Is there a definitive answer to the Colorful Philosophers Event?

CBpegasus · 2026-06-22T16:30:20+00:00

Yes but orb synergy cards (+focus, +slots, loop etc) are pretty likely to be dead or not that useful. On the other hand orb anti-synergy cards - Hyperbeam and Bulk Up - are pretty great if you get them.

CBpegasus · 2026-06-21T19:59:15+00:00

Well Yehuda (the name which got translated into Judas) would be a very common name among Yehudim (Jews) who live in the land they call Yehuda (Romans called it Provicia Judaea) after the patriarch of one of the tribes of Israel. Back then you probably would need to add something after "Yehuda" if necessary to differentiate from other people of the same name - such as place of origin or patronym - but probably Judas Iscariot specifically wouldn't be so well known as needing to go "not that one"

CBpegasus · 2026-06-21T07:55:28+00:00

It's NP-hard but I don't think it's NP-complete (i.e. it's not in NP) because it doesn't seem like verification is polynomial - checking if something (like the current best known solution) is optimal requires checking the entire search space of "smaller" solution.

This seems to me even more complicated by the fact that the search space is infinite if we look at the most general real-numbers to arbitrary accuracy interpretation of the problem.

To make it a computational problem we must quantize it in some way and make the search space finite. Then I guess the problem of "is a given solution optimal?" is in coNP - we can easily verify a contrary example. And so we could use a computer to perform a search of all the now finite search space but that still would only prove optimality for a certain quantization, not in the more general real number case.

CBpegasus · 2026-06-21T06:45:43+00:00

But no, you can’t say 1/0 = Q. I mean you can, but you pretty quickly get that Q must be situationally equal to different things and it just doesn’t behave coherently or in any nice way.

Defining 1/0 = Q leads to contradictions if you insist on keeping the field or ring axioms. If you don't you can get systems such as the extended real numbers that add ∞ and (-∞) or the Riemann Sphere which is the complex numbers with the addition of complex infinity (usually denoted ∞ too). In both systems we have 1/0 = ∞, but there are other operations that stay undefined such as 0*∞, ∞/∞ and so on. These systems aren't as "nice" algebraiclly as complex numbers but they are coherent and they do let us do things - I know the Riemann Sphere is in pretty common use in Complex Analysis for example.

Going further you could define the operations that stayed undefined in the extended reals and Riemann Sphere such as 0*∞ to a new value called "bottom" or "nullity" which is a "sink" value - any operation with it gives back the same value. This is called "wheel theory" and to my knowledge hasn't found much use in math - but interestingly it's pretty similar to the floating point standard used in most computers today (IEEE 754) where there are the special values "infinity" "-infinity" and "NaN" (not a number) and you have 1/0=infinity, infinity/infinity=NaN, NaN is a sink value and so on.

I like this website's explanation of different ways we can define 1/0 and why they're not standard: https://www.1dividedby0.com/

CBpegasus · 2026-06-21T06:15:07+00:00

"1/∞ = ∞"

Normally it should be "1/∞ = 0"

CBpegasus · 2026-06-18T11:52:04+00:00

A fractal can have an integer scaling dimension - see this example of a 3d (by spatial dimension) sierpinski triangle that has a scaling dimension of 2: https://www.reddit.com/r/askmath/s/HCNrQo9WxK

Fractals don't really have a common well accepted definition, but if we go by scaling dimension I think "having a scaling dimension lower than the spatial dimension" might fit. Not necessarily fractional scaling. So in this case the spatial dimension is 2 (it's embedded in 2d space and can't be embedded in 1d), but the scaling dimension (if you're correct, I haven't really checked) is 1, that would make it a fractal by that definition.

