Guild Wars 2

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

Sadly your disagreement would indicate that you will never understand the toast: “Here’s to pure mathematics—may it never be of any use to anybody.” And, I consider that a failure of mathematics in education.

What about the other toast, “The journey is more important than the destination.”

Go learn about the history behind the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem. The result itself is basically meaningless, but because of the elegance of the proposed theorem and the inability to come up with a counterexample, much uncharted territory of mathematics was explored and uncovered in an attempt to get closer to the proof. [b]By the time the actual proof was finalized, these uncharted areas gave rise to applications reaching far beyond the confines of “pure” math.

Mathematics education is not about memorizing properties and what they do. It is about practicing, experiencing, and mastering the logic that flows naturally behind everything, inside and outside of math itself.

I’d say that in light of the above, your edit seems rather pointless to address at this point.

Your challenge for me to take a proposition remains open until you directly address the function f(x) = -(x^2-4)^2 I proposed. Are there not multiple ways to optimize (maximize) this function? You keep running to the “x=4” equation that was not offered by me, and with nothing to do with the discussion between the two of us.

PS: Before you continue to presumptively bottleneck me within the confines of Pure Math, understand also that I graduated with minors in Statistics and Computer Science (having been a TA for a university C++ course in Grade 10). I think I should know a little something about Applied Math. I hoped you could tell from the contents of my posts themselves, but it seems evident that you label (limit) people by the scope of their education.

There was no point at which I addressed a function as it had no bearing at any point in the discussion. We don’t need recourse to a function of x to understand builds and their demonstrated value in this game. And, it is simply not of the nature of the simple algebraic equation that was raised in the thread and that I addressed. How a function functions is a non sequitur in terms of the current thread. We are talking about builds and their perceived value in this game.

You, more and more, are appealing to authority, i.e., your mathematics education (see above), which I have shown is deficient, and which would indicate insecurity in your position. I won’t say argument as you haven’s made one.. “bottleneck me within the confines of Pure Math” Where, exactly did that occur in our discussion? Bizarre.

Have you considered a propositional statement I have made and demonstrated that it is wrong. If so, I haven’t seen it.

Raine.1394:

You, more and more, are appealing to authority, i.e., your mathematics education

The first and last person to appeal to authority has been you.

“bottleneck me within the confines of Pure Math” Where, exactly did that occur in our discussion?

Perhaps with this epic “toast” (re-quoted below) which I believe has been blown up completely by my “counter-toast”? Forgive me for coming to the conclusion that you were labeling (and thus limiting) people based on their disclosed education level and experiences. I thus made the conclusion that it was necessary to postscript (not preface like you) my posts further detailing my educational experiences.

Raine.1394:

Sadly your disagreement would indicate that you will never understand the toast: “Here’s to pure mathematics—may it never be of any use to anybody.” And, I consider that a failure of mathematics in education.

Have you considered a propositional statement I have made and demonstrated that it is wrong. If so, I haven’t seen it.

Welp, we can start with the fundamentals

Raine.1394:

op·ti·mal
?äpt?m?l
adjective
best or most favorable; optimum.

While this is an appropriate definition in the context of the English language, “best” and “most favorable” remain subjective and of little value in the context of math.

Let’s now move a bit further.

Raine.1394:

I’ve studied math, sorry, but we never once talked about an optimal solution to an algebraic expression.

A function is an algebraic expression. That you’ve never talked about an optimal solution (often defined as a minimum or maximum) to a function says quite a bit about your claims (or even your studies of math).

You can say that “x = 2 and x = -2” are optimal solutions to maximize the function f(x) = -(x^2 – 4)^2, or you can say that the statement “x = 2 and x = -2 are optimal solutions to maximize f(x) = -(x^2 – 4)^2” is true.

On to your egocentric line of ridicule to Weth who was using a perfectly fine and widely accepted term

Raine.1394:

And, I don’t know maths. I know math. (Do you really call it maths?)

So far you’ve disregarded the importance of commonly agreed-upon axioms (definitions), made sweeping false statements about basic principles, and demonstrated your (unqualified) egocentric condescension.

No, you do not get to dodge definitions (objective ones, not subjective) and axioms by referencing your one semester as an English major. At least commit the fallacy properly if you’re going to do so.

