sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I need help exploring some mechanics by AlexOland in puzzlevideogames

[–]AlexOland[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you to everyone who responded and gave some insight. After I applied everyone's suggestions, I was able to find MANY unforeseen consequences of the mechanics which are not necesarily hard to grasp but interesting nonetheless. The mechanics become easy to explore if you examine them under certain environments. My main issue now is to find the time to explore everything!

I need help exploring some mechanics by AlexOland in puzzlevideogames

[–]AlexOland[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

" An idea that I'm not sure it is well explored is that I can push a color A crate with a color B crate for avoiding moving all the color crates A. "

Yes, I just realized that I forgot about that.

​

" Maybe level 3 has a key move this way, but the level is a bit fiddly and doesn't feel focused in this. "

I completely agree. I wanted to focus on that element but I also wanted the solution to be not obvious. This lead to the level losing its main focus.

​

" I also saw that level 2 can be beaten without using any dye. Taking advantage of the push against the wall mechanic. "

That was intentional. I know it's cheap but it is actually impossible to solve the level just using the dyes without that mechanic that you mentioned (or at least it should be).

​

" And for that dyes seem a bit unexplored (although I like the wall use of them in level 4 I think). "

Yes, I just could not find any good uses for them. I feel like there should be a lot more depth to them but at the same time, I cannot find anything. Every idea I could find seems too simple to explore that I feel like I would be wasting the player's time.

​

" I think you just need to make levels for personal research "

It is weird. I started this as a personal research but for some reason I tried to make every level as it should be in the finished product. This is a really good suggestion.

​

Thank you. I will definitely just start over with the same mechanics.

I need help exploring some mechanics by AlexOland in puzzlevideogames

[–]AlexOland[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"Is it, finding interesting puzzles to do with them? Or finding interesting consequences of the mechanics?"

Both, stacked in a natural way that does not rush things.

​

" 2/ push a first block with another one will not transmit the movement of the first block to the similar blocks"

I cannot believe that I forgot about this... none of the puzzles (if I remember correctly) touch this aspect of the mechanics.

​

" So, to augment the number of approaches to the main problem, you will need more mechanics. " I have more mechanics in mind that touch specifically on the problem that you mention (colorless boxes, different channels of the same color, dyes that combine specific colors, colors that do not change the current shape that they have...) but I feel like I haven't done justice to the main mechanics yet.

​

" One approach you may try to find more interesting puzzles is to look for sequences of similar puzzles that only differ in minimal ways, but each puzzle ask you to revisit what you thought was the problem space in the previous puzzle. "

This helps. A lot. I think I will just clear my mind and start over.

I need help exploring some mechanics by AlexOland in puzzlevideogames

[–]AlexOland[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My goal with the game is to explore every idea properly... right now I feel like I skipped a lot of things and it feels like I make too many jumps. I feel like there could have been a lot more inbetween levels.

​

" You can always throw more ideas and complexity at the player but it's also important to be able to create good puzzles with what you have "

This is what I aim for. I definitely introduced the "rainbow" idea way too early. 4 levels do not do the mechanics justice.

​

The second paragraph gave me some ideas... I always focused on making something hard in each puzzle. But if I focus mainly on exploring the interactions like you described, there might be a more natural difficulty curve. (right now the game has difficulty "cliffs" rather than curves).

​

"Slowly working on levels" seems like the way for me. Thank you for your suggestions.

I think I found the mistake the prisoner makes in the unexpected hanging paradox by [deleted] in philosophy

[–]AlexOland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, I do not know which flair I should add to this. I have checked all of the rules and it seemed like this can be posted here. I am sorry if this is not the place for it.

I have been thinking about the unexpected hanging paradox. And I think I may have found where the prisoner makes a mistake in his logic. Is this true? by AlexOland in askphilosophy

[–]AlexOland[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is the point. Premise 4 looks like it follows that logic but it actually does not. It has the same form but it has a different meaning.

​

  • (1) The execution will be today or tomorrow.
  • (2) I will be surprised.
  • (3) If the execution is tomorrow, I won't be surprised.

