4.00-5.00
I will assume it's a 4.00-5.99 if the room title is like "4 stars and 5 stars". But if "4 to 5 stars" I will assume that it's a 4.00-5.00.Believe it or not, I'm quite good with mathematics
Why would 4* mean 3.01 and not 4.00+? That doesn't make sense. Any map 3.99 or below does NOT have 4 stars.Endaris wrote:
4.0-5.0 with a margin of tolerance of like 0.25. For some psychological reason people will always pick closer to the higher number because they don't want to look like having small balls or something, i don't know. That's why it effectively plays out like 4.1-5.5*.
I don't know. Just use decimals.
You don't make sense, Khelly, it would be 3.01 to 5.99 if anything.
There can be no margin of tolerance. Even if you allow 0.1 star more it just becomes a slippery slope.Endaris wrote:
4.0-5.0 with a margin of tolerance of like 0.25. For some psychological reason people will always pick closer to the higher number because they don't want to look like having small balls or something, i don't know. That's why it effectively plays out like 4.1-5.5*.
I don't know. Just use decimals.
You don't make sense, Khelly, it would be 3.01 to 5.99 if anything.
Oh god finally some fucking common sense[Taiga] wrote:
4.00-5.00
HK_ wrote:
it means 4.00000000000000000000000000000000...1-4.99999999999999999999999999999999999...*
ThisKhelly wrote:
Why would 4* mean 3.01 and not 4.00+? That doesn't make sense. Any map 3.99 or below does NOT have 4 stars.Endaris wrote:
4.0-5.0 with a margin of tolerance of like 0.25. For some psychological reason people will always pick closer to the higher number because they don't want to look like having small balls or something, i don't know. That's why it effectively plays out like 4.1-5.5*.
I don't know. Just use decimals.
You don't make sense, Khelly, it would be 3.01 to 5.99 if anything.
Oh, so this is a full meme thread.B1rd wrote:
There can be no margin of tolerance. Even if you allow 0.1 star more it just becomes a slippery slope.
I don't even get what you're trying to say.Endaris wrote:
@Khelly: So you are some fucking compiler that is too stupid to round numbers when converting to integer. gg
Here I can do non-notation tooN0thingSpecial wrote:
I don't think maths even play a role in this topic lol since we're not using proper mathematical annotations in the first place
Every single compiler of every relevant programming language ever truncates when casting floating point to integers and doesn't round. (Also, this is the exact reason why I too think that 4-5* means 4.0 to 5.99.)Endaris wrote:
@Khelly: So you are some fucking compiler that is too stupid to round numbers when converting to integer. gg
Endaris wrote:
Or they use the definition by the difficulty-grouping and think it is 3.5-5.5
4*-5* maps -> 4.00 to 4.99You don't exclude last number in stack. Same as you cannot exclude first number from it.
I mistyped there 5.99 as 4.99 then I changed it to 5.00 because you confused me.[Taiga] wrote:
4*-5* maps -> 4.00 to 4.99You don't exclude last number in stack. Same as you cannot exclude first number from it.
[4* - 5* ] = {4.00, 4.01, 4.02, ... , 4.98, 4.99, 5.00}
xdB1rd wrote:
There is a very complicated mathematical and philosophical problem that needs to be solved.
Consider calculating the arithmetic mean of 4 and 5 as the sup and inf of our setArthraxium wrote:
Are we done?
Wow.Arthraxium wrote:
Are we done?
Arthraxium wrote:
I don't multi, so I'm all gud.
Good idea. I will follow your example.Arthraxium wrote:
I don't multi, so I'm all gud.
4-5 typically translates to [4,5] \in \R unless you say "4-5 exclusive" in which case it translates to (4,5). So no, anything >5 would not be included.B1rd wrote:
There is a very complicated mathematical and philosophical problem that needs to be solved.
That is, does 4-5*, as in the context of the title for a multiplayer lobby mean 4.0-5.0*, or 4.0-5.99*, or something else entirely?
This needs to be solved once and for all. Let the debate begin.
If only there was a way to put this equation in the lobby name.Arthraxium wrote:
.
We are most certainly not done. You haven't even defined f(x)! As near as I can tell, you intend for f(x) to be a many-valued function that takes on as values all maps with star ratings equal to the argument. From there, we have to define some sort of ordering on the set of maps in order to make sense of the interval. I guess the obvious choice is to consider all maps of the same star rating to be members of an equivalence class and then using the standard total order on real numbers over the star rating associated with each equivalence class.Arthraxium wrote:
Are we done?