Wrong I never talked about a function as I said. I was talking about a simple algegraic exrpesssion of the nature of x=4. And, the solution or solution set would never be optimal, simply true or false. Read the definition of optimal, I’ve quoted the cheapo version several times. And, I have said this repeatedly. And, why did I choose this nature of expression? Simply because that is what was originally presented to me.

“So far you’ve disregarded the importance of commonly agreed-upon axioms (definitions), made sweeping false statements about basic principles, and demonstrated your (unqualified) egocentric condescension.”

You neglected to mentiion where I fell guilty of any of this, again, you are just making assertions, an obvious common problem with you. You are rather light on actual argument for a supposed mathematician.

@DaveGan, You still haven’t done it, have you. You haven’t shown that anything that
I have said is in error. Just pointing it out here. Would you like to have another go at it?

I never talked about a function as I said. I was talking about a simple algegraic exrpesssion

No. You talked about (all) algebraic expressions in your math studies. And given that functions are algebraic expressions, I have found a single and sufficient counterexample to your sweeping claim.

And, the solution or solution set would never be optimal, simply true or false.

Solutions are true/false. Values for variables can be optimal. You can say “x = 2 or x = -2” or “2 and -2 are are optimal values for x to maximize f(x)”

You haven’t shown that anything that I have said is in error.

I just did, and I’ve done so multiple times. I’ve concluded that as you do not hold the basic principles of logic as one of your core values, we do not have the necessary shared logic base to continue this discussion.

EDIT: I suppose I’ll summarize everything here.

• Optimum is based on maximizing or minimizing some objective value (DPS, clear time, etc).
• This value is a function based independent variables like group stats
• The function is continuous and bounded, so a single unique maximum and minimum must exist
• However, there may be multiple ways to reach this min/max
• There is zero practical difference between “Stats A and Stats B are both optimal, thus both meta” and “The meta is the set {Stats A, Stats B}”

I’ve only talked, in context, about the expression I was discussing. Read my posts. The context was always an algebraic experssion of the nature of x=4. (I simplified it to capture the nature from Nevet’s original equation.) Again, I’ve said this repeatedly. Values for X will never be optimal as the best choice among many, there simply aren’t many choices, they will simply be true or false. There is no optimal solution, by definition, for an equation of this nature as there aren’t any alternate options to a simple true or false. This should be self-evident.

And, in this context it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about values of x being optimal. There is no optimal value for x. The equation simply becomes true or false for differing values of x. Understanding this, however, does require a mathematical mind.

And, look, this is rather straightforward,, how many threads do you see about zerker stats being predominant in terms of gearing choices? That is, I got kicked because I wasn’t zerker? And, as I’ve mentioned the math is already done for you in many threads. How many appear complaining about or even discussing multiple optimal equivalent gearing choices in the game? Why is that? Is there zero difference between soldier’s (A) and zerker (B)? Are stats A and B both optimal under given current game performance criteria? A simple consideration of correspondence to reality will reveal all to you. I won’t endeavor to explain this to you again. You will either understand it or not; it’s not about like or dislike it’s about what is and what is not.

I never talked about equations. I talked about functions. Nevet talked about equations. Please stop trying to rebut Nevet when talking to me.

We agree that equations cannot be optimized. Functions can. This extends to in-game functions such as “group DPS” or “completion time”, all functions that include “gear stats” as an independent variable.

We agree that the current meta is generally unique (zerker). That the current meta is unique does not prove that the meta must necessarily always be unique. It’s like saying that “It is always dark outside because it is dark outside now.”

Perhaps my function f(x) = -(x^2 – 4)^2 was too complex for you.

Perhaps the Intermediate Value Theorem (tl;dr—A difference of 0 must exist when we know of the existence of both a positive difference and a negative difference, and the difference function is continuous) flew over your head.

Or, perhaps the fact that I am not Nevet and was never talking about “x=4” was too much.

Please sort out these issues before implying that I don’t have a mathematical mind. It reeks of the same uncultured egocentric air that you showed Weth regarding “maths”.

PS: Soldier gear is superior to Zerker gear when attacking world bosses that cannot be crit. This is due to increased passive defense requiring less time spent on active defense, more +power from sharpening stones, and potential traits that grant extra power from toughness/vitality.

All I can hope that at this points it’s pretty evident for most readers that Raine has no idea what he is talking about.

