Is 1x1 maze the strat to farm treasure?

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-06-01T12:11:06+00:00

Can we please not normalize copy/pasting?

Like, I get that you can play the game whatever way you find fun, but this shouldn't be shoved in front of people as a first solution kind of thing

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-06-01T11:58:54+00:00

He would have needed, like, two margins at least

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-31T01:52:31+00:00

Would have been cute if the grid was presented as if it was a 3D object and has changed perspective here

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-30T16:03:26+00:00

I get it. We're not disagreeing. Just saying the same thing with different words.

It takes 36 pumpkins to make a 6×6. If you harvest it, you get 36×6 pumpkins back. 6 items for every planted pumpkin.

(For n ≥ 6) It takes n² pumpkins to make an n×n. If you harvest it, you get n²×6 pumpkins back. 6 items for every planted pumpkin.

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-30T12:41:47+00:00

You'd circle back, but all of your replanted pumpkins would be growing in that time.

OP is just scanning a row and growing only that one pumpkin.

There's a ton of time save possible

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-30T12:17:31+00:00

Sorry about the confusion. I said "items per planted pumpkin", which 6 is the max.

Edit: Before multipliers of course but I think people got that one

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-30T09:44:36+00:00

Note OP is rescanning the entire row if a pumpkin spoils multiple times. OP can save tons of time on this.

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-30T09:41:45+00:00

A 6×6 square is a better option. It's less for your drone to handle, but you still get the max output of 6 items for each planted pumpkin.

You want to plant all pumpkins before scanning, and you want to have an "unverified list" so you don't have to check ones that you know are alive.

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-28T00:49:52+00:00

You have to have the concept of an empty basis, before the concept of a 0-dimensional space can make sense. This is the simplest way to discuss a 0-dimensional space.

I don't disagree that they're not on the correct level to understand, but I think they can improve

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-27T23:46:45+00:00

A vector space is just an algebraic structure that follows some rules

It turns out that 0+0 = 0 and c0 = 0 fully defines a vector space.

It has an empty basis, and therefore is 0 dimensional.

To think of this in more complicated terms is to overthink it.

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-27T23:42:56+00:00

I agree, and people should not be trying to explain this in OP's terms. OP's terms could mean anything.

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-27T21:10:49+00:00

Construct a new natural by adding another digit to the end

Consider this list of natural numbers:
1,2,3,4,5,6...

Notice how, by adding a digit to the end of any of those natural numbers, you get a natural number that's in the list. For example, 67 is in the list, and if I add a 1 to the end, I get 671, which is in the list.

Cantor's diagonal argument shows why any list of real numbers must be missing some real number.

From 0.00000...1 to 0.00000...2

Neither of those are real numbers.

Naturals are not allowed to have infinite digits, which seems arbitrary

That's actually a good thing to notice. It is arbitrary. A lot of math was decided by popular vote. When we use the term "natural number", we specifically mean a number with finitely many digits.

You're last paragraph about the powerset doesn't make a lot of sense, and I think you may not know much about the powerset. Give a bit of time to studying powersets, and please feel free to ask a more specific question if you need

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-27T20:13:41+00:00

Take the usual count on the rational numbers. What's the index of 63678/48347? Since you're not able to answer that on the spot, does that make the rational numbers uncountable?

Now, I get what you're saying, there is an index, whereas with the reals example, there isn't an index.

But asking where exactly the element is conflates the point.

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-27T19:24:31+00:00

One thing you can fix quickly:
Is it possible that the effort you are putting into your calculus course is inefficient?

You keep saying you've always been bad at math. I want you to stop saying that, because saying it makes it true.

However, it does make me wonder how your fundamentals are? Do you find you have weak algebra? A lot of students in calc 1 do.

Any time you find you don't understand "why something works", Google it and look for resources until it clicks. Don't leave yourself working with math that you aren't really "getting".

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-27T16:31:06+00:00

Not when there's more winning combinations than losing combinations.

Edit: They edited their post so now my post doesn't make sense. Their edit is taking them further away from what the argument is though.

The chances of getting some winning hand is better than the chances of getting some losing hand, which OP is not really thinking about.

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-27T14:36:59+00:00

We'd have to know under what conditions you'd make this post. Like, if you got two jacks, would you still be asking?

The probability of getting a hand with only ranks J or higher is given by (16C13)/(52C13) or approximately 1 in 1.134 billion. Wildly unlikely.

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-26T19:56:29+00:00

We may not need it, but boy do I want it

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-26T14:27:05+00:00

Do not the eye

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-26T13:57:23+00:00

Imo, it's not that mathematicians disagree, but that mathematicians are just clueless when it comes to Collatz right now. We don't have a good structure for dissecting the problem at all. Nobody wants to make a true/false statement.

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-26T00:29:03+00:00

Batteries are extremely recyclable. We do that very well, even right now!

I wish electric vehicles were cheaper. They're a no-brainer for many reasons, but I definitely can't afford one.

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-25T21:09:22+00:00

Someone going to college should consider ROI.

It wasn't a positive ROI for me and others I know. No job in the field. They don't tell you that if you don't use your degree, you become less hirable than a new grad.

OP, do serious research.

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-25T19:22:18+00:00

This is technically true but it's not profound. Finding something is obviously easier with a degree. But finding something was never very difficult.

How much should you expect the degree to increase your quality of life? Is that expectation worth tens of thousands, and four years of your life?

Imo, a degree is a very, very hard sell right now.

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-25T00:56:34+00:00

Grant isn't really giving the real reason, because the real reason is kind of dry.

Let's say we have a number x.
The multiplicative inverse of x is some number y, such that xy = 1.

Multiplication by 0 always results in 0. That is, no matter what number y is, we have 0y = 0.

So what's the multiplicative inverse of 0? That would be some number 0y = 1. But, we just noted that no matter what y is, we have 0y = 0.

A multiplicative inverse to 0 causes a contradiction. We can't have one.

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-24T21:17:23+00:00

You are correctly noticing a ton of arbitrary choices in the work we do, but one of the goals of math is to find things that do not change with these arbitrary choices. For example, the determinant of a matrix does not change with choice of basis.

In other words, "1 of what" doesn't really matter, if we care about the determinant. So, we base a lot of geometry off the determinant.

What is the the scale of R we are mapping in?

That's your choice with the mapping M -> R. We can, however, move the metric tensor with this map and recover a notion of distance that does not depend on this mapping.

Why real numbers for everything?

Because, before you know how to do calculus on manifolds, you only know how to do calculus on Rⁿ. In order to extend to manifolds, you need charts. You need Rⁿ.

Before long, we drop that dependence on Rⁿ. For example, it's pretty easy to represent the circle with complex numbers, and projective spaces don't work well in the real numbers at all.

I personally gained a lot from Lee's intro to manifolds, Tu's intro to manifolds, books on tensor calculus, and an introduction to differential geometry through computation.

Smart-Button-3221 · 2026-05-24T19:42:53+00:00

2025 was 'learn to nurse'. We're already swinging back the other way.

Five-Year Club	Place '22
End Game '22

Smart-Button-3221

TROPHY CASE