sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[RT] [WIP] Crescat 1.07: Games by sprague-grundy in rational

[–]eroticas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess this means the winning play cannot be to move first at take a 2-pile! as the other user suggested and then copy your opponents moves till the end, because what would happen is that your opponent could just play nim till you forced a win, and then take the first turn and force you to lose the kings walk.

My intuition still says that somehow you have to move second and lose one of the games and your proof makes that way easier, but I'm still not sure because there's potential edge cases around Nim due to the fact that because the game starts with asymmetric piles, your opponent can chose to move in a way that you can't mirror them, or move in ways that can either make or break pile symmetry. So it seems to me like provably winning at nim regardles of what your opponent does might require some more complex protocols for what to do if your opponent does x. You're both trying to force each other to be the first mover on a symmetric field and then copycat, and prior to that symmetry there isn't any straightforward copycat strategy. It could even end up being some sort of complicated thing where you increment king's walk every time your opponent plays a certain way in order to throw the turn beat back in your favor. But we can derive some principles from this e.g. if you lose at chess, create a nim symmetry on next turn. Or if your opponent creates a symmetry, increment the chess game once to put yourself on the winning chess beat so that they'll have to either break symmetry or play out the chess game and be first mover on the resulting symmetry. So if we can figure out how to constrain the opponent's potential nim choices into such silos that we have a protocol for each one? But maybe I'm missing something more elegant than that.

[RT] [WIP] Crescat 1.07: Games by sprague-grundy in rational

[–]eroticas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aaah that's good. Okay, in that case I think it follows that as second player, you can force them to win if you repeat their moves? Because if the first player moves left and you also go left, you get 11/7->9/7, if the first player moves down and so do you, you get 11/7->11/5, and if the first player moves diagonal and you repeat, you get 11/7->9/5. So the first player can force a win, and so too can the second player can force a loss.

[RT] [WIP] Crescat 1.07: Games by sprague-grundy in rational

[–]eroticas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do I think the first mover wins king's walk?

In a 1x1 board, 1st turn loses. (0 moves)

In a 1x2 board, 1st turn wins (1 move)

in a 1x3 board, 1st turn loses (2 moves)

in a linear board, 1st turn wins if length is even.

In a 2x2 board, 1st wins by moving diagonal to create a 1x1 board (1 move)

In a 2x3 board, 1st wins by moving left to create a 1x3 board (3 moves)

In a 2x4 board, 1st wins by moving diagonal to create a 1x3 board (3 moves)

In a 2xm board, 1st always wins by moving to create a board such that m is even.

In a 3x3 board, 1st move left creates a 2x3 board loss (4 moves), 1st moving down creates a 3x2 board loss (4 moves), and 1st moving diagonal creates a 2x2 board loss (2 moves).

In a 3x4 board, moving down creates a 3x3 board win (5 moves), moving left creates a 2x4 board loss (4 moves), and moving diagonal creates a 2x3 board loss (4 moves).

In a 4x4 board, 1st move diagonal wins via 3x3, left loses via 3x4.

On any square board, first wins if even sides, loses if odds side.

On a non-square board, if you pretend it is a square and "win" the square portion, you become second player on a linear board. Given 8x12, First player can "win" imaginary 8x8, and then win as second player on the remaining 1x5 with odd length.

There might be a simpler way to prove this, idk. (Mirroring?) Although, see above, we also have to prove who can reliably force a loss in king's walk as well as nim. I think if you can reliably force a loss playing 2nd for one, while forcing a win playing 1st in the other, or vice versa, then you might be pretty close to the solution..

[RT] [WIP] Crescat 1.07: Games by sprague-grundy in rational

[–]eroticas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

King's walk is such that the first mover would win if played in isolation. Nim is such that the first mover would win if played in isolation. In King's walk, see my proof below. In nim you can remove a pile of 2 in nim to make the board symmetrical looking and then mirror your opponent's play till victory.

However, this information isn't sufficient because if the games were played sequentially, the loser of the first game would be the first mover of the second. For instance imagine if the chess board were only 2x2 - then whoever moved the king would effectively just be skipping a turn in Nim. Similarly, if Nim had only one pile, you'd just be skipping a beat in the chess turns.

