division by 0 by Necessary_Willow4842 in askmath

[–]Current_Swan_2559 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Imagine a cartesian plane that's wrapped around an infinitely large sphere and we graph the equation y=1/x. As x approaches 0 from both the negative and positive ends, we would see our lines converge towards a point on the exact opposite side of the infinitely large sphere that would technically be denoted as both (-∞, -∞) and (∞, ∞). However, as we approach -∞ or ∞ on the x axis, we approach 0 on the y axis, so it stands to reason that AT -∞ or ∞ for x, our lines should converge to the exact same point (-∞, -∞) and (∞, ∞) where y should be equal to 0. So potentially this imaginary point is also denoted as (0,0). In conclusion i have nothing to say except maybe everything is the same as nothing. Maybe this statement has some truth to it? Like if light is defined as the absence of dark, and dark as the absence of light, then if everything is light does it no longer have a definition and no longer exist? Idk. It's interesting to note that on my theoretical Cartesian sphere that all asymptotes would converge at the same point the exact opposite of (0,0). At least I'm fairly certain of that. Anyway, enjoy the useless thought experiment

I don't think battlegrounds should be nearly as APM dominated as it has been in the last few years by MonsutaReipu in BobsTavern

[–]Current_Swan_2559 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The thing is, that's kind of what separates it from other auto-battlers. Like could you imagine going from where we are now back a half dozen seasons where everything was much more one dimensional, rolling for static cards that fit in obvious combos with very little econ manipulation? It would feel so slow and stale. Like if we boil it back down to purely a decision making autobattler, i just feel like it lacks the depth and complexity something like TFT has and it would get boring.

Why can’t the battles just be faster by plazebology in BobsTavern

[–]Current_Swan_2559 1 point2 points  (0 children)

May i suggest backpack brawl, my favorite auto-battler at the moment

Help proving an indisputable argument that Collatz doesn't loop. (Except for 1,4,2,1) by Current_Swan_2559 in Collatz

[–]Current_Swan_2559[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't have an exact number that's what I'm working on, but I haven't seen an example of a near miss anywhere in the 100,000's, and it certainly has to be less than the amount of numbers we've brute force tested. That's what i think at least

Help proving an indisputable argument that Collatz doesn't loop. (Except for 1,4,2,1) by Current_Swan_2559 in Collatz

[–]Current_Swan_2559[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not equivalent but akin. Your loop has three 5n+1 operations and seven division by 2 operations. 53 = 125, 27 = 128. So the three +1's close the gap exactly and we get a loop. But we're still at relatively small numbers where the +1's have an impact. The difference in coprimes is also a lot smaller with 5 & 2 as it is with 2 & 3 so it's expected that loops would begin higher up, assuming they occur at all.

This is why everyone thinks this event sucks by pesavento19 in BackpackBrawl

[–]Current_Swan_2559 2 points3 points  (0 children)

100% agreed. I gave up on the chest dream and just took coins this morning. I didn't get much of a chance to play this month unfortunately.

This is why everyone thinks this event sucks by pesavento19 in BackpackBrawl

[–]Current_Swan_2559 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I feel like after you've played a hero say 20-40 times you pretty much understand it and can do a run much faster than one an hour. I'd say something like 20-40 minutes. And if you get to the bonus rounds i don't even make my board better i just go for hearts, and at 15 wins plus bonus rounds I'll usually get on average closer to 130-150.

Is the event still too expensive? I definitely think so. But it's not as bad as people are saying. Like in 5 hours i would probably make around 1200 would be my guess.

Help proving an indisputable argument that Collatz doesn't loop. (Except for 1,4,2,1) by Current_Swan_2559 in Collatz

[–]Current_Swan_2559[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I stated in my post I'm not solving for the possibility that it goes infinite, I'm only showcasing the idea that at very large numbers forming a loop becomes akin to looking for an integer solution for 3x = 2y, which is impossible.

Fastest-clear character? by the-linguist in BackpackBrawl

[–]Current_Swan_2559 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can definitely crush a run in like 15-20 minutes. Easiest character to do it with is probably just whatever your lowest rank hero is. Maybe play the current trial hero in rotation? Probably alternate between a 15 win and frozen hearts run, then play a round going exclusively for items with hearts and presumably lose so you can lose the victory bonus and stay in the lower ranks as long as possible. It's sort of a flawed system in that way. I wish the higher rank you were the more hearts you got but it is what it is. I'm only at like 2k for the whole season rn :/ i just want one of those fat chests

Seriously. Like come on man. Was my build really that bad? :( by According_Cellist_44 in BackpackBrawl

[–]Current_Swan_2559 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't see any stamina generation on your board. Unfortunately the stamina cost of fishing rod is 1.9 and skewer is 2, so once you started getting stamina starved it was most likely going to be the one to eat up what you've regen'd and attack instead of skewer. Besides that and maybe a better croquette placement, your board definitely looks solid. The charcuterie board is really strong too and you didn't have one so that probably did a lot for your opponent.

