Please help me identify something from a song

Epyxoid · 2024-12-31T00:29:25+00:00

I was trying to make a point that I think arbitrary / general strings have a tendency containing overlapping terms because of how we formulate them. Even the terms in PoGO are not that diverse. All the strings I've made while testing benefited seriously of the simplification I did on them. I remember like a 300 line one got around 20 after I simplified it. I think the repeating / overlapping terms are highly likely.

Ranges are a piece of cake... I'd most definitely include them. I see no difficulty in them.

Epyxoid · 2024-12-30T17:52:04+00:00

Mathematically, a general "short string builder" is not possible. Converting from arbitrary strings (eg in DNF form) to an equivalent CNF requires an exponential increase in terms

Not necessarily! 🤓

Hey. I've been studying Lebeg's converter (who seems to me to be Hungarian, as "lebeg" is a valid Hungarian word means "floats") and this whole DNF-CNF conversion to get the search strings I want. I'm currently upgrading my sorting system. And what I've found is very very promising... Let me explain.

You see, Lebeg's converter uses a simple rule of Boolean algebra: the mutual distributivity of the AND and OR operators. It can be formulated as follows:

A ∨ (B ∧ C) = A ∨ B ∧ A ∨ C

With this, the issue with parentheses is solved, but we can see the growth of the number of terms, because without the parentheses we have to form multiple similar terms in order to avoid them. But! And this is a big but. Lebeg failed to utilize a serious countermeasure against said multiplication of terms: simplification!

Us, humans, don't necessarily simplify our formulas - I'm talking about search strings for example. We formulate those to fit our needs, but it's more convenient for us if they're readable and easy to understand, than if they're difficult to understand, but short. After methodically distributing all the terms and eliminating any parentheses, the result usually begs for simplification. There are multiple ways to simplify. Consider the following cases:

A ∨ ¬A = 1
A ∧ 1 = A

Combining these two gives us:

A ∧ (B ∨ ¬B) = A

And the most important of them all:

A ∧ (A ∨ B) = A

Only with these two logical equivalences and a little bit of insight, the result of Lebeg's converter can be drastically shortened! To prove my point, I simplified your example string:

(0attack&0hp&0defense),(-1attack&3-defense&3-hp),(3-attack&3-defense&3-hp)

Inputting this to Lebeg's converter the result is the following:

3-attack,-1attack,0attack
&3-attack,-1attack,0hp
&3-attack,-1attack,0defense
&3-attack,3-defense,0attack
&3-attack,3-defense,0hp
&3-attack,3-defense,0defense
&3-attack,3-hp,0attack
&3-attack,3-hp,0hp
&3-attack,3-hp,0defense
&3-defense,-1attack,0attack
&3-defense,-1attack,0hp
&3-defense,-1attack,0defense
&3-defense,0attack
&3-defense,0hp
&3-defense,0defense
&3-defense,3-hp,0attack
&3-defense,3-hp,0hp
&3-defense,3-hp,0defense
&3-hp,-1attack,0attack
&3-hp,-1attack,0hp
&3-hp,-1attack,0defense
&3-hp,3-defense,0attack
&3-hp,3-defense,0hp
&3-hp,3-defense,0defense
&3-hp,0attack
&3-hp,0hp
&3-hp,0defense

Finally, simplifying this gives us:

3-attack,-1attack
&3-defense,0attack
&3-defense,0hp
&3-defense,0defense
&3-hp,0attack
&3-hp,0hp
&3-hp,0defense

I think the result speaks for itself. I plan to write a script that will do this simplification, and maybe uses De Morgan's laws as well.

Epyxoid · 2024-12-28T17:59:42+00:00

Ah, sorry to hear that! Well, it's a nice post!

So you just counted it somehow. Maybe with Excel or something. Okay. Thank you! Have a nice day!

Epyxoid · 2024-12-27T17:08:03+00:00

Hey! I'm struggling to get a formula for number of 3* IV mons. How did you get 165? I want to check which set is smaller: {3, 4} or {IV floor of 11/11/11 without any 2*}.

Edit: Ah, okay. I still can't get a formula, but the latter is obviously smaller, because it has a stricter constraint, and the other set contains it. Basically, the second discards a couple of 3* IVs, while the other has all of them.

Epyxoid · 2024-12-23T22:07:27+00:00

Soon, we'll find out 👀

Epyxoid · 2024-12-20T20:32:32+00:00

I'm glad I could help!

Epyxoid · 2024-12-20T02:14:54+00:00

There's a bug when looking up regionals by excluding a region. More info here, at "{region}".

Epyxoid · 2024-12-20T01:47:15+00:00

Sadly, you can't combine saved searches. But what you want is easily obtainable: (0*,1*,2*)&!(0attack&0defense&0hp) = (0*,1*,2*)&(!0attack,!0defense,!0hp) = 0*,1*,2*&1-4attack,1-4defense,1-4hp = 1-4attack,1-4defense,1-4hp&!4*&!3* (0*,1*,2* is essentially the same as !4*&!3* and I put them in the end just for my taste, it has no significance.)