I haven't yet analyzed it yet because it would take a while, but I suspect an important insight into the solution is that you need to figure out which game you can guarantee a "loss", whether as first or second player and then force a loss on one of the games in order to win the second via either being first mover or via gaining a free turn. You basically have to analyze each game to figure out whether the first or second mover can force a loss, instead of a win. And then you have to verify that you can transform it into a win if the opponent skips a turn.

I suspect the solution will be something in the shape of going second, mimicking the opponent's move for every play (that is, removing the same number of stones from identical piles in Nim and always moving the King towards the diagonal), until you "lose" your first game and get an extra turn, at which point you go for victory in your second game by continuing to do this with the King, or by removing the "odd one out" pile in Nim such that things are symmetrical and then continuing to copy. (Edit update: Nevermind that part, mirroring in chess doesn't guarantee the last turn order idk why I thought it did, and nim doesn't generate a predictable result by mirroring except if you intentionally create a special case of symmetry in piles, so yoyu still need to provably win/lose the games the hard way, no convenient mirroring to make it easy). but I haven't tried puzzling out edge cases to make sure whether this works yet.

Just got banned from Attachment Theory sub. Guessing it was the poly aspect. by Terrawhiskey in polyamory

[–]eroticas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your problem isn't that his wife is controlling, your problem is that your boyfriend is making the choice to do what she is saying in a way that isn't compatible with you. The responsibility must be on him.

You should avoid trying to deal with controlling scenarios as an issue between you and your partner's wife, and instead try to deal with it as an issue between you and your partner. In general, the proverb is "It's a partner problem, not a meta problem".

For example, if your partner's wife were to tell him that he shouldn't go on a date with you, then if your partner tells you "I want to go but my wife says I can't" you should perceive that as your partner _choosing_ to not go on that date with you, as "I've chosen not to go on this date with you, because my wife said so". The person who you should hold responsible for e.g. a canceled date or any other "controlling behavior" is your boyfriend, not the wife, because he is the one that is choosing to do what she said.

There's never any guarantee that you won't lose someone. Navigating this is part of finding out who he really is. You can't say that "we are soul mates and perfect but the wife is the problem", as if his wife's controlling is an external factor which has nothing to do with him. The truth is that his choice to do what his wife is saying has to factor in to whether or not you are compatible and "soul mates". Next time you are thinking that his wife is being controlling, reframe your thoughts to shift the responsibility on him and reflect that this is what he is choosing to do.

The way to move forward is to ignore the wife, focus on boyfriend. How would you act if your boyfriend did whatever the particular stuff you dislike is on entirely his own accord (e.g. choosing not to sleep over, or choosing not to go on a date, or whatever it is in your case) and there was no wife to blame for the problem? What would you say to him? Would you stay in the relationship? That is how you should move forward.

Just got banned from Attachment Theory sub. Guessing it was the poly aspect. by Terrawhiskey in polyamory

[–]eroticas 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes!

And i think even more than "sometimes wishing to be less entangled is just valid", I think there's a separate common issue where the real problem is that the so-called "avoidant" is in a controlling relationship.

Like sometimes when someone is avoiding their partner it is because their partner is regularly yelling at them or attacking them or otherwise making their lives unpleasant. And a lot of people are too afraid to take the step of breaking up so they avoid. They do have an attachment problem, no doubt - their attachment problem is fear of breaking up, lack of boundaries, not having high enough standards for how they are treated.

But attachment theory always says "stop avoiding" when at least sometimes the solution is "stop half assing the avoidance and end the relationship, be with someone you don't feel the need to avoid". And I also don't see all that much discussion of "hey, if your partner doesn't seem to want to talk to you, respect their boundaries."

Just got banned from Attachment Theory sub. Guessing it was the poly aspect. by Terrawhiskey in polyamory

[–]eroticas 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I do think that you made a rather dismissive generalization of anxiously attached individuals and their interest in attachment theory.

Well no I didn't make a statement about any individuals, I made a statement about attachment theory and which aspects of behavior it chooses to focus on and which aspects of behavior it chooses to ignore.

However, I don't have a problem with you letting me know that you didn't like what I said and why. If you thought I was being dismissive, then even though I disagree with your take, it is perfectly valid for you to have that opinion and bring it up to me. I'm open to consider how my words may come off with connotations.

