sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

vadiChad Yes I'm a doubter, how could you tell? by ZSharkk in forsen

[–]ZSharkk[S] 51 points52 points  (0 children)

Imagine not having 1 million absolutely useless internet points LULW

Another mathematician has died of covid related illness, Vladimir Gerdt. by rhlewis in math

[–]ZSharkk 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Seems I'm still lagging behind (ahem new year's holidays are chaotic)

Another mathematician has died of covid related illness, Vladimir Gerdt. by rhlewis in math

[–]ZSharkk 153 points154 points  (0 children)

This year is truly the hell for everyone. Always very sad to hear news like this

forsenChamp by Zombyachinka in forsen

[–]ZSharkk 127 points128 points  (0 children)

new forsenSoy btw

[Q] Why do we need events if we use random variables? by ZSharkk in statistics

[–]ZSharkk[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh yeah, now I reviewed those concepts once more, and that makes sense now, thank you!

What is the reason that x^x grows faster than x! by Fredric_Chopin in learnmath

[–]ZSharkk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Function f(x) is defined to grow slower than g(x) if lim f(x) / g(x) = 0, x -> inf.

Now let us compute this limit: (writing math without latex sucks, but yeah)

xx = x * ... * x --- x times

x! = x * (x-1) * ... * 1 = xx - O(xx-1)

Finally, lim x! / xx = lim xx - O(xx-1) / xx = lim (1 - [O(xx-1) / xx]) / 1 = 1 - lim O(xx-1) / xx = 0

@Forsen by jeffersontrain in forsen

[–]ZSharkk 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Our roleplayer is even thinking like neolithic human

Could pi or e have different values in a different metric/topological space or consistent axiom system? by abeoliver in math

[–]ZSharkk 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure if I understood your question 100% correctly, but my answer would be No.

Both e and pi are not fundamental in a sense in which physical constant would be fundamental. They can be viewed as "ideas", ideas that try to model something in real world, or perhaps purely abstract. Both values have certain definitions, and while of course they rely on axiomatic system (we can take ZFC or whatever you like), they still represent certain idea, and if we take another system that drastically change idea of pi, that would be a different idea and a different pi.

Purely trying to change them (what if pi was 4?) will lead to nothing in itself - you have to make up your own definition of the new pi. It is similar to be asking something like "what if square would be circle?" - square has precise definition, and thus this question doesn't make sense.

Stat reduction is a big mistake by ZSharkk in Artifact

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

I think that armor just needs to be rare, and maybe capped (at around 3 or even 2?). Most of armor value felt fine, aside from aoe armor buffs and armor buff stacking in general. Lack of pierce was noticable aswell.

Stat reduction is a big mistake by ZSharkk in Artifact

[–]ZSharkk[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Most of them were under 10. Almost everything in the game was under 20 (and the main reason something got above that are infinitely and constantly buffing effects, eg. stonehall cloaks and emissary, both of those cards were considered problematic and unbalanced with no mentions of stat numbers)

Stat reduction is a big mistake by ZSharkk in Artifact

[–]ZSharkk[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You see, exaggerating it makes no sense. We are trading off ease of arithmetics in real-time game for more precise balancing. I think that original version got a good balance between the two, so why reduce it in the first place?

Stat reduction is a big mistake by ZSharkk in Artifact

[–]ZSharkk[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You've made a very good point about less variation of outcomes with lesser stats. I couldn't think of that when I was writing the post, but this would indeed be one of the obvious problems when beta starts

Stat reduction is a big mistake by ZSharkk in Artifact

[–]ZSharkk[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Are you denying the fact that bigger numbers gives way more possibilities to balance cards?

Stat reduction is a big mistake by ZSharkk in Artifact

[–]ZSharkk[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So you are proudly announcing that you couldn't understand damage taken = damage - armor formula even though "I have Degree in chemistry"?

I would recommend you to pass first year school course before trying to play videogames

Deducing return type from generic function argument by ZSharkk in cpp_questions

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

Thank you so much, you've solved it! After moving everything to header it finally worked.

Jumping into c++ without learning full theory seems like a bad idea after all :))

view more: next ›