that science rotates around computer-science and statistics. It’s the disease of novices and hammers (for a hammer all problems are in the form of a nail).
P.S. In SC2 we know those clowns under the name: “one-trick pony”.

3 Likes
84

He also thinks he is an expert in fields he has never touched before, including chemistry, medicine, law, psychology (even though he doesn’t believe in it), history, sociology, and almost anything and everything.

Also, i’m fairly certain a year or two ago Batz was arguing that being GM took massive intelligence, so its weird that he has now turned 180 degrees on the subject.

3 Likes
85

When a 10 year-old (BatZ) goes to University one should be able to read that as news.
Like this:

Earlier it was reported that an eight-year-old resident of Moscow, Alisa Teplyakova, successfully passed the USE (Unified State Exams) in Russia, specialized mathematics, biology and computer science, and graduated from high school. According to her father, the girl wants to enter the psychology department of Moscow State University.
h_ttps://vz.ru/news/2021/7/12/1108539.html

2 Likes