4-5 now means 4 and 5 instead of 4 to 5
forum
All Mathematicians Please come to this thread
posted
Total Posts
106
It is 4.00 to 5.00 type "star>=4 star<=5". But 5.49* is acceptable coz it can be rounded to 5 using standard rules any higher is considered 6 star just consult with lobby first.B1rd wrote:
4.0-5.0*, or 4.0-5.99*, or something else entirely?
Where is mathexpert when we need him?
oh god khelly you created a monster
Someone ask https://osu.ppy.sh/u/Cirno - she made perfect math class so will know for sure 
I think the root of the problem is how osu! sorts beatmaps from x.5-X.5. Why wasn't it sorted from x.01 to X.99?
At least Cirno can count better than Microsoft, amirite?[Taiga] wrote:
Someone ask https://osu.ppy.sh/u/Cirno - she made perfect math class so will know for sure
That has nothing to do with math. That's purely an implementation choice. Last time I checked Peppy is a software developer and not a Mathematician...The Gambler wrote:
I think the root of the problem is how osu! sorts beatmaps from x.5-X.5. Why wasn't it sorted from x.01 to X.99?
The notation 4-5* has got absolutely nothing to do with math either.
why is this still going, someone make a poll
why is this still going, someone make a poll
If all mathematicians are this snotty, it's a wonder anyone would want to be near them at all!chainpullz wrote:
P.S. https://xkcd.com/435/ there's a reason why we stay way the fuck away from all of you people
I think you'd be offended too if everyone and their grandmother pretended to be an expert on your subject and spouted off nonsense about it all the time. It's like programmers calling themselves software "engineers." If bridges, nuclear reactors, space shuttles, cars, air planes, chemical plants, etc. failed with the same frequency that software did half of us would probably be dead by now. Real engineers don't justify catastrophic failure with "oh, we'll fix that in the next patch," they get it right the first fucking time.GhostFrog wrote:
If all mathematicians are this snotty, it's a wonder anyone would want to be near them at all!chainpullz wrote:
P.S. https://xkcd.com/435/ there's a reason why we stay way the fuck away from all of you people
#notruescotsmanchainpullz wrote:
I think you'd be offended too if everyone and their grandmother pretended to be an expert on your subject and spouted off nonsense about it all the time. It's like programmers calling themselves software "engineers." If bridges, nuclear reactors, space shuttles, cars, air planes, chemical plants, etc. failed with the same frequency that software did half of us would probably be dead by now. Real engineers don't justify catastrophic failure with "oh, we'll fix that in the next patch," they get it right the first fucking time.
Did anyone in this thread pretend to be an expert on math? This was clearly not actually meant to be a thread specifically for mathematicians and it should come as no surprise that lots of non-mathematicians came to the thread to argue silly mathematical interpretations. Perhaps a more suitable response to this thread would have been to calmly explain the actual mathematical side of things.
I do have to wonder though...you seem pretty sure that "my subject" isn't math. What gives you this impression?
just don't pick newbie maps and everything will be good
Of all the other people in this thread you are actually the most likely candidate for actually knowing what you are talking about judging only on what you wrote.. I deliberately left that statement out knowing that the average G&R reader would misconstrue it as agreeing with someone who shares the same view as opposed to agreeing with someone who shares the correct view.GhostFrog wrote:
#notruescotsmanchainpullz wrote:
I think you'd be offended too if everyone and their grandmother pretended to be an expert on your subject and spouted off nonsense about it all the time. It's like programmers calling themselves software "engineers." If bridges, nuclear reactors, space shuttles, cars, air planes, chemical plants, etc. failed with the same frequency that software did half of us would probably be dead by now. Real engineers don't justify catastrophic failure with "oh, we'll fix that in the next patch," they get it right the first fucking time.
Did anyone in this thread pretend to be an expert on math? This was clearly not actually meant to be a thread specifically for mathematicians and it should come as no surprise that lots of non-mathematicians came to the thread to argue silly mathematical interpretations. Perhaps a more suitable response to this thread would have been to calmly explain the actual mathematical side of things.
I do have to wonder though...you seem pretty sure that "my subject" isn't math. What gives you this impression?
The Gambler wrote:
I think the root of the problem is how osu! sorts beatmaps from x.5-X.5. Why wasn't it sorted from x.01 to X.99?
