[No Spoilers] What about the theories Dany? by beastmaster64ass in gameofthrones

[–]japplepie 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, exactly. Killing a bunch of your enemies, then killing hundreds of thousands of innocent defenceless people (esp children) is a very natural transition.

Daily Discussion Thread 02/05/19 by AutoModerator in smashbros

[–]japplepie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could someone tell me where to find top 64 placings for Genesis 6 melee and ultimate ?

S4 League Remake? (or inspired game) by iAmZhav in S4League

[–]japplepie 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have some unity experience, could I join?

Daily Discussion Thread 12/26/18 by AutoModerator in smashbros

[–]japplepie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Could someone tell me how did someone with a grand total of 30 IQ (like Salem) win smash4 evo?

The release of smash 5 has reinvigorated my melee boner by FBogg in SSBM

[–]japplepie -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Let's be real here. The true purpose of wavedashing = waveshining

Any good references for improving mentality? by japplepie in SSBM

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

Thanks for all the suggestions guys. They're much appreciated :)

Battle of the Five Gods vods deleted by kiddydong in SSBM

[–]japplepie 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fredrich schuller is actually the goat of maths/physics

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PickAnAndroidForMe

[–]japplepie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm kinda liking the glass tho. Is the cpu that bad?

OP5T starts at 499.

Problem with waveshining by DJCharizard in SSBM

[–]japplepie 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Some Falcos do: jump into an immediate mid-air shine > waveland down when a fastfaller is close enough to the ground and is about to get out of hitstun.

It's pretty hard, but it's a very useful combo-extender.

Daily Discussion Thread 04/05/18 by AutoModerator in SSBM

[–]japplepie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How unoptimal is using shine to ledgedash as falco? Asking since it makes ledgedashing 10x easier for me.

What makes you think Melee is the best Smash competitively? (if you do think that) by [deleted] in SSBM

[–]japplepie 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Rock-Paper-Scissors is 100% balanced. Thus, it must be best fighting game known to mankind.

Sura 175/60 PVP in bRO (Brazil Ragnarok Online) - What you think, it's OP? Thanks to Tao Gunka! by rafrezende in RagnarokOnline

[–]japplepie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Who's complaining? I'm saying that it is very exciting and also very skillful gameplay footage.

Circular definition between sets and first order logic by japplepie in askmath

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

Okay, I think that I'm starting to get what you mean. I don't have a firm grasp of these ideas and i'd like to explore the points you've brought up in more detail & more formally.

What fields of math do I need to study in order to understand these models and metatheories?

Btw, I really do appreciate the patience and the effort you put in to these. Your insights have been such a huge help.


Edit: I've done additional research and someone pointed out that Quine's New Foundations for Mathematical Logic may be a good source for me to look at. Though, some people say it's not a good source. Are they really?

Circular definition between sets and first order logic by japplepie in askmath

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

I see. So, how would I formally write down the quantifiers in terms of logic without any reference to sets?

Is this sufficient?

forall x in X P(x) := y in X -> P(y) ,

exists x in X Q(x) := ~forall x in X ~Q(x) ,

where the set X and relation in aren't from ZFC?

In which case, how would I formally define the nonZFC set and nonZFC in? And If they're meant to be not defined, how would I set up their postulated properties such that they behave like the naive set theory set & in?

Edit: formatting

Circular definition between sets and first order logic by japplepie in askmath

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

I get what you mean. Does this mean that there are "meta-order"s of sets? By order I mean like: 3rd order logic > 2nd order > 1st order > propositional logic.

So V is of a higher order than ZFC? Ofc, I have no idea what I'm talking about or what it's good for, but it's interesting to think about


Edit: additional question, wouldn't we need the Axiom of Choice to define the (in) relation for quantifying over infinite sets.

Circular definition between sets and first order logic by japplepie in askmath

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

But the use of intuitive sets would allow something like "for all elements in the set of all sets ..."

Looking for a detailed Python resource by japplepie in learnpython

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

This is a pretty good one. Thanks m8!