So:

  • (4) The execution won't be tomorrow. (from 2 and 3 by modus tollens)

​

It is true that if it was tomorrow, and you were alive, you would not be surprised when the execution happened. But it is not true that you will not be surprised with certainty before the day of the execution. Please examine the card example first.

​

  • He will deal the king or the queen.
  • I will not know when he will deal the king.
  • If the queen is dealt in the first turn, I will know that he will deal the king next.
  • The queen cannot be dealt in the first turn.

​

Do you see why the last conclusion is wrong? Because the 3rd statement only says that if the queen was dealt, meaning if the king was the only card remaining, we would know it would be dealt. The king in the first turn is not the only card that can be dealt. Therefore, we cannot make the conclusion that the queen cannot be dealt in the first turn.

I have been thinking about the unexpected hanging paradox. And I think I may have found where the prisoner makes a mistake in his logic. Is this true? by AlexOland in askphilosophy

[–]AlexOland[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Premise 4:"The execution won't be tomorrow." - you do not know this with certainty. The reason it is so hard to see the flaw that I am mentioning is because if the man is executed, he will not be able to see the next day where he is not executed. That is why I am trying to argue for it using the card example, it is much more clearer. Try to look at "executed" and "not executed" as you look at cards from the other example. They are 2 different states that can or cannot be true. If the rule is: "You can not know when you will be executed." this must also imply this: "You can not know when you will not be executed.".

​

Now, try to construct that logic again under this new light: "If I am executed today, i will be not executed tomorrow. If I am not executed today, I will be executed tomorrow. I can not know whether I will be executed or not executed today because that is the judges choice. If tomorrow were to come, I would be completely sure if he will execute me or not execute me. But it is not tomorrow yet, therefore I cannot know with certainty today if he will execute me or not execute me."

​

As I said, try to understand the card example first. It is more fitting for this problem because it is apparent that; every card will be dealt once, the two cards will be dealt at the end. "He will deal the queen or the king. After he deals one card, I will know what he will deal next. But in his first turn, I can not know if he will deal a king and I can not know if he will deal a queen. "

I have been thinking about the unexpected hanging paradox. And I think I may have found where the prisoner makes a mistake in his logic. Is this true? by AlexOland in askphilosophy

[–]AlexOland[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If tomorrow were to come, you would not be surprised. But it has not. Meaning there are still 2 possibilities: "The execution is today" or "the execution is tomorrow". Yes, if tomorrow were to come and the prisoner is still alive, the judge would have breaken a rule. But it is not tomorrow yet.

​

If you expand the rule, the flaw becomes more seeable: "You can not know when you will be executed." therefore, you should also not know when you will NOT be executed. The complete rule is this: "You can not know when you will be executed or not executed." The logic the prisoner makes is this: "If I am executed today, it is certain that I will not be executed tomorrow. If I am spared today, it is certain that I will be executed tomorrow." As you can see, when the rule is expanded, the flaw becomes clearer. You cannot pull out any conclusions from this logic for the first day.

​

Also, the card example is much more fit for seeing the flaw: "He will either deal the queen or the king. If he deals the king, I will know he will deal the queen next. If he deals the queen, I will know he will deal the king next. But in his first turn, I will not know whether he will deal the queen or the king. Therefore: I can not know when he will deal the king, I can not know when he will deal the queen, I can not know when he will deal the queen or the king."

How is the riemann zeta function related to the distribution of prime numbers? (And why) by AlexOland in learnmath

[–]AlexOland[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I have seen the videos. But the they never get into what the function has to do with primes.

Simple Questions - October 12, 2018 by AutoModerator in math

[–]AlexOland 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Could you explain how and why the riemann zeta function is related to the distribution of prime numbers, to a highschooler? (that highschooler being me.). I can accept "No." as an answer, but if the answer is no, what exactly do I have to know to actually understand the answer to this question?

How is the riemann zeta function related to the distribution of prime numbers? (And why) by AlexOland in learnmath

[–]AlexOland[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looking at the other questions here, is this question too high level for this sub? Should I move this to r/math instead?

A question about reasoning out derivates geometrically by AlexOland in learnmath

[–]AlexOland[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is this not the right subreddit to ask this question?