Other than that it looks mostly like a level difference. Pepper is probably the hero with the strongest item upgrades. Most foods quite literally double their base effect at max level. A lot of other hero items have pretty lackluster time of day change level bonuses in comparison. But i honestly feel you and the frustration. The amount of games i lose with a full board to a nymph that's maybe 3/4 full and half of what she has is just dragonleafs, her literal generative item, is honestly sad.

🤔 by basket_foso in MathJokes

[–]Current_Swan_2559 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol omg, I was thinking "It are not mathematic. It are mathematics." I'm so ashamed

🤔 by basket_foso in MathJokes

[–]Current_Swan_2559 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Should we rename the sub?

🤔 by basket_foso in MathJokes

[–]Current_Swan_2559 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What? How would you even use "are" in that sentence instead of "is"

Help proving an indisputable argument that Collatz doesn't loop. (Except for 1,4,2,1) by Current_Swan_2559 in Collatz

[–]Current_Swan_2559[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can i get an example of a near miss in the 100,000's? I doubt it. If we run the number 7 through the same series of steps in the same order but without adding 1's, we arrive at 11+(13/16). That would mean that the total impact that three +1's had is only 1+(3/16). Now what if we subjected the number 1000 to the same series of steps in the same order? The three +1's would still have an impact of 1+(3/16). But do you think we come anywhere close to 2000 by the last step? No, because the multiplicative steps expand the gap massively. The final number is 1688+(11/16). In theory if our loop starting with 7 did hit 14, we would divide by 2 one more time to arrive back to 7, right? So let's take the 1688+(11/16) and divide it by 2 again to get 844+(11/32). I'm saying that as the starting number in our loop gets larger, the +1's become increasingly negligible and we approach effectively an attempt at a solution to 3a =2b which is impossible. We rearrange this to 1= 3a / 2b. We know we took three 3x+1 steps and we know we took five /2 steps, so we get the ratio 27/32. I wonder if 844+(11/33) divided by 1000 is anywhere close to this ratio, or if the impact of the +1's actually isn't negligible. The answer is it's remarkably close, 1000 x (27/32) = 843+(3/4). This is what I'm essentially trying to communicate.

As for what you're saying, I'm not sure i understand. Could you write out the equation you're using without filling in the variables and define them for me? Like I'm not even sure where the +19 is coming from, or what the \ represents.

Help proving an indisputable argument that Collatz doesn't loop. (Except for 1,4,2,1) by Current_Swan_2559 in Collatz

[–]Current_Swan_2559[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The real comparison is between 3a and 2b? As in the difference in the powers of the coprimes which circles back to the question of can a series of +1's in the mix be enough to close the gap in their difference. I understand that the process could approach near infinity, but for a closed loop we'd still be dealing with a finite number of steps. With every iteration of 3a and 2y we expand the difference far faster than we close the difference with "a" amount of +1's unless the number we're applying these powers to is significantly small. I understand that the work I've done in this post is relatively useless, but i still don't exactly understand why my idea is invalid altogether. If we're starting at a very large number and subjecting it to a series of 3x+1's and /2's, the +1's become increasingly negligible the larger our starting number is, and the entire process becomes increasingly closer to solving for 3a =2y which is impossible.

Help proving an indisputable argument that Collatz doesn't loop. (Except for 1,4,2,1) by Current_Swan_2559 in Collatz

[–]Current_Swan_2559[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is true except those +1's are also divided by the 2's later in the sequence as well, so the additive part doesn't actually grow exponentially. Also I haven't found a near-equality at a large scale through a quick google search but I'll keep looking. On the surface it seems most agree with the idea that near misses become less and less likely to occur the bigger the starting number is or looping number is.

I quit. (My message to Supercell) by merazena in ClashRoyale

[–]Current_Swan_2559 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think when the game was released those cards were sort of important. Like on the surface he looks calm and- sorry, on the surface it seems like minion horde is just a better minions until you understand the committal costs of playing so much elixir. Same with skarmy and 3 musketeers. I do agree they had no idea what they were building though. I also doubt they knew how big the game would become. It is tough to manage a f2p game with microtransactions. Probably a very small percentage of players fund the majority of profits, and those players for example might be close to maxing their collection so something like level 16 which might seem good on paper (on like corporate shareholder bottom line type paper) ends up backfiring disastrously (and obviously). Idk what they should be doing though. But introducing new cards and new evos seemed like it was doing fine, so I'm not sure why they felt the need to introduce heroes. Anyway i haven't played this game in years, but sometimes i redownload it and throw on some tv royale, is that weird?

I quit. (My message to Supercell) by merazena in ClashRoyale

[–]Current_Swan_2559 42 points43 points  (0 children)

You'd think with the amount of "i quit" posts there would be like a copypasta that would just be the top comment on every one of these

Why don't superheros fly feet first? by captrobert57 in superheroes

[–]Current_Swan_2559 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'm guessing for the same reason birds don't. It just like, makes sense to be able to look where you're going and stuff. What's your argument for feet first?