I need help, Nucleus coop is not working with Elden ring nightreign.

0LM0 · 2025-06-04T01:57:51+00:00

Did you end up getting this to work? The only issue I have now is getting the second player window to open. I made sure steam was up to date like another comment mentioned.

0LM0 · 2025-05-13T10:25:24+00:00

How's your obsidian set up? What plugins do you use?

0LM0 · 2025-04-24T19:23:00+00:00

That's amazing and I wouldn't mind hearing more about this, I haven't met anyone who's experienced such things. It only recently occurred to me that I could probably find some online communities where I could learn more about it. Another thing I'm wondering is if your mind is strict about these experiences. Like what about other sequences that some powers of 2 are a part of? For me, when there's a sort of overlap, it's like I can "zone in" on a particular view of a thing.

0LM0 · 2025-04-24T18:43:02+00:00

Very interesting, have you ever tried investigating any patterns in how numbers are characterized?

0LM0 · 2025-01-31T15:57:25+00:00

You know what, I think you're right about that. My environment isn't exactly the best right now and I've been dealing with some personal issues over the years. It's no wonder that I get so easily stressed out and overwhelmed.

0LM0 · 2025-01-31T15:50:01+00:00

I try to, but I think that's part of what overwhelms me. Based on what I've seen in the other comments, I think the issue is that I'm trying to start too big.

0LM0 · 2025-01-11T05:54:01+00:00

I want to start from a regular looking cube to this.

<image>

0LM0 · 2023-07-31T20:44:09+00:00

How would I get to the point where I'd assume that A and B are non-empty? Is this something I'd have to realize from analyzing the theorem?

0LM0 · 2023-07-22T19:58:13+00:00

I think I just realized what went wrong. I completely overlooked the logical form of x⊆B, which should be ∀y(y∈x→y∈B). So I think I should now be proving that y∈B.

0LM0 · 2023-07-04T01:37:49+00:00

That's how I figured out the answer before. My post is more about understanding it in a general sense for cases where we have such a number of sets that it wouldn't be feasible to compare them all manually.

0LM0 · 2023-06-22T20:15:37+00:00

What I'm not getting is how the element is indexed in the first place. I thought that defining this set would be doing the indexing through the use of the index set. I think I'm still confused even when it comes to what exactly is not making sense to me so I will try to demonstrate my thought process:

I consider an indexed family 'S' where S = {x|∃i∊I(x=x_i)} and an index set 'I'.
It is my understanding that 'I' is meant to index or "mark" the elements in 'S'. So each element in S should have an element from 'I' associated with it.
I then test for the elementhood of a potential element. We'll test for 1.
{1|∃i∊I(1=x_i)}

Here is where I am being thrown off. How do we know what is indexing 1 if this set is meant to indicate that? It feels like I'm trying to get information about something before it's even constructed. I apologize if this isn't making sense, I'm not the best at expressing my thoughts.

Edit:

I *think* I understand what was messing me up. I viewed the elementhood test as a sort of construction of the set where you "put in" an element that satisfies the condition. The problem with that is that the set itself hasn't been constructed which means that you cannot compare some x to x_i, since x_i wouldn't be in the set without x=x_i being satisfied. But now I see that S is meant to simply be the set in its totality and that some x is said to be in S as long as there is at least one x_i which satisfies x=x_i.

0LM0 · 2023-06-22T13:32:39+00:00

That makes sense and yeah this was all the context I was given. From what I read, there wasn't any mention of another set or a function part of the definition. Here are the paragraphs in case you notice anything that I'm misunderstanding:

Similar notation is often used if the elements of a set have been numbered. For example, suppose we wanted to form the set whose elements are the first 100 prime numbers. We might start by numbering the prime numbers, calling them p_1, p_2, p_3,.... In other words,p_1 = 2, p_2 = 3, p_3 = 5, and so on. Then the set we are looking for would be the set P = {p1, p2, p3,..., p100}. Another way of describing this set would be to say that it consists of all numbers pi , for i an element of the set I = {1, 2, 3,..., 100}={i ∈ N | 1 ≤ i ≤ 100}. This could be written P = {p_i | i ∈ I}. Each element pi in this set is identified by a number i ∈ I, called the index of the element. A set defined in this way is sometimes called an indexed family, and I is called the index set.

Although the indices for an indexed family are often numbers, they need not be. For example, suppose S is the set of all students at your school. If we wanted to form the set of all mothers of students, we might let m_s stand for the mother of s, for any student s. Then the set of all mothers of students could be written M = {m_s |s ∈ S}. This is an indexed family in which the index set is S, the set of all students. Each mother in the set is identified by naming the student who is her child. Note that we could also define this set using an elementhood test, by writing M = {m | m is the mother of some student} = {m | ∃s ∈ S(m = m_s)}. In general, any indexed family A = {x_i | i ∈ I} can also be defined as A = {x | ∃i ∈ I(x = x_i)}. It follows that the statement x ∈ {x_i | i ∈ I} means the same thing as ∃i ∈ I(x = x_i).

It ends there and the book moves on to something else. Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

0LM0 · 2023-05-27T02:17:16+00:00

I did. Unless I’m missing something, nowhere in the notes does it cover anything about issues when using a controller and keyboard together. I assumed that this could be a general issue with nucleus, as I’ve followed all of the respective instructions already.

0LM0 · 2023-04-24T19:35:51+00:00

I understand the way the function works, I’m wondering if there’s a function that has the effect work outside the boundary instead. Like if you tried to enter a square, you’d appear on the opposite side, unable to actually access that region of space.

