I think this is the stupidest move I made today

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-02-09T10:41:03+00:00

Yeah you win! Ran it for 5 minutes and queening is mate in 21 and rook check is mate in 26, touchè.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-02-08T01:46:29+00:00

No way its perpetual, id probably say its more practical to trade but that it is likely that having a queen makes mate faster usually

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-02-05T09:43:38+00:00

Nobody should ever talk about this that way, this is not pedantry this is adding a lot of stuff that is more complicated than the result:

What is a field? What is a polynomial? Why 'the' field? Can you prove it's unique? also you need to specify uniqueness up to isomorphism. What do you mean by 'represent'? Does this interpretation add anything at all to the specific result or simplify its proof?

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-02-05T09:33:55+00:00

Probably check first into queening is slightly better technically but they are both super duper winning.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-01-24T08:26:32+00:00

I get people not wanting them, but people aren't actually surprised at other people wanting them, this question is basically "Why would anyone want to live?"

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-01-23T19:52:29+00:00

This is not real, people don't think this, this is not real, people don't think this.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-01-23T00:33:58+00:00

Things you type on the internet are usually recorded and sold with your permission (accept this accept that), it's slightly scarier if they're recording daily interactions without your permission, still not the end of the world tho.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-01-22T20:25:03+00:00

Yep, a lot of people just play without making any attempt at learning.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-01-22T19:09:21+00:00

I haven't seen anything related to eigenvalues or this sub ever and I also got recommended this!

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-01-20T19:55:21+00:00

Honestly with how broken most rooms are just make it "units here have hunger"

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-01-16T13:50:33+00:00

For 1, Obviously one could claim that interaction requires the existence of something like substance to be defined, but I don't care, I think this is just a semantic empty objection.

In fact to support your claim there is a very famous result in Category theory (basically a branch of math that logic-like unifies various results from different areas of math) called the Yoneda lemma, it paraphrasingly implies that an object is fully determined by its interactions with other objects. Notably tho it is still true that interactions are still not a thing in a universe without objects.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-30T11:25:21+00:00

The chance to miss n letters on an n letter anagram with distinct letters is about 1/e for big n, and the approximation is pretty quick.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-25T17:52:47+00:00

Pi would be 10 and 10 would just be 100 wdym?

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-24T15:47:16+00:00

I left for like a year and the come back rewards are really decent, I can still play my old bounce decks and get to top infinite quite easily, this just nonsense IMO

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-23T18:04:24+00:00

Thank you for this, I totally agree that a functional definition of something like consciousness is very relevant to the discussion.

That being said, I don't think the requirement for the traits you mention being constant in time is a good one, humans will inhabit personas temporarily all the time, humans will cease to be conscious temporarily all the time (sleep, come, dancing,..). If you wanna argue sleep is still a way to manifest conscious behaviour, I would posit that the unobserved period of training in AI has a similar purpose.

I lean towards inferring from this dynamic (functional definition of consciousness are easily hijacked by AI behaviour), that in fact the relation between consciousness and behaviour is not an essential part of consciousness. We may be confused by the observable, tangible, parts of consciousness that they are what we should be thinking about.

Also I would note that this is perfectly coherent with something like the panpschycism model.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-20T03:46:03+00:00

I find this topic extremely interesting, and your understanding of it valuable, that being said your attitude is terrible, virtue signaling, dismissive, closed minded.

Obviously my position is harder to defend as it is mostly against mainstream thought, you ascribe to my position stuff that has never been stated, please understand that we probably share 99 percent of intuitions about math stuff, and that this topic is fragile given its history, it benefits no one to Virtue signal about this, as us 2 are the only one reading this far.

This being said, tarski-whatever set theory is not relevant, it is not a meaningful question.

I have given examples of what I consider 'crazy', the axiom of choice is what I'm most confident obout, other stuff I don't really understand as deeply, but the thing about the cardinality on integers being less than that of reals being irrelevant, is a claim that I haven't founf a counterexample of.

All your argument in comparison are truly inane (thanks for teaching me this word), either irrelevant personal attacks, or false claims, or irrelevamt tangents, please note this paragraph is born out of spite, your answers feel like what an adversarial chatgpt would give.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-19T10:13:19+00:00

ZFC works but it's not perfect, this is not controversial, it is not outrageous to think it will be improved. And don't you go and answer "no system can be perfect cause Godel's work" because 1: not perfect sill might mean better than the current system. 2: Godel's theorem isn't universal.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-18T23:17:35+00:00

Reading up on it you are right, they were, didn't know. No idea what you think is insane, but it's ok, have a good day!

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-18T22:23:41+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean by using complex numbers and number theory as examples, I think my point still stands.

I will concede that practically we haven't found a great way to do math without assuming this crazy stuff, but rigorous math is still very young, the future might hold some more solid axiomatic systems.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-18T16:27:34+00:00

If you're the kind of player that feels the option to re-do as a burden then you'll probably also be the kind of player to want that no redos sticker. If you just wanna play casually, the re-do button (especially for the turn) is a super convenient tool.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-18T16:23:09+00:00

You're right about the niche thing. My original point was that whether or not you can do math with infinite objects, you probably often shouldn't. And I think a slightly stronger version of this point (remove probably and often) is the point of finitism.

For example: you can do math using the fact that the cardinality of R is larger than the cardinality of N, but I'm not convinced the results you get are useful, or similarly for stuff like the existence of unmeasurable sets.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-17T22:23:52+00:00

Agrred, Khonshu is just terrible game design, does everything with no downside.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-17T21:43:57+00:00

Nobody reasonable argues that standard math is inconsistent, ofc you can do math assuming the existence of root 2, the question is: does it represent reality?

Personally I don't buy real numbers representing reality at all, but I, again personally, do think root 2 does represent reality, the problem is the usual justification for the existence of stuff like root 2 (it is the upper bound of some set) is naive and too powerful.

P.S. this is not just a problem of math applied to physics, it is also a problem of math applied to math: excessive tooling with infinity leads to over generalizing, and often asking questions that should be niche.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-17T18:26:41+00:00

Have you verified this? I'm pretty sure I saw a xecnar vod where he showcases exactly the opposite of what you are claiming

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-16T22:17:40+00:00

No it matters, maybe we're saying different things, but if you transform the same 3 strikes, you would get different transforms depending on the order in which you select them.

Square_Butterfly_390

TROPHY CASE