It's actually X.49 to (X+1).49
Get it right
E m i
The way I see it
The way I see it, you're talking about 4 stars TO 5 stars
So 4.0-5.0 imho
If you say specifically 5 stars, then you probably mean AROUND 5 stars, which could be, idk, 4.8-5.2 or something, unless you specify exactly 5 stars
The way I see it, you're talking about 4 stars TO 5 stars
So 4.0-5.0 imho
If you say specifically 5 stars, then you probably mean AROUND 5 stars, which could be, idk, 4.8-5.2 or something, unless you specify exactly 5 stars
Different people have different opinions about this subject so
Case closed
or don't multi at all.DeathAdderz wrote:
just make a room and don't rotate host. Therefore the title will always be right for you.
Case closed
4* isn't a value to me, it's all maps that have at least 4 whole stars but not more than 5
4.0 is a value to me
4.0 is a value to me
Topic Starter
4 and 4.0 are actually the same thing. Even with an asterisk.
hai haiDeathAdderz wrote:
or don't multi at all.
Case closed
"5 stars" is ambiguous as it is either short hand for "maps in a 5 star \delta neighborhood," "maps of at least 5 stars," or simply it's literal meaning of "5 stars."Mahogany wrote:
If you say specifically 5 stars, then you probably mean AROUND 5 stars, which could be, idk, 4.8-5.2 or something, unless you specify exactly 5 stars
Maps in a 5 star \delta neighborhood: B_{\delta}(x) = {y \in \R | (x-\delta) <= y <= (x+\delta)}. In this case \delta is usually taken to be .5 so that the neighborhoods form a partition on \R.
Maps of at least 5 stars: {y \in \R | y >= 5}
5 star maps: {5}
The issue is that using either of the first two interpretations makes no sense in the context of endpoints of an interval which is why "5*" is ambiguous but "4*-5*" is not.
Only tangentially related to your comment but the integer 4 , the rational number 4, the real number 4, etc. are all set theoretically different. This isn't an issue here because 4 and 4.0 are both valid ways of expressing the same four (WoLoG assuming 4.0 has meaning).B1rd wrote:
4 and 4.0 are actually the same thing. Even with an asterisk.
B1rd wrote:
4 and 4.0 are actually the same thing. Even with an asterisk.
No. With an asterisk 4* means to me "4 star maps" not " a four point 0 star map"
3.50-5.49 I'd say
E m i
The only difference between Khelly's inclusion of all fractions and the usual rounding is that he places the entire 0.99999... star error on one side instead of evenly distributing it. It doesn't make it more correct that the resulting range starts with the number it was derived from, it just has more potential to be annoying (in multiplayer, or wherever else)
I think 4.0-5.0 is the correct one, but it doesn't matter much because the addition of a flexible margin of error would make it practical instead.
I think 4.0-5.0 is the correct one, but it doesn't matter much because the addition of a flexible margin of error would make it practical instead.
Why can't you think of an average 4 star map as 4.5 stars then? With easy 4 star maps being like 4.2 or some shit and hard ones being 4.8, 4.9
E m i
This is no problem to me because to me a 4 star map must have 4 full stars but no more than 5. I SAID THIS ALREADYMomiji wrote:
Because they are all values intermediate to 4 and 5 heheKhelly wrote:
Why can't you think of an average 4 star map as 4.5 stars then? With easy 4 star maps being like 4.2 or some shit and hard ones being 4.8, 4.9
I have no idea what the fuck you're saying, but in my opinion the problem is people not being specific as to what they're saying, not using words like "around" "higher than" "below" and such which creates such ambiguity that everyone argues over.chainpullz wrote:
"5 stars" is ambiguous as it is either short hand for "maps in a 5 star \delta neighborhood," "maps of at least 5 stars," or simply it's literal meaning of "5 stars."
Maps in a 5 star \delta neighborhood: B_{\delta}(x) = {y \in \R | (x-\delta) <= y <= (x+\delta)}. In this case \delta is usually taken to be .5 so that the neighborhoods form a partition on \R.
Maps of at least 5 stars: {y \in \R | y >= 5}
5 star maps: {5}.
True, Khelly, the problem is that 4-5 reads as 4 to 5 which means that it starts at 4 and ends at 5.