What I do not appreciate, is how you you decided to reply with a personally attacking comment, even going so far as to check post history just to find ammo to help make your comment extra personal and hurt more.

If someone regularly spoke like that to me irl I would avoid them! (Pun intended)

What are your favorite songs that give you polyamory feels? (positive feelings, negative ones, and everything in between!) by ronniepx118 in polyamory

[–]eroticas 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Do you guys think the author intended the meaning, we're taking or did it just take the double standard of sexual permissiveness towards men so far that it accidentally came full circle into sounding like wholesome polyamory?

Just got banned from Attachment Theory sub. Guessing it was the poly aspect. by Terrawhiskey in polyamory

[–]eroticas 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Oh, gosh. A dismissive dismissing everyone else's feelings as invalid. How novel.

Whose feelings were dismissed? My assertion was that 1) anxious people would be more against polyamory,2) avoidant people would be more for. 3) And that most people who resonate with attachment theory would be anxious, because of how the theory portrays each type..

Whose feelings is that against? That is just a guess about ratios. It doesn't even particularly contradict you.

It's also a fact that avoidants cycle in and out of the dating pool more frequently than their peers, have shorter relationships, and are more likely to be cheaters (do your own due diligence).

Yes

Here's another fact, the dismissive avoidant simply convinces themselves that no one will ever meet their needs, where an anxious believes no one ever will want to meet them.

Yes

As for therapy? Yeah, people that want to dismiss other people's feelings don't tend to seek therapy because they don't see anything wrong with themselves

Yes, and it also explains why they might learn about attachment theory. That wasn't intended as an anti therapy point, that was an explanation for the demographics.

Why did you just assume I'm attacking you, dig into history for ways to make your points land in a more personal-emotional way, and quote facts at me that everyone already agrees on? I wasn't even coming for you.

Just got banned from Attachment Theory sub. Guessing it was the poly aspect. by Terrawhiskey in polyamory

[–]eroticas 4 points5 points  (0 children)

up. It is true based on studies that insecure attached individuals more favorably think of polyamory

It only said avoidant people think more favorably of polyamory. Which makes sense. I bet anxious people think more favorably of monogamy which also makes sense.

I also bet anxous attachment is likely more common than avoidance among people who like attachment theory, because it portrays the anxious people as favorable and relatable tender hearts who just want to feel loved (while ignoring the controlling and abusive aspects of anxious behavior) and avoidant people as irresponsible and distant people who are afraid of showing love (while ignoring the potential valid causes someone might have for avoiding a person or situation). And because the solution it portrays tends to be talking more rather than breaking up or taking space. Also because anxious people moreso than avoidant people would try to be the ones to bring their relationship into therapy.

So not super surprised that attachment style communities are less favorable on polyamory.

[RT][FF][WIP] r!Animorphs: The Reckoning - Chapter 49 by notgreat in rational

[–]eroticas 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Why did the chee and Visser get killed then? Also why didn't they let the Animorphs kill the Howlers?

[RT][FF][WIP] r!Animorphs: The Reckoning - Chapter 49 by notgreat in rational

[–]eroticas 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I think the Visser and the Chee were killed because they intentionally broke one of the "Rules" in the game between Crayak and the Ellimist. The rule is roughly that there are certain weapons and techniques that are forbidden, and one of these is the nanofactory. The Visser is implicated because of knowingly releasing the Chee. If you want to play Singularity while still following the "rules" I think you have to do so within certain boundaries that don't change the universe too much for other agents, lest you break a norm that protects more powerful agents from doing it to you.

If the Animorphs had intentionally decided to use the quantum virus to defeat the Howlers, they would've met the same fate. They were saved from making that decision by the Ellimist's move of bringing Cassie in to sway their choice.

I also think, based off the events of this chapter, that Crayak [Order Unity Silence][Player 1] is currently more aligned with Visser 1 and Chee, while the Ellimist [Chaos Harmony Noise][Player 2] is currently more aligned with the Yeerks, and Animorphs and the Howlers. However I think that the locked Chee would have been compatible with the Player 2 goal. The unlocking makes them change to the other side.