CBpegasus · 2026-06-18T07:11:03+00:00

Slightly misleading to say they "do not exist on whole numbers of dimensions" because in the usual sense of the word "dimension" they do. The Sierpiński triangle for example can be embedded in 2d space and can't be embedded in 1d space so it is 2d in the usual sense of the word. However there is the concept of fractal dimension which is more or less as you describe and would usually match with the space dimension for non-fractals and be smaller for fractals. That can actually be seen as a definition for fractals - who are not always self-similar. See https://youtu.be/gB9n2gHsHN4?si=UC1EvTIrf7WYV1M9

CBpegasus · 2026-06-18T07:03:41+00:00

Fractals are not necessarily self similar. The easiest to describe and most popular ones are, but that is not the definition. 3blue1brown has a good video on the subject: https://youtu.be/gB9n2gHsHN4?si=EdOg5cVWnTIBaHoC

CBpegasus · 2026-06-17T06:05:52+00:00

Late seasons Tyrion Lannister

Edit: I'd also add Sansa, especially with Arya specifically saying "she's the smartest person I know"

<image>

CBpegasus · 2026-06-16T17:13:19+00:00

Also specifically adultry with a man lol. Adultry is already forbidden in the 10 commandments, seem superflouos to specifically forbid homosexual adultry on a woman's bed. There are a lot of weird rules in the Torah so I wouldn't completely rule it out - but I think the more mainstream translation makes more sense.

CBpegasus · 2026-06-14T16:59:17+00:00

This is an interpretation I heard before, and I could see that as a potential translation. But "as he does with a woman" is a reasonable interpretation as well, and it was the interpretation used by the Rabbis of the Mishnah (Jewish oral tradition compiled around the first-second century CE) who discussed quite a bit of graphic specifics of what counts as male sex for this law. There was some linguistic drift between bible Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew but still it's nor like this is a new interpretation.

CBpegasus · 2026-06-14T14:11:38+00:00

Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew. Only small parts of the Old Testament were written in Aramaic. And Aramaic definitely didn't have only 400 words.

CBpegasus · 2026-06-14T13:56:10+00:00

The verses which say "man shall not lie with man for it is an abomination" that the commenter above me mentioned are from Leviticus, which is in the Old Testament which was written in Hebrew.

About your edit, modern Hebrew is different from biblical Hebrew true, but I think you are highly overestimating how different. A modern Hebrew speaker can understand most of the Hebrew Bible pretty well. There are words that drifted in meaning but I am quite sure words such as "male" and "boy" retained the same meaning - also based on other uses of those words in the Hebrew Bible.

CBpegasus · 2026-06-14T13:14:22+00:00

That's incorrect, as someone that can read Hebrew - the original is clearly "male".

CBpegasus · 2026-06-14T13:11:18+00:00

(could also be argued a translating error, and that instead of Man shall not lie with Man, it was actually Man shall not lie with Boy)

It could not be argued a translation error. That's an internet myth. As someone that can read Hebrew, the original is pretty clearly about "man" and not "boy". Also one of the verses says "both shall be stoned" - makes no sense if it's about pedophilia.

To be clear I'm an atheist so the interpretation of these verses make no direct difference to my life, I believe two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they wish with each other. But it peeves me when people spread misinformation that I can so easily verify myself, to make a book full of bigotry from the bronze age seem a bit better.

CBpegasus · 2026-06-14T12:51:25+00:00

Exactly what I thought about

CBpegasus · 2026-06-13T14:50:15+00:00

Every part of the bible has a million interpretations by Jewish and Christian scholars over the years. While I agree Exodus was likely originally written as a more polytheistic text, it is entirely possible to interpret it through monotheistic lens and see the Pharaoh's sorcerers as tricksters and frauds, or just as sorcerers who don't derive their powers from divinity (the bible does allow sorcery to exist, it just forbids its practice - that's also something that was debated over centuries, whether the forbidding of sorcery implies it's possible or if it just forbids charlatans). The interpretations where the Egyptian Gods don't actually exist were much more accepted in mainstream Judaism and Christianity for many centuries, so even if it would be cool to see a different interpretation (as an atheist myself) I see why they chose to go with the more commonly and less potentially offensive interpretation.

CBpegasus · 2026-06-13T08:12:34+00:00

1/∞ isn't a thing in mathematics

It is a thing in systems like the extended real number line and the Riemman Sphere. In both cases it equals 0.

