Jump to content

cfgauss

Member
  • Content Count

    259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About cfgauss

  • Rank
    Shaman
  1. This all makes me feel old! I had an account on the old forums whose name I can no longer remember when I was in high school, and remember a lot of these names. Could we at least introduce these threads by throwing in an "It seems like it was only yesterday..." instead of "It was so long ago none of us truly remember"?
  2. Todd Howard (of Oblivion, Morrowind, etc) used to read all of the posts on the Morrowind forums when they were small enough to do that: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/01/13/road-to-skyrim-the-todd-howard-interview.aspx
  3. Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity Criticism works well in science because the audience for technical talks and papers is extremely self-selected. Game audiences aren't, at least not if the game producer is trying to make money. People at talks are definitely not self-selected. Lots of conferences are at universities and random students and postdocs at the university can show up to the talks. And plenty of criticisms in science are wrong, too; really the only difference is cultural. Quote: Jeff is risk-averse, and he has been changing his basic game mechanics only very slowly a
  4. Ehh, well reading this has drawn me back again to make a comment! (If I leave in the middle of a conversation again it's because I'm very busy, I promise!) Anyway, I think a lot of Jeff's comments about this are a little bizarre. First, these have to be one of the friendliest communities dedicated to a developer I've ever seen. I've certainly read plenty of criticisms here, and I would say at least 99% of them are fairly reasonable, not only in comparison to what you see on other forums, but what people who work in businesses see as part of peer reviews, and definitely compared to what
  5. cfgauss

    X

    Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES that seems quite unfounded to me. How exactly is math the largest set in the space of all relationships? Basically by definition. If you found things not in this space, and labeled them X_i, which were described by relationships, X_j ~ X_k for some j,k if X_j and X_k are related, then you could define a set X = {X_i}, and the orbit space of relations, R(X_i) = { x in X : X_i in x with x~X_i}. But then you could study X and the orbits R(X_i) with the usual tools of math, because this defines the set and relation structure. You can also e
  6. cfgauss

    X

    Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity I hate to break it to you, but Hari Seldon isn't real. Some day! Unfortunately not for a while since such a thing would be prohibitively complicated . We've got to work on some AIs to help us out first. Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES This makes no sense logically: if relationships are the only reason physics is described by math, then why can't physics be described by history? This reasoning is fallacious. a implies b doesn't mean b implies a, which is what you're saying here. E.g., language describes what I look like, bu
  7. cfgauss

    X

    Originally Posted By: demons will charm you History is derived from what happened and what happens. Math is not derived from things. Physics, which relies heavily on mathematics, does have as its basis observation of what happens. Math doesn't care; it can't care. It's deductive! Mathematicians may pursue branches because they are practically relevant, but the branches themselves exist and are true regardless of their ties to the real world. But this isn't correct. Math studies relationships and it does not matter what those relationships specifically are, or if they are inductive, deduct
  8. cfgauss

    X

    Originally Posted By: demons will charm you You can study abstract mathematics with only the most tangential ties to anything present in the physical world No such thing exists. Unless by "only the most tangential ties to anything present in the physical world" you mean "the source of all physical laws" . Even number theory, notorious for having no physical applications until crypto applications were found, has many applications in physics! Not directly (as if that would even mean anything...), but it can occasionally be helpful in some areas, depending on one's point of view and descri
  9. cfgauss

    X

    Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES But I hold that most pieces of language have an antecedent to aid in their uptake, even if it isn't at all apparent. With math you eventually get to topics where almost everything needs a brand new box, there's nothing to compare it to. So maybe negative one, that you can connect to what you know about objects or scores or money, but the square root of negative one, well, that's a unicorn. This is only the picture you get from bad math books and teaching . The seemingly new ideas didn't come out of nowhere, after all. They were all devel
  10. cfgauss

    X

    Originally Posted By: Micawber To comment on the mathematical articles. Having many different people edit an article over a period of time has made some of the articles incoherent. Unlike printed matter, there is no proof reading. Yeah, but the problem is more than no proofreading, but no internal consistency, articles can switch between writing styles, and, worse, conventions, randomly throughout an article. It really takes an expert to spot these consistently, and be able to fix them. Quote: In fairness, some preprints and even published textbooks or monographs can be as poorl
  11. cfgauss

    X

    Originally Posted By: Dantius Originally Posted By: Master1 So we have concluded that Wikipedia is fine for a cursory or even deeper inquiry, but is not sufficient to make you an expert. Opinions of a few people on a gaming forum != legitimate criticism of Wikipedia. Especially when people make general statements along the lines of "Well I knew a guy who knew a guy who said it's wrong". How about: "I am an expert in high energy theoretical physics who has published string theory papers, who additionally has a degree in math, and I can say, in my expert opinion, the math and phys
  12. cfgauss

    X

    Originally Posted By: Lilith Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES Somebody did a study of science articles a few years ago (before the big push for citations on wikipedia) and found that there were more errors in Encyclopedia Brittanica than in Wikipedia. it also found that the wikipedia articles were generally more poorly written and structured and the errors that were there were more likely to be serious, though anyway i've cited wikipedia exactly once and that was to use it as a primary source in an essay about online communities A lot of the physics articles are r
  13. Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity Government spending is a big mystery. Nobody really knows what the rules are. It's not like a person or family or even a company running a deficit, because sovereign states contracting debts payable in their own currency can print the money if they need to. Right, but every dollar they print makes the dollars they use to pay it worth less. So printing money to pay off debts means your money is worth exponentially less relative to what it was worth before (aside from other factors that may influence the relative value of money). Quote: In f
  14. Tea party ideas are no more racist/classist/whateverist than democrats, republicans, libertarians, or whoever else. They're just new, and the media likes to focus on the crazy people. The demographics of tea party people don't seem to be too unusual, either. IIRC, the last time I heard (a few months ago) it was like ~33% former republicans and ~%20 former democrats. Its members are apparently mostly middle-class, on average, but that's probably misleading since the media always report averages and not distributions. And the people in it seem to be generally more to the center than the
  15. Castle of the Winds >>>>> Avernum <3 <3 <3 You know, both CotW and it's sequel are available for free from the author's website now. And are exactly as awesome now as before. And not being able to save in combat is a pain; I don't have an infinite amount of time and sometimes I don't have enough time to go through a boss/miniboss fight or a fight with a billion rats/zombies/whatever or something. But what bothers me more than the slow combat is the bug that allows enemies to move without centering the screen on them, so I can't actually see what they'r
×
×
  • Create New...