You talked specifically of functions as equations. I talked about one specific form of equation. Your function is not too complex for me, I have regarded it as irrelevant of the purposes of the current discussion. Soldier gear may be superior to zerker under any given assumption about the dynamics of a fight. I’m not at all tethered to zerker as the best solution to any problem. I do believe that there is an obvious solution to any given problem. And, as I have stated, I believe that there are optimal solutions to given problems and that they will be discovered and adapted to by players. That you were not talking about x=4 simply demonstrates that you and I were not talking about the same thing. It’s always helpful to be aware of the subject matter under consideration.

I, as an American English speaker have the same problem with ‘maths’ as I have with ‘gears’. To my ears it sounds the same as discussing how many deers were in the road. Maths may be allowed in the UK but I will reserve my right to state my preference.

Wethospu.6437:

All I can hope that at this points it’s pretty evident for most readers that Raine has no idea what he is talking about.

Oh, you’ve certainly demonstrated that, right. You could, of course, state an instance of this specifically. That pretty much is the way it works here. But that may be asking more of you than you are capable.

Raine.1394:

That you were not talking about x=4 simply demonstrates that you and I were not talking about the same thing. It’s always helpful to be aware of the subject matter under consideration.

Please heed your own advice when I bring up functions and you respond with rebuttals involving x=4.

Raine.1394:

You talked specifically of functions as equations.

I did no such thing. I introduced the function as a contrast to the equation you were trying to rebut, declaring it something that fell outside the scope of your rebuttal to Nevet.

I don’t suppose the following line gave away my attempt to contrast rather than compare?

DaveGan.8065:

Do you understand the difference between an equation and a function?

Your decision (or reading comprehension level) in making such an interpretation is noted.

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

That you were not talking about x=4 simply demonstrates that you and I were not talking about the same thing. It’s always helpful to be aware of the subject matter under consideration.

Please heed your own advice when I bring up functions and you respond with rebuttals involving x=4.

Raine.1394:

You talked specifically of functions as equations.

I did no such thing. I introduced the function as a contrast to the equation you were trying to rebut, declaring it something that fell outside the scope of your rebuttal to Nevet.

I don’t suppose the following line gave away my attempt to contrast rather than compare?

DaveGan.8065:

Do you understand the difference between an equation and a function?

Your decision (or reading comprehension level) in making such an interpretation is noted.

I wasn’t reponding to your functions with x=4, I was simply discussing what I was discussing. Do you honestly think that only you can determine the subject matter of the discussion? And, can you please explain your understanding about what my comprehension level is or my interpretation. I actually desire to understand what you are saying here.

Raine.1394:

Do you honestly think that only you can determine the subject matter of the discussion?

When you are responding to me with an attempted rebuttal, then yes, I absolutely can have that expectation.

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

Do you honestly think that only you can determine the subject matter of the discussion?

When you are responding to me with an attempted rebuttal, then yes, I absolutely can have that expectation.

What was the rebuttal? This should be instructive.

Raine.1394:

What was the rebuttal? This should be instructive.

I think that is the whole point. There was no rebuttal, because you were rebutting Nevet while writing a post with my name in the quote box. This is why I used the word “attempt”.

But as far as being instructive, it would seem more instructive to do the work yourself instead of asking me.

Running a dungeon as my mesmer zerk is a lot of fun, and it does a ton of damage. However, running a dungeon with my full tank guardian saves me a lot of armor-repair money

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

What was the rebuttal? This should be instructive.

I think that is the whole point. There was no rebuttal, because you were rebutting Nevet while writing a post with my name in the quote box. This is why I used the word “attempt”.

But as far as being instructive, it would seem more instructive to do the work yourself instead of asking me.

Wrong. I was making a propositional statement. Can you refute it?

Raine.1394:

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

What was the rebuttal? This should be instructive.

I think that is the whole point. There was no rebuttal, because you were rebutting Nevet while writing a post with my name in the quote box. This is why I used the word “attempt”.

But as far as being instructive, it would seem more instructive to do the work yourself instead of asking me.

Wrong. I was making a propositional statement. Can you refute it?

Wrong. Using the same amount of logic that you just did. /thread

EDIT: A serious reply below. As you are so hung up over the “rebuttal” part, allow me to revise my previous statement.

