Forum

Quoted from AnimaL

[…]this is why I suck at making my builds in any RPG

It is also why I don’t like such RPGs, I want to play, not figure out how to optimize a build. (although in my case it would be figuring out EVs and IVs of my pokémon and maximizing them, took all the fun out of it, but I couldn’t get myself to play with any less optimal setup…)

Quoted from Casual

[…]

It is also why I don’t like such RPGs, I want to play, not figure out how to optimize a build. (although in my case it would be figuring out EVs and IVs of my pokémon and maximizing them, took all the fun out of it, but I couldn’t get myself to play with any less optimal setup…)

Well, surely if to you x+x=2x warrants its own line in the context of a calculation (in which btw x is completely unnecessary) then figuring out if better hit chance or more +damage is better to maximize your DPS must seem like a Herculean task.

Quoted from Schmuse

[…]
Well, surely if to you x+x=2x warrants its own line in the context of a calculation (in which btw x is completely unnecessary) then figuring out if better hit chance or more +damage is better to maximize your DPS must seem like a Herculean task.

Unless you predefined the height of a normal jump as 1 the x is necessary to represent the jump height.

Quoted from Schmuse

[…]
That’s the wrong way to think about it, what I would actually be doing is setting the unit of length to the non-double-jump height of the Scout. Btw a more natural scale of the problem would actually be to define the unit of length to be the full double-jump height, or “x=0.5” in your terms.
What I was actually arguing for was that since the final result is a dimensionless quantity, you can just ignore scales completely.

I’m fine with ignoring scales in this case, but you still have to either define the as 1 [unit of scale] if you didn’t define it as x. That’s what I mean’t with “Unless you predefined the height of a normal jump as 1 [unit of scale]”.

To go back to your full previous statement “Well, surely if to you x+x=2x warrants its own line in the context of a calculation (in which btw x is completely unnecessary)” : x+x=2x indeed warrants it’s own line in the context of a proof otherwise it would be incomplete.

Defining an arbitrary unit is never more natural than defining another arbitrary unit. Defining the height of the double jump as 1 for a direct comparision of the total jump height might go well with your way of thinking, but for someone constructing a proof the other way round it might seem completely absurd, so they define the height of a single jump as 1 for easier comparision of the normal and heightened single jump.

Seeing something that better fits your line of thought as more natural might be natural for you or a lot of other humans, but that doesn’t mean that your way of thinking seems natural to any other person. The only reason why two different persons might think alike and therefore each others line of thoughts seems natural to the other one is that they both live in the same world so they might have experienced the same conditions in a similar way.

You didn’t even consider this and just arbitrarily defined your way of thinking as “more natural”. We can even take this one step further: The way of solving the problem doesn’t have to be “more natural” for the one solving the problem to be “more natural”, it could also be more similar to the nature of the problem itself to be “more natural”. In other words why wouldn’t be the units of the world the problem comes from “more natural” than arbitrarily defined ones? Why aren’t hammer units “more natural”?

Never tell someone (who even came to the same conclusion) that his way of thinking is wrong. Claiming that your way of thinking is the only right one, do you know the implications of this?

Quoted from Setsul

[…]
I’m fine with ignoring scales in this case, but you still have to either define the as 1 [unit of scale] if you didn’t define it as x. That’s what I mean’t with “Unless you predefined the height of a normal jump as 1 [unit of scale]”.

Unit of LENGTH.

To go back to your full previous statement “Well, surely if to you x+x=2x warrants its own line in the context of a calculation (in which btw x is completely unnecessary)” : x+x=2x indeed warrants it’s own line in the context of a proof otherwise it would be incomplete.

The proof is ACTUALLY incomplete because he never defined what x is (number, vector or whatever rank tensor would all fit x+x=2x). That’s what an actual mathematician would complain about in the very first line.
You understood x to be a number without question, so surely 2x=x+x (the defining property of multiplying a number something by 2) is NOT needed in the calculation.

Defining an arbitrary unit is never more natural than defining another arbitrary unit.
[…]Seeing something that better fits your line of thought as more natural might be natural for you or a lot of other humans, but that doesn’t mean that your way of thinking seems natural to any other person. The only reason why two different persons might think alike and therefore each others line of thoughts seems natural to the other one is that they both live in the same world so they might have experienced the same conditions in a similar way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_unit
Ofc units can be natural if we use outside facts to define them.

This is not as pronounced in this case, though, but I would still argue since literally nobody was interested in the extra height gained relative to a single jump, using the full (w/o Winger) jump height is the obvious choice.

The way of solving the problem doesn’t have to be “more natural” for the one solving the problem to be “more natural”, it could also be more similar to the nature of the problem itself to be “more natural”. In other words why wouldn’t be the units of the world the problem comes from “more natural” than arbitrarily defined ones? Why aren’t hammer units “more natural”?

Yea, that’s just gibberish…

Claiming that your way of thinking is the only right one, do you know the implications of this?

I didn’t you’re making shit up now. Good time for me to quit.

Setsul often tends to make things more difficult than they are and he also talks more than a girl.

Well, I was trying to explain the maths of this particular problem to someone who didn’t seem to have great understanding of it.

The line x + x = 2x is really important later on, when we want to know ‘how many times higher than a normal jump is it, it also serves as a simple start that everyone can follow, so the next part becomes easier to understand.

After that I explain that the jump height for a winger jump naturally follows from the previous template, multiply both Xes with 1.25 (I actually didn’t explain this properly, but EVERY TIME you see a stat+Y%, it always means stat*(Y%+1) which means stat*(Y/100+1), the addition is actually really confusing).

I mainly wanted establish a simple pattern and add to it, slowly increasing the complexity while keeping it easy to understand.

At the end I show how you can compute the +% increase stat (divide new stat by old stat, subtract 1 because we’re going back to the confusing +% notation).

Schmuse, you are correct but missing the point. That is all :)