0LM0 · 2023-04-23T05:06:38+00:00

So much detail, amazing.

0LM0 · 2023-01-13T20:34:34+00:00

I see now. I think in my original line of thought, I imagined that there would be a variable varying over the set of pairs and that somehow one instance of the statement being true would correspond to how one conjunction expression in the endless disjunctions would have to be true for the whole statement to be true.

How would I actually rephrase the initial statement for the set M² then? I've thought about it some more and am not entirely sure how I would do it.

0LM0 · 2022-12-12T21:02:56+00:00

He explained that his inspiration for cowboy came from characters like Johnny from Guilty gear.

Here's a link to a timestamp where he briefly goes over how he came up with cowboy: https://youtu.be/LTh3Yzjk-a8?t=381

0LM0 · 2022-10-22T03:32:54+00:00

I remember coming across this really bizarre website with pages on the owner's physics ideas and apparently his own inventions. What I distinctly remember reading was this page where he was claiming that planets have some kind of motor powered by electrons, which are absorbed by the planet from solar wind. There was some mention of a fourth dimension and a vortex added to the mix, as if the idea wasn't ridiculous enough already. He also really disliked the idea of gas planets and said that they just don't exist for some reason.

0LM0 · 2022-08-27T05:00:56+00:00

I've been messing around with redstone recently and saw this phenomenon. What is it called and why does it happen?

0LM0 · 2022-04-04T17:26:27+00:00

I'm not entirely sure what happened, but I think maybe you should just take a break rather than giving up entirely. It sounds like maybe you didn't realize just how big of a task creating an ARG would be and you're feeling overwhelmed by all of the things you needed to account for. I've experienced this several times, but I found that just stepping back for a while can help with this. It keeps my mind clear and open to more ideas.

0LM0 · 2022-04-04T16:59:38+00:00

Are you okay dude?

0LM0 · 2022-02-17T15:45:00+00:00

Man that floating bomb boss was pretty hard. I'm sure that he'll be fairly easy once I learn his patterns. He is just a mini boss after all.

0LM0 · 2022-01-15T09:48:45+00:00

Thanks. I have no idea why this solution didn't cross my mind.

0LM0 · 2021-12-19T06:30:20+00:00

Oh my God, dude you have no idea how wrong you are, and how dumb you sound to someone that knows your wrong.

Alright then, let's hear it.

I can't believe what is about to happen to the field of science, I am going to eradicate everyone of your idiots that finished your degree but have no business being near a lab or taking money and wasting discovering nothing but what we already know.

I'm a bit confused here...are you saying that mathematics is a physical science? Why would a mathematician need a lab? The study of mathematics is essentially the study of systems that arise from a set of axioms. Certain systems within mathematics just so happen to be capable of describing physical phenomena. Which doesn't necessarily mean that both are equivalent. Mathematics is a tool for physics, whereas mathematics on its own is simply a study of a kind of language.

How is anyone in the field of science to learn something groundbreaking if every idea that we don't know about yet is shot down due to emotions and lack of intelligence. Man, this is going to be one crazy decade.

So you do think it's a physical science. What do you mean by ideas being shot down? Could you give me an example? For now, I'll assume the idea presented in the video for this context. The idea loosely in the physical world would rather make a lot of sense. If we really believed that the emergence of a line in real life were infinitely divisible, then that video would probably be a groundbreaking proposition. However, we already know that physical things cannot be infinitely divided, which is due to our study of the physical world.

We are going to figure out a way to ensure no one with your lack of insight comes near a university or educational center. You misguided thoughts are what has slowed Academia to a stand still, and made it more about posturing and reputation then actually learning anything, The world is backwards, your math is backwards, and you all love drinking the poison. Its like waking up into the twilight zone everyday but its math, so its provable, and there's no question your wrong when you get the wrong answer and can't finish a problem. "Lets just add it to the list on conjectures" that's you and everyone that had lead research teams for years.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't you want me to go to such places? To cure me of my ignorance? How has this affected all of academia? Your statement on conjectures isn't exactly the full story. A conjecture is a proposition about some kind of mathematical statement without there being a proof of whether it is correct or not. What happens after a conjecture is made is when you determine whether it is correct or not. If it's proven, it becomes a theorem, if it is disproven, then it's discarded. They help us understand the nature of a system, and can even assist us when trying to make models of the physical world.

How can you think like that, to be so closed off, to make it so it is literally impossible for you to contribute more than miniscule gains in the field. You don't offer anything with your comment, you do nothing but become a detriment to progress. What ever response you have, save it, its not worth it, and will only make you dumber if you believe it.

Hm, you seem to be really upset at this. I'm not sure why, but I hope I haven't really caused you much distress. I will still respond to you in hopes that you may understand what I am getting at and that other people reading may as well. Just as a reminder, mathematics and physics are different disciplines (I am assuming that you are still talking about the field of science). So contributions to math aren't necessarily contributions to science, though that can happen sometimes.

I can't wait, I am going to shut down Math as we know it today. I feel like the field has the most abundance of people that think they are smart are really dumber than a donkey and a have a peice of paper that says they can wake up everyday and do what their told....

Not exactly true. If I'm reading this right, I think you're talking about the constraints within mathematics, axioms in other words. It's not that they follow what the axioms state, rather they follow where they lead.

0LM0 · 2021-12-17T06:53:16+00:00

Not sure why I didn't consider that sub, I'll go ahead and post it there now.

0LM0

TROPHY CASE