101
Off Topic / Ooooooo Fun Game
« on: March 03, 2004, 12:24:31 AM »
I got to level 32 before giving up.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
102
General / So Many Newbies...
« on: March 03, 2004, 12:20:24 AM »Quote
This is only true if the aliens are less than competant.Unless the aliens greatly outskill the marines, whether the aliens can hold many nodes depends almost exclusively on how aggressively the marines play. Even Skulks working in groups cannot hope to defeat grouped marines with commander support with any reasonable consistency.
Although perhaps my judgment is biased in relation to gameplay on this server by the fact that I play on CoFR too. The marines generally play far more aggressively there.
103
General / Sv_gravity 1000
« on: February 28, 2004, 11:07:56 AM »
As I recall, it was possible in 1.04 to jump onto both marine and alien resource towers. I definitely remember Gorges hiding "inside" resource chambers.
104
Off Topic / 7,000 Posts!
« on: February 26, 2004, 07:14:01 PM »Quote
Should we go create another thread on it?Well, it would certainly help us reach 9000 that much quicker if this thread is any indication. This thread and its offshoot contributed to nearly 12% of the 1000 posts that have been made since this thread was created.
105
Off Topic / Meanderings : 7,000 posts
« on: February 26, 2004, 05:50:21 PM »
Yes, but that is similar to how as x approaches infinity of 1/x, the function approaches zero from both the positive and the negative sides, while with 1/(x^2), it approaches zero only from the positive side. And yet zero is not said to have both a positive and a negative value.
106
General / Sv_gravity 1000
« on: February 26, 2004, 05:23:37 PM »Quote
By 'manuevers', do you mean 'bunny hopping'? Thats the only 'manuever' that I could think of that might be affected by a change in gravity.More than just that. Things like leaping and blinking would be heavily affected as well. For someone who doesn't play exclusively on this server, it would be difficult adjusting every time they came here from a different server, or vice versa.
107
Off Topic / 7,000 Posts!
« on: February 26, 2004, 04:58:57 PM »Quote
The real question is how long it will take before a mod realizes that people are just using this thread for postcount++ purposes and puts a lock on it.Though it does become awkward when even the moderators are using it as such.
108
Off Topic / Meanderings : 7,000 posts
« on: February 26, 2004, 04:54:36 PM »Quote
Civilian usually you denote positive or negative infinity to show continuously increasing or negatively increasing numbers.But that is only when infinity is viewed as a mere concept, designed only to serve such fuctions as that which you mention. When infinity is viewed as the quotient of any number and zero, it becomes apparent that infinity is neither positive nor negative.
There is a well established difference.
109
Off Topic / Meanderings : 7,000 posts
« on: February 26, 2004, 12:31:48 AM »
In a way you can, as I just did it in my example. But regardless, infinity can be approached by either addition or subtraction, which shows that it is not positive.
110
Off Topic / Meanderings : 7,000 posts
« on: February 25, 2004, 11:35:38 PM »Quote
Maybe I should have said positive values. Infinity is, by nature, positive.Infinity is as positive as zero. Exceed infinity (from the positive standpoint) and negativity results, as can be seen here: 2/2, 2/1, 2/0, 2/-1. (I am, again, using the premise that division by zero is infinite.)
111
Off Topic / Meanderings : 7,000 posts
« on: February 25, 2004, 10:45:55 PM »Quote
Wrong. For any real number x, 1/(x+1) is nonzero. Therefore the rest of this proof is uselessThat is true; but also true is that for any real number x, x + 1 is finite.
Quote
False. This inequality is only valid for positive numbers. Zero is not a positive number. Therefore the rest of this proof is useless.Nor is infinity a positive number.
Quote
Unfortunately, this doesn't hold up either. Any rule breaks down at certain points. This rule breaks down when both sides of the equation are undefined as in your example. It can't really be used to prove this. Of course, BlackMage's proof in this case also has some problems, because the "reduce" step is not as simple as he is making it out to be when one is dealing with infinityThat division by zero is not undefined, but rather infinite is one of the things I have been arguing all along. Without it as a premise I do not claim infinity to be a number.
