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
forum
All Mathematicians Please come to this thread
posted
Total Posts
106
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?
Wait, since when did we have to rotate hosts? Usually we stick to one guy until he exhausts his beatmap playlist then move on to the next one.Khelly wrote:
Why does the host have to actually rotate?
Jokes on you, I have a near inexhaustible supply of above average beatmaps to pull from. Would take a few days to run me dry.The Gambler wrote:
Wait, since when did we have to rotate hosts? Usually we stick to one guy until he exhausts his beatmap playlist then move on to the next one.Khelly wrote:
Why does the host have to actually rotate?
chainpullz wrote:
Jokes on you, I have a near inexhaustible supply of above average beatmaps to pull from. Would take a few days to run me dry.
Edit: And that's after deleting pretty much all of the tv-sizes off my hard drive.
Is this a thread about improving game skills or debating about calculations and values?
yesRilene wrote:
Is this a thread about improving game skills or debating about calculations and values?
This person smells of a logician.Kaienyuu wrote:
yesRilene wrote:
Is this a thread about improving game skills or debating about calculations and values?
niceigetitKaienyuu wrote:
yesRilene wrote:
Is this a thread about improving game skills or debating about calculations and values?
Neither.Rilene wrote:
Is this a thread about improving game skills or debating about calculations and values?
this is a thread for shitposting because case is already closed. Look at my post earlier
we are probably better with philosophers rather than mathematicians at this point.
Or, we should get a lvl 80 wizard, they usually know their shit.
Or, we should get a lvl 80 wizard, they usually know their shit.
Mathematicians come pretty close to lvl 80 wizards depending on what field they're working in.
7 pages and no Riince reply yet
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
f
u
c
k
Kappa
7 pages and no Riince reply yet
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
f
u
c
k
Kappa
7 pages and no Full Tablet reply yet
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
f
u
c
k
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
f
u
c
k
Blablabla
EDIT:
All this discussion is going nowhere and I'm sure most of you realized it. All of it started on something edgy and turned to something off topic and I'm even not going to talk about the two last pages where I can't just can't quote something relevant.
For those asking for the one true answer, there isn't one and you know it since the beginning.
If you just want to talk about mathematics General Discussion is a nice place.
EDIT:
All this discussion is going nowhere and I'm sure most of you realized it. All of it started on something edgy and turned to something off topic and I'm even not going to talk about the two last pages where I can't just can't quote something relevant.
For those asking for the one true answer, there isn't one and you know it since the beginning.
B1rd wrote:
There is a very complicated mathematical and philosophical problem that needs to be solved.
If you just want to talk about mathematics General Discussion is a nice place.