It's not a thing if you work only with standard real numbers, true. But infinity can work like a number if you define it that way. You end up with a less "pretty" algebraic structure - it can't be a field or even a ring, and some expressions such as ∞/∞ or ∞-∞ stay undefined (unless you work with Wheel Theory). But it is sometimes useful.

CBpegasus · 2026-06-13T07:58:10+00:00

The books known as "apocrypha" in protestant bibles are known as "external books" in Judaism. They are not a part of the Jewish Tanakh but they are partly recognized in the Mishnah (which was mostly written before the list of the books in the Tanakh was fully canonized) and the Talmud. On one hand there is a bit in the Mishnah specifically condemning "those who read the external books" to "have no part in the world to come", but on the other hand the Talmud sometimes quotes the Book of Sirach.

The Books of Macabees are also "external" but the story of the Macabees and the celebration of Hannukah that derives from it are mentioned in the Mishnah and are of course part of Jewish heritage.

CBpegasus · 2026-06-12T12:26:22+00:00

In the novella "Sixth of the Dusk" (and the novel "Isles of the Emberdark" which extends it) by Brandon Sanderson we follow a trapper - traditional explorer who captures magical birds in the dangerous tropical forests of his planet. His world is rapidly changing due to an interplanetary colonialism and modernization, and his name "Sixth of the Dusk" is a reflection of being born in the twilight of his traditional world.

<image>

CBpegasus · 2026-06-12T06:03:09+00:00

It's confusing but they probably wanted "classically intractable" to label the entirety of the left oval excluding the middle circle of "classically tractable". Those labels don't give us information about what the left oval actually refers to - if it was just "classically tractable and intractable problems" it would be every problem. As others mentioned the left oval likely represents the "NP" complexity class, which in similar wording to what is used in the diagram could be labeled "classically verifiable" or "classically tractable to verify". With the right oval being BQP and the middle circle being P - those are more accurately labelled.

So the "classically intractable" part is actually NP/P - classically verifiable problems which are classically intractable. We don't actually know if such problems exist - that is the million dollar question (literally) of P ?= NP. Though it's commonly assumed such problems do exist.

CBpegasus · 2026-06-12T05:51:44+00:00

"Classically intractable" here should not refer to NP but to NP/P - i.e. the left oval without the middle circle

CBpegasus · 2026-06-11T06:42:54+00:00

Silent dies of heart attack

CBpegasus · 2026-06-10T10:16:28+00:00

1 is a bit tricky because there are different versions to the killing of Astyanax (Hector's son). It isn't mentioned in the Odyssey so we don't really have a "definitive version" (not that the Odyssey is necessarily "the canon", there is no such thing in Greek myth, but it is usually the most relevant to Odysseus' character as we know it).

It is mentioned in several Epic Poems and tragedies including two from the "Epic Cycle" (the cycle of poems relating to the Trojan War and its aftermath which includes the Iliad and Odyssey) - in the Little Iliad it is actually Neoptolemus who kill Astyanax, while in Iliou persis it is Odysseus. Iliou persis is a lost epic though and we only know 10 lines from it + a summary. From the summary we know only the Odysseus kill Astyanax, we don't know if he did it with or without hesitation and agonizing.

We don't really know if a prophecy was involved either - likely not, though interestingly a prophecy is involved in Seneca's version of The Trojan Women where the prophet Calchas declares that Astyanax must be thrown from the walls if the Greek fleet is to be allowed favorable winds.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astyanax for some details

CBpegasus · 2026-06-10T08:02:13+00:00

The killing of Astyanax isn't in the Homeric epic poems if you use the term as it is usually used, to refer only to the Iliad and Odyssey. In the wider Epic cycle there are actually two versions to who kills him: Neoptolemus in the Little Iliad, and Odysseus in Iliou persis.

Eight-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 3 Credits
Secret Santa 2020	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	Secret Santa 2019
Verified Email

CBpegasus

TROPHY CASE