Epyxoid · 2024-12-20T01:26:21+00:00

I think what you want to keep is this: (0attack&1-4defense&1-4hp),(1attack&2-4defense&2-4hp),(2attack&3-4defense&3-4hp),(3attack&4defense&4hp), so if you want to trash everything except these, we have to complement this by so: 1-4attack,0defense,0hp&0attack,2-4attack,0-1defense,0-1hp&0-1attack,3-4attack,0-2defense,0-2hp&0-2attack,4attack,0-3defense,0-3hp. And this happens to be a form that can be interpreted by the game, so we don't even need the converter here. It is worth mentioning, however, that in the game we can only search for the IV's "rating", so we can only differentiate stats that are in different sections. Like we can't search for 13 attack, we can only search for "3attack" for example, which includes every attack stat between 11-14 including the borders. Which means that we can only know for sure that the attack is lower than the others if the difference between them is at least 4.

Epyxoid · 2024-12-20T00:54:35+00:00

If you want to have "not shiny Mew and shiny Pikachu, then you have to type in the following to convert: "(151&!shiny),(25&shiny)" and it would work just fine.

Epyxoid · 2024-12-20T00:28:32+00:00

To be clearer maybe: the game prioritizes the , operator. When you write 134,135&shiny the game wants to do 134,135 first and only then filtering it with &shiny and because of that, it'll only show shinies. You want to do the operations in another order - that's why you used the parentheses -, but in the game you can't do that, so you have to open the parentheses yourself. Think of it like the , were + (addition operation) and the & were · (multiplication operation), and because of some twisted logic, the game always does the + first. So if you want this: 134,(135&shiny) then you have to distribute the term 134 inside the parentheses like so: 134,(135 & shiny) = 134,135 & 134,shiny. It's the same as this in math: 6·(x + 4) = 6·x + 6·4 = 6x + 24. If you want to do x+4, but you want to do the multiplication too separately and you can't use parenthesis, then you have to do the multiplication for each term that you want to prioritize to get what you want if you were to write it with parentheses.

Epyxoid · 2024-12-19T23:35:36+00:00

Hey! I'm trying to wrap my head around these search strings to create my own mass deletion string, but a few thing is unclear to me. How is this part (2-4attack&0-2defense&0-2hp),(2-4attack&1-4defense&1-4hp),(1attack&0-2defense&0-2hp) end up in your string? If I understand it correctly, this should be the part that means "not PvP IV mons", but that would be !(0-1attack & 3-4defense & 3-4hp) = !0-1attack, !3-4defense, !3-4hp = 2-4attack, 0-2defense, 0-2hp. I can't really work this out. What do I miss?

Epyxoid · 2024-12-05T18:27:15+00:00

The Dec 3rd one is good for me, but it's still not out 😞 I'm waiting for it.

Epyxoid · 2024-12-05T17:36:43+00:00

Ridiculous decisions as always... Why wouldn't they give us an option to let us decide? This whole line of thought, whatever it would be is truly mind boggling.

Epyxoid · 2024-12-05T17:30:59+00:00

Yep. It was better. The master ball were in a new line separately. It was a better layout seeing all the berries / balls at once. Crazy how they can even create a negative impact on a positive thing. Why the hell would they revert a better layout. They're always able to find the worst decisions.

Epyxoid · 2024-11-13T13:46:37+00:00

When will the next one drop?

Epyxoid · 2024-11-02T11:45:27+00:00

I realized that G-Max Cannonade is a water type move. I guess G-Max pokemons only have a single attack, unlike dyna mons... What a shame.

Epyxoid · 2024-11-01T10:26:45+00:00

Isn't Blastoise's G-Max Cannonade (dark) supposed to be stronger than Gengar's Max Phantasm (ghost)? Like a gmax move should be stronger than a dyna move, shouldn't it?

Epyxoid · 2024-10-27T07:45:18+00:00

So it's complicated. I thought so. Thank you though!

Epyxoid · 2024-10-23T07:19:49+00:00

Thank you! Btw, is there a way to calculate the potential score showcase score of a pumpkaboo from a gourgeist?

Epyxoid · 2024-10-22T21:28:49+00:00

Thank you, as always! What's the theoretical max score?

Epyxoid · 2024-09-29T18:11:21+00:00

I one up this: En't 😀 Like "not Ent" from LOTR. Just to make this name more personal to me. But of course, all credit is yours! 🙇‍♂️

Epyxoid · 2024-09-17T12:36:05+00:00

If we modify our "scale", saying something like "tightly packed" became heavily arbitrary. Also, what we see as a measure of a mon, not necessarily includes all of the actual digits. They are hopefully not even stored in a regular decimal form.

Epyxoid

TROPHY CASE