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

Do you honestly think that only you can determine the subject matter of the discussion?

When you are responding to me, then yes, I absolutely can have that expectation. You can, however, transition from my subject to your own.

Cake Crowley.8375:

Running a dungeon as my mesmer zerk is a lot of fun, and it does a ton of damage. However, running a dungeon with my full tank guardian saves me a lot of armor-repair money

Repairs don’t cost anything, and they haven’t for awhile.
I love full zerk speed clears, doing multiple paths per hour in stale content I’ve done a thousand times sure beats excruciating long runs with people running tank stats, bad weapon choices or poor builds.

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

What was the rebuttal? This should be instructive.

I think that is the whole point. There was no rebuttal, because you were rebutting Nevet while writing a post with my name in the quote box. This is why I used the word “attempt”.

But as far as being instructive, it would seem more instructive to do the work yourself instead of asking me.

Wrong. I was making a propositional statement. Can you refute it?

Wrong. Using the same amount of logic that you just did. /thread

EDIT: A serious reply below. As you are so hung up over the “rebuttal” part, allow me to revise my previous statement.

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

Do you honestly think that only you can determine the subject matter of the discussion?

When you are responding to me, then yes, I absolutely can have that expectation. You can, however, transition from my subject to your own.

Hey, feel free to revise as you wish. I do it all the time. And, I love all of the above and have nothing to say in response . It pretty much speaks for itself. As do all of our preceding posts. I am sorry that Weth has left the tread. Perhaps he was too easy to dispatch but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

To be honest I wouldn’t really call this a discussion.

I wouldn’t either. I’d call this stupid. How did this thread go from meta to (metaphorically) beating each other with sticks to math?

Wethospu.6437:

To be honest I wouldn’t really call this a discussion.

Lindbur.2537:

I wouldn’t either. I’d call this stupid. How did this thread go from meta to (metaphorically) beating each other with sticks to math?

You should appreciate entertainment a bit better.

KSIBBQ.8123:

This Zerker meta has to end. It has killed the diversity too long. This game has such a unique build system, and you should truly be able to play how you want. However, unless you have a pre made, then people will kick you. Start building your toon the way you want to!

Hmmm… What if I want to play Zerker, not dumb Condi-builds?

Dalanor.5387:

Wethospu.6437:

To be honest I wouldn’t really call this a discussion.

Lindbur.2537:

I wouldn’t either. I’d call this stupid. How did this thread go from meta to (metaphorically) beating each other with sticks to math?

You should appreciate entertainment a bit better.

This doesn’t suit my fancy unfortunately :(

Raine.1394:

I, as an American English speaker have the same problem with ‘maths’ as I have with ‘gears’. To my ears it sounds the same as discussing how many deers were in the road. Maths may be allowed in the UK but I will reserve my right to state my preference.

I don’t know why but I found this pretty funny considering how many words have simplified spelling in american english. And how saying gas instead of petrol is considered correct in America. Not to mention american english came from english.

Wethospu.6437:

To be honest I wouldn’t really call this a discussion.

If I had a problem using the word ‘option’ properly, I probably wouldn’t call this a discussion either.

If you merely assert that someone is wrong it bears no weight. If you have an esoteric tool, say, a dictionary, you can at least argue that, conventionally, a person might be wrong in their use of a common word like option. The person who can’t function at the level of basic English, however, is unlikely to move beyond assertions. Generally they function at the level of the ad hominem, never actually engaging with a stated proposition. Unfortunately, that is where you find yourself.

Spoj The Second.7680:

Raine.1394:

I, as an American English speaker have the same problem with ‘maths’ as I have with ‘gears’. To my ears it sounds the same as discussing how many deers were in the road. Maths may be allowed in the UK but I will reserve my right to state my preference.

I don’t know why but I found this pretty funny considering how many words have simplified spelling in american english. And how saying gas instead of petrol is considered correct in America. Not to mention american english came from english.

Oddly enough I am an anglophile. And, I spell honor, honour…usually. I even adopted continental dining practices as in fork in the left hand, knife in the right. That said, I can’t ever refer to the number a deers in a group or ‘gears’, and in this case ‘maths’. It just doesn’t work for me. British English is English. Americans, most unfortunately, improved it worse, to partially borrow a quote from Prince Charles. This is simply a personal issue I have and I hope you will forgive me here.