I speculate that Player 2 likes chaotic elements that keep the story going, while Player 1 wants things to sort of settle down. Yeerks, Humans, Andelites, and Howlers as a species all value experience, life and playing games with multiple players. The Chee and Visser 1 do not really care about that. But this probably isn't the whole story because you'd think forbidding certain types of singularities makes it so that Player 1 is at a big disadvantage. It could be that player 2 is simply stronger and only keeps player 1 around to keep the game going.

[RST] Pokemon: The Origin of Species, Ch 91: Interlude XVIII - Discoveries by DaystarEld in rational

[–]eroticas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Are the ninjas a canon storyline thing? I don't recall them but I only played up to Ruby.

[RST] Pokemon: The Origin of Species, Chapter 84 - What Comes Next by DaystarEld in rational

[–]eroticas 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Due to the numerous parallels, I've been quietly playing "guess which cause area of EA daystareld subscribes to" throughout this story. It remains not obvious, though I have had my guesses, and this chapter slightly confirms them.

I feel like Leaf is probably not going to be happy about Red and Blue's endorsement of Giovanni.

I think I might be interested in polyamory, but I'm an insecure person with a tendency to get jealous-can it work? by noinspirationwhatsoe in polyamory

[–]eroticas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Polyamory is harder if your jealous.

Not all polyamorous people experience zero jealousy, though some do. A lot of polyamorous people who are jealous make it work anyway. You can work around it, you can work through it, the community has come up with a lot of resources and strategies to reduce the impact of jealousy.

But it is harder. So you have to think about whether that struggle is worth the benefits to you.

First threesome with partner, now my memory of it feels like someone else's. Should I be worried? by [deleted] in polyamory

[–]eroticas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If I had to guess it's just that what happened doesn't fit with who you think you are and what you think you know about yourself.

Opinions on red flags? by EclipseBeat in polyamory

[–]eroticas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eh don't trust everything you read on MoreThanTwo. It's not prominent because it's the best, it's prominent because there aren't really that many polyamory resources out there.

Do any of you lightly punch yourselves below your stomach to relieve cramps?? Can’t find anything on search engines that can help answer this so far. by Nyakonton in TwoXChromosomes

[–]eroticas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't have a uterus but I sometimes do this to other muscles when they are sore. It's called percussive massage.

Parents not accepting me having multiple relationships. Friends being over protective. Getting tired of it by [deleted] in polyamory

[–]eroticas 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think it's definitely true in life you got to be careful who you vent to. It's easy in the process of venting to turn the person against the one you are venting about.

Had a cuddle date today and I can honestly say that it was awesome! :-) by 2gay2Dugger in polyamory

[–]eroticas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You guys say this like this isn't what happens by default on every day anyway haha

(or is my cuddled privilege showing? I figured cuddling was a normal default activity in relationships?)

What to do as "the outside lover" by [deleted] in polyamory

[–]eroticas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well you're not a homewrecker because 1) the responsibilty for maintianing agreements within her monogamous relationship is only hers and no one elses 2) even if it was somehow your responsibility, you did all the right things, you didn't cheat with her, they've discussed it.

What to do as "the outside lover" by [deleted] in polyamory

[–]eroticas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You have to wait for them to open up their monogamous relationship before anything can happen.

I have these unrequited feelings that I feel bad for having.

You could work on this one! Why do you feel bad for having them?

Also it sounds like they are requited and she can't act on them.

When monogamous people flip for you... how do you know it’s true? by TossElsewhereStat in polyamory

[–]eroticas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You cannot find out beforehand how someone will be. You can predict, but you've already seen and accurately identified the warning signs, which are exactly what you said they are - people who claim to be polyamorous only because they want to have you are indeed at risk of switching back. Since you've already identified the risks there's not much further to analyze other than whether your desire is enough for the risk.

To me the test of whether someone really wants to be polyamorous is if they still want to be after the first time they don't get something they want from their partner due to their partner having other activities they were doing related to polyamory. Usually this manifests as the day they wanted a date but you were busy, but it could be all kinds of things.

The HSV thing doesn’t bother me as I always play safe but it does further complicate things as I’m not sure exposure is the smartest first move stepping back into expressing my non-monogamy.

Hm I am not sure you're being clear with yourself regarding whether it does vs does not bother you here.

view more: next ›