Or differently spoken:
if expression = "x to y"
then
x:=limes inferior, lowest boundary
y:=limes superior, highest boundary
with the assumption that both numbers are exact numerical values (because it doesn't make sense to NOT give exact numerical values as you elaborated previously) which equals to either of these intervals:
(4;5)
(4;5]
[4;5)
[4;5]
Or differently spoken:
if expression = "x to y"
then
x:=limes inferior, lowest boundary
y:=limes superior, highest boundary
with the assumption that both numbers are exact numerical values (because it doesn't make sense to NOT give exact numerical values as you elaborated previously) which equals to either of these intervals:
(4;5)
(4;5]
[4;5)
[4;5]
E m i
yeah it's not like i omitted it or anything but i felt like answering specifically for myself xd
what's the difference between a 5 star 5.00 map, 5 star 5.01 map, 5 star 5.99 map, and 5 star 6.01(yes) map?
to be both correct and practical i'd say that all three last ones are wrong, but still go off the idea that what is not constant for them is how mad people will get at me for picking them in a 4-5 star lobby.
which is why there will be no clear boundary for me, I will just gradually feel worse for picking something above like 5.15-5.3 stars
despite being really unrelated to the "math" portion it's really important i think
edit: riince notice me
what's the difference between a 5 star 5.00 map, 5 star 5.01 map, 5 star 5.99 map, and 5 star 6.01(yes) map?
to be both correct and practical i'd say that all three last ones are wrong, but still go off the idea that what is not constant for them is how mad people will get at me for picking them in a 4-5 star lobby.
which is why there will be no clear boundary for me, I will just gradually feel worse for picking something above like 5.15-5.3 stars
despite being really unrelated to the "math" portion it's really important i think
edit: riince notice me
Topic Starter
Who are you calling 'they'? And I was being somewhat ironic with the OP if you didn't notice.chainpullz wrote:
FFS people, OP didn't ask for a scientist or programmer, they asked for a mathematician. I seriously question everybody's backgrounds here as I doubt any of you actually qualify as a mathematician.
4 = 4.0Khelly wrote:
No. With an asterisk 4* means to me "4 star maps" not " a four point 0 star map"B1rd wrote:
4 and 4.0 are actually the same thing. Even with an asterisk.
* stands for stars. It is not a number modifier. It does not change the value of 4 in any way. 4* does not mean 4 to 4.99* any more than 4 apples means 4 to 4.99 apples.
I don't care if green is blue to you, I'm just stating what is. At least, that is my understanding of maths.
And you're not reading 4* as a short hand for "Four stars" or "Four star maps" where "Four star maps" is actually a range of map difficulties?
I'm not talking about 4-5. I'm talking about 4*-5*Endaris wrote:
True, Khelly, the problem is that 4-5 reads as 4 to 5 which means that it starts at 4 and ends at 5.
E m i
I love it when people start throwing around scientific bullshit in a discussion that is purely about one's personal view on a notation.
Just use a clearer notation, Jesus. I didn't think this thread was meant "seriously" but if it wasn't it quickly turned that way.
Just use a clearer notation, Jesus. I didn't think this thread was meant "seriously" but if it wasn't it quickly turned that way.
That's the same as the stars being left away is just a shortcut used due to a common background on what could be adressed with "4-5"
@Saphirshroom: xddd
I'm surprised this isn't locked yet.
@Saphirshroom: xddd
I'm surprised this isn't locked yet.
This is why we have something called "significant digits".
or you can ask and pray for the developers to add an interface which gives room hosts an option to show the range of difficulty intended for the room, instead of just slapping arbitrary integers at the title name
I swear there will be no debate anymore if this happens
I swear there will be no debate anymore if this happens
Why can't there be a room host and a mini-host that can only select maps?Arthraxium wrote:
or you can ask and pray for the developers to add an interface which gives room hosts an option to show the range of difficulty intended for the room, instead of just slapping arbitrary integers at the title name
Why does the host have to actually rotate?
There's a feature request like this :>Khelly wrote:
Why can't there be a room host and a mini-host that can only select maps?Arthraxium wrote:
or you can ask and pray for the developers to add an interface which gives room hosts an option to show the range of difficulty intended for the room, instead of just slapping arbitrary integers at the title name
Why does the host have to actually rotate?