112
Off Topic / Meanderings : 7,000 posts
« on: February 25, 2004, 07:39:16 PM »Quote
∞ > everythingAllow me to reword:
20 * ∞ = ∞
1 * ∞ = ∞
20 > 1
(20 * ∞) > (1 * ∞)
by defenition ∞ is:
for any real x
∞ = x + 1
therefore anything less than infinity is x
x is real
20 > 1
(20 * ∞) > (1 * ∞)
20 * ∞ = ∞
1 * ∞ is less than ∞
1 * ∞ is therefore real
false
0 < all positive real numbers
20 * 0 = 0
1 * 0 = 0
20 > 1
(20 * 0) > (1 * 0)
by definition 0 is:
for any positive real number x
0 = 1/(x + 1)
therefore anything greater than zero is x
x is nonzero
20 > 1
(20 * 0) > (1 * 0)
20 * 0 = 0
1 * 0 = 0
0 > 0
0 is therefore nonzero
false
Quote
20 * ∞ = 1 * ∞20 * 0 = 1 * 0
for any a*b = c*d
a/d = c/b
therefore
20/∞ = 1/∞
reduce
20 = 1
for any a*b = c*d
a/d = c/b
therefore
20/0 = 1/0
reduce
20 = 1
113
Off Topic / Meanderings : 7,000 posts
« on: February 25, 2004, 05:18:38 PM »
And in reply to Black Mage, that is not sufficient proof; I could use the exact same method to prove that zero is not a number.
114
Off Topic / Meanderings : 7,000 posts
« on: February 25, 2004, 05:12:16 PM »
[edit]This is not a reply to Black Mage.[/edit]
In 1/x, plugging in increasingly low numbers to simulate zero will result in increasingly high numbers for the quotient. This indicates that when zero is plugged in, the operation will yield an infinite result. Is this not so?
In 1/x, plugging in increasingly low numbers to simulate zero will result in increasingly high numbers for the quotient. This indicates that when zero is plugged in, the operation will yield an infinite result. Is this not so?
115
Off Topic / Meanderings : 7,000 posts
« on: February 25, 2004, 04:56:54 PM »Quote
Infinity may not be already defined as a number, but if that is the case then I am defining infinity as a number.To clarify on this, I do not see why it cannot be regarded as a number. Undefinable? Just as you could say one represents a single object and zero represents no objects, you could say infinity represents an infinite number of objects. Intangible? Zero is no more tangible than infinity.
116
Off Topic / Ground Control 2
« on: February 25, 2004, 04:29:20 PM »
Well, one of the characters in the single player story was named Major Thomas, if I remember correctly.
117
Off Topic / Meanderings : 7,000 posts
« on: February 25, 2004, 04:24:39 PM »Quote
I think we need to make meandering threads, then seal the doors and gas everyone that posted in it :pThat group would seem to include you.
118
Off Topic / Meanderings : 7,000 posts
« on: February 25, 2004, 04:20:21 PM »Quote
That is the one oddball example where nothing really holds true, just because of the fact 0 divided by 0 is undefined.Simulating zero with increasingly small numbers also fails to work when multiplying it by infinity (assuming infinity is always simulated with a number that is equally large as the number that is used to simulate zero is small, or assuming infinity is truly infinite). Likewise, simulating infinity with increasingly large numbers works in all situations except multiplication of it by zero and division of it by itself.
In pretty much every other example this holds true. If f(0) = 3, the closer and closer your x values come to 0, the closer and closer your f(x) values will come to 3. Unless you have a jump discontinuity, the value of a function will always be the same as the limit.
Infinity may not be already defined as a number, but if that is the case then I am defining infinity as a number.
And Black Mage, your calculator tells me exactly what I want to see (oo * 0 = undefined).
119
Off Topic / Meanderings : 7,000 posts
« on: February 25, 2004, 03:33:48 PM »
Take division of zero by zero. Replace the zeros with x, and plug in any number other than zero or infinity for x. The result is one. But is that the same [edit - or, to word it better, indicative of the] result that would be achieved by dividing zero by zero? It is not; as you stated previously, zero divided by zero is undefined.
120
Off Topic / Meanderings : 7,000 posts
« on: February 25, 2004, 02:35:00 PM »
You mention plugging in increasingly large numbers to simulate infinity. But this does not work. I would liken it to plugging in increasingly small fractions in an attempt to simulate zero. Infinity is an infinitely large number, and cannot be reached by simply counting upwards.