Spring RTS Engine

MODERATOR NOTE -- split from:
http://spring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=13099

smoth wrote:

Caydr wrote:But for the love of everything good and just, please make sure all changes are properly documented in changelog.txt. Please, please please, it's really important.

I am backing up caydr here, we have too many features that are undocumented.

And I am tripling that.

I'm dividing it by 2, so we have 1.5 votes now!

no no!! it's 3 votes now, (2*3)/2 = 3

No, I'm pretty sure normal interpretation leads either to 3 votes, or 1+1*3=4 votes before the halving. Not 6.

lurker wrote:No, I'm pretty sure normal interpretation leads either to 3 votes, or 1+1*3=4 votes before the halving. Not 6.

No, no, it's ((1+1)*3)/3 = 4.
It's left-to-right, not order of operations, because each step was carried out separately.

where did the /3 come from? and how did you end up with 4?
you've got some pretty advanced maths skills there ^^
how about we just divide by 0 and leave it at that?

thesleepless wrote:where did the /3 come from? and how did you end up with 4?
you've got some pretty advanced maths skills there ^^
how about we just divide by 0 and leave it at that?

Shhhh, apparently I'm not so great at thinking.

I like the /0 option. Makes more sense to me.

theHive wrote:

lurker wrote:No, I'm pretty sure normal interpretation leads either to 3 votes, or 1+1*3=4 votes before the halving. Not 6.

No, no, it's ((1+1)*3)/3 = 4.
It's left-to-right, not order of operations, because each step was carried out separately.

I disagree. Noruas said 'I a tripling that' in direct response to smoth's adding a vote. So he either would be tripling smoth's vote, or he is triplifying the entire thing with a third vote. If smoth had said something about there being two votes, then you could apply tripling to it, but I see it as the least likely of the three versions when in a direct reply to smoth's single vote.

Whoever split this was silly and put it in development

May I have more soup?

lurker wrote:

theHive wrote:

lurker wrote:No, I'm pretty sure normal interpretation leads either to 3 votes, or 1+1*3=4 votes before the halving. Not 6.

No, no, it's ((1+1)*3)/3 = 4.
It's left-to-right, not order of operations, because each step was carried out separately.

I disagree. Noruas said 'I a tripling that' in direct response to smoth's adding a vote. So he either would be tripling smoth's vote, or he is triplifying the entire thing with a third vote. If smoth had said something about there being two votes, then you could apply tripling to it, but I see it as the least likely of the three versions when in a direct reply to smoth's single vote.

Ok, ignoring my obvious maths retardation (6/3=4?), I take the addition operation from smoth's vote being added, immediately, to Caydr's, which is then tripled by Noruas, giving 6, which is then divided by 2 (in bold to show that I can get it right sometimes), giving 3.
((1+1) * 3) / 2 = 3

Although, I can't remember the format before the split, and whether Noruas has quoted both smoth and Caydr, as it is now, therefore I am presuming he did.

Another variable would be that Caydr and smoth did not apply values to their support, so they should really be variables, coming out as:
((x+y) * 3) / 2 = 1.5(x+y)

Did you not read my post? I said that I knew what you thought, but I found it unlikely.

lurker wrote:Did you not read my post? I said that I knew what you thought, but I found it unlikely.

Yeah I read it, I just wanted to write something to show I'm not completely retarded, mathematically.

Anywho, I think we're done now.

We have streflop for a reason...

It seems part of the problem is in interpreting the first statement in the series, namely Caydr's. There are 3 possible interpretations (of any sort of logical significance): Caydr is in support of it, Caydr is against it, or Caydr is neutral to it. Caydr's language clearly displays that he was in support of the proposition stated (by him).

Now, lets look at the nature of what counts as a vote. It is clear that we all agree that Smoth's statement is a vote, as well as Noruas'. This means that we are accepting implicit votes as well as explicit votes, since neither was worded as an explicit vote for it, but rather as a statement in support of it.

Finally, we should consider whether or not the one who brought up the idea to be voted on is allowed to vote on it. I'd like to see someone show there is valid cause to deny him his vote. Personal bias doesn't preclude it any more than it does in any other publicly held vote. (Logical analysis of common sense statements are typically rather long-winded, so I shall spare you).

Now, taking these three things together - Caydr was in support of of the proposition, implicit votes of mere support are accepted as valid votes, and Caydr is allowed to have a vote - we come to the conclusion that Smoth and Caydr count as two votes.

From this we can finally move to the mathematics. Caydr and Smoth result in votes 1 + 1. Now, Noruas quoted smoth as well as smoth's quote of Caydr, that can only be interpreted as him putting parenthesis around there votes. (If he hadn't included quotes at all, we would have to interpret it one post to the next as well. If he had quoted only smoth, then we could count him as only modifying smoth's vote) Explicitly, we are looking at a situation like this ((1) + 1) ? 3.
I place a question mark as some doubt was raised as to the nature of meaning of tripling. In word mathematics, tripling always refers to multiplication by 3, not adding 1 to 2. Interpreting it any other way is inconsistent, you cannot assume someone used a meaning that is both extremely unlikely and simply wrong when analyzing their statement. Thus, ((1) + 1) * 3 is the most accurate interpretation of those first 3 posts, or equivalently (1 + 1) * 3.

Now, jcnossen does not place a quote to indicate a limited extent for his input to affect, leaving us with having to group it off from the rest as the fairest interpretation. Thus, ((1+1)*3) / 2 = 3.

A weaker interpretation, following closer to lurker's interpretation but removing the inconsistencies and logical fallacies while avoiding introduction of interpretive inconsistency, would be 1 + 1 * 3 / 2 = 1 + 1.5 = 2.5. Note that this just strips contextual interpretation leaving the raw string of numbers.

wow

Nice try, Archangel, but you forgot to carry the two!

What can I say? The semester ended Monday and I'm halfway to bored out of my mind.

You forgot the RPN, Archangel..


Second to last: 1 1 + 3 * 2 /
Last: 1 1 3 * 2 / +

Archangel of Death wrote:What can I say? The semester ended Monday and I'm halfway to bored out of my mind.

Hey, that's exactly how I got involved in this too!