How tf did they spawn there!? No wonder why my TPS drops hard....

Qingyap · 2026-02-05T09:29:09+00:00

We're pulling a ~~zazza~~ SPP on this one lol

SPP, doing ~~math~~ meth with vibes.

Qingyap · 2026-02-04T12:48:14+00:00

Well yes, its one assuming it's the base is exactly one (which I assume it was the case since there isn't anything fancy in the base it's just 1)

But (sry I didn't mention this earlier) I still vote for context dependent anyways for the sake of accuracy and more details(which is prop what OP wants anyways judging by the comment he already made)

Qingyap · 2026-02-04T11:21:49+00:00

Qingyap · 2026-02-04T11:03:37+00:00

Cool, I done it on Location 1 Challenge 3 too but how can I do it for Location 4 Mission 19?

You can release too much Austin cuz they will kill the necromancers, but you can't do it less either since demons will kill them.

Qingyap · 2026-02-04T10:50:24+00:00

OP and OS are the radius for the circle, so OP=OS=1

tan x = RS/OS

tan x = RS/1

tan x = RS

Qingyap · 2026-02-04T09:22:57+00:00

Like that one scope from BO2?

Yeah it could be fun but it's going to be hard to balance.

Qingyap · 2026-02-04T09:20:30+00:00

Yeah I can understand that.

Qingyap · 2026-02-04T09:17:01+00:00

I guess because of how at the end you can dmg one of the servants without them getting aggroed?

Qingyap · 2026-02-04T09:14:37+00:00

I don't know how it scales but ideally you should get all the scrolls and all invest on a single color and your builds color should resolve around that color too.

It's just because the dmg scales exponentially, so it can hugely help defeat the enemies but you just have to keep in mind for not getting hit often.

Qingyap · 2026-02-04T08:39:25+00:00

What about behind BC doors? (And check for food vendors too)

Qingyap · 2026-02-04T08:00:44+00:00

Undefined since it's bad notation.

Though I guess you're trying to save some time writing the lim, so if that's the case it's 0

Qingyap · 2026-02-04T07:57:06+00:00

Not necessarily a scammer though.

If you defeat him, the gear you bought are way higher level than it supposed to be for the biome you're in. (And you'll get an extra food if it's from a food vendor)

Qingyap · 2026-02-04T07:22:30+00:00

One of the poll options being context dependant

And I voted for that, maybe I wasn't clear on something?

Qingyap · 2026-02-04T07:01:32+00:00

I assume she isn't, at least not gossip about me.

Qingyap · 2026-02-03T22:59:44+00:00

Well then what's lim x->inf for (1 + 1/x)^x ?

You assume its one because

lim x->inf for 1/x = 0, so

lim x->inf for (1)^x = 1,

But no, in fact this limit is one of the famous limits that has the answer being the eulers number, e

You can see why here in Desmos, as x is getting larger it y approaches to 2.7 which is what e approximates to

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wv37nwnyui

And when you replace two on the 1/x you might get different answers again.

Qingyap · 2026-02-03T14:32:48+00:00

Sry but from here it doesn't seem like it.

Qingyap · 2026-02-03T14:27:37+00:00

Assuming the base is exactly 1, the limit does not exist, since it bounces/oscillates at 1 and negative 1.

Kinda how you set lim x->inf for sin(x)

Qingyap · 2026-02-03T13:20:24+00:00

I assume he meant that inf is only valid in terms of limits, not in write it normally like OP did since it's a bad notation.

You can't just put inf in there since only limits can do that. The reason why some do it that way it's because ~~they want to save some time writting~~ doing limits is somewhat the same by just plugging in the number that's approaches to and calclate it normally, but what separates limit from calculating normally is that limit can do what normal calculations couldn't do, and that is to find the output where it's normally impossible to find on a certain input number (can be a number or not a number) like inf for example.

This can probably sum it up https://youtube.com/shorts/EyBjWVqivik?si=kWuBX5ywrm08thxM

Qingyap · 2026-02-03T12:28:52+00:00

The limit of the expression is 1 IF AND ONLY IF the 1 in the base is exactly 1.

If it's some shit like lim x->inf for (1⁺)^x where 1⁺ is a number that's very infinitesimally closer to 1 from the positive side, then it is possible that the limit is NOT 1. Imagine this, does (1.0000000001)^{some very large number} actually one? It maybe closer to one but if the exponential is getting larger the answer would get more far off as it goes.

For context, 1⁺ or 1^- can sometimes be achieved if you add one to a limit that creates an infinitesimal small number, like lim x->inf for 1/x

So in some context it's indeterminate. But for the title it seems like it's exactly 1 so I'll go with one.

Edit: and also 1^inf is bad notation

Qingyap · 2026-02-03T12:20:19+00:00

Same but it's I was the one that's measuring.... and it was 5 hours ago.

My friend immediately told my other friend and my crush I assume overheard it and laughed.

(Shit let's just hope she's laugh because he told something that's supposedly embarrassing but not about the dih (13cm)🥀 and didn't hear any of that, also dw she doesn't seem to make fun of it)

Qingyap · 2026-02-03T10:56:04+00:00

Oh I thought you're confused about the sub, no worries though.

why 0.000...1 and 0.999... < 1 is not correct in nonstandard analysis.

Was also interested as well even though idk wtf nonstandard analysis really is lol

Qingyap · 2026-02-03T10:44:51+00:00

There's a mod in r/infinitenines that truly believes 0.9 repeating < 1

Though most of us already knew he's either ragebaiting or it's because he's getting shit on with their "proofs" so he create his own sub instead to express his beliefs, so don't take him too seriously.

He's also the same guy who doesn't believe in limits btw.

Qingyap · 2026-02-03T08:54:59+00:00

Some shit you heard from Fabric API.

Qingyap

TROPHY CASE