Isnt “gears” correct even in american english (assuming you are talking about gears/cogs)? I can understand your perspective with deer and maths. But saying “gear” for the plural form sounds completely messed up. I do say deer instead of deers and im english.

Spoj The Second.7680:

Isnt “gears” correct even in american english? I can understand your perspective with deer and maths. But saying “gear” for the plural form sounds completely messed up.

Yea, I say gears and I’m American. And it doesn’t sound or look odd.

Maths, deers, colour, honour, etc at least look weird, some also sound weird.

And now this thread is headed towards the English launguage itself. Mind the Grammar kittens.

Oh, and “gears” sounds perfectly fine to me. “Gear” as a plural sounds stupid.

Edit: I assumed you were talking about cogs, but it seems to me that you are thinking of equipment in general.

Spoj The Second.7680:

Isnt “gears” correct even in american english? I can understand your perspective with deer and maths. But saying “gear” for the plural form sounds completely messed up.

‘Gears’ will be used by American English speakers. Sadly, it grates every time I hear it…no less than deers would. Again, this is just my personal issue, I’m actually not arguing for a correct form.

If you are referring to “I took all my gear.” Then yes “gears” would be incorrect in both american and standard english. But if you are referring to the mechanism then gears is correct. Ive never heard anyone refer to equipment as “gears”. Deers sounds a little strange to me aswell. I believe i used to say that when i was a child.

Raine.1394:

Spoj The Second.7680:

Isnt “gears” correct even in american english? I can understand your perspective with deer and maths. But saying “gear” for the plural form sounds completely messed up.

‘Gears’ will be used by American English speakers. Sadly, it grates every time I hear it…no less than deers would. Again, this is just my personal issue, I’m actually not arguing for a correct form.

Depends on which particular singular you’re referring to with gear, actually.

Gear like in this game, gear is both singular and plural.

Gears like those in a clock, gear is singular, gears is plural.

Lindbur.2537:

And now this thread is headed towards the English launguage itself. Mind the Grammar kittens.

Oh, and “gears” sounds perfectly fine to me. “Gear” as a plural sounds stupid.

Edit: I assumed you were talking about cogs, but it seems to me that you are thinking of equipment in general.

It hasn’t devolved to the point of grammar, at least not yet. There has been a consideration of words, their usage, and meaning. Yes, equipment. Do we talk about kits or kit, though it may contain many elements? If I were running the dictionary I would define gear as the plural form and be done with this. However, I am not.

Raine.1394:

Lindbur.2537:

And now this thread is headed towards the English launguage itself. Mind the Grammar kittens.

Oh, and “gears” sounds perfectly fine to me. “Gear” as a plural sounds stupid.

Edit: I assumed you were talking about cogs, but it seems to me that you are thinking of equipment in general.

It hasn’t devolved to the point of grammar, at least not yet. There has been a consideration of words, their usage, and meaning. Yes, equipment. Do we talk about kits or kit, though it may contain many elements? If I were running the dictionary I would define gear as the plural form. However, I am not.

You do have to be careful with words that have multiple meanings. Especially if talking about does a particular form of the word look odd. Gears doesn’t look or sound odd by itself because it is a proper form of the word gear. Just not the one you were implicitly referring to.

“She put on her gears.” however does look and sound odd. Because now our brains have a context to infer which meaning was meant.

Seera.5916:

Raine.1394:

Lindbur.2537:

And now this thread is headed towards the English launguage itself. Mind the Grammar kittens.

Oh, and “gears” sounds perfectly fine to me. “Gear” as a plural sounds stupid.

Edit: I assumed you were talking about cogs, but it seems to me that you are thinking of equipment in general.

It hasn’t devolved to the point of grammar, at least not yet. There has been a consideration of words, their usage, and meaning. Yes, equipment. Do we talk about kits or kit, though it may contain many elements? If I were running the dictionary I would define gear as the plural form. However, I am not.

You do have to be careful with words that have multiple meanings. Especially if talking about does a particular form of the word look odd. Gears doesn’t look or sound odd by itself because it is a proper form of the word gear. Just not the one you were implicitly referring to.

“She put on her gears.” however does look and sound odd. Because now our brains have a context to infer which meaning was meant.

Yes, “She put on her gears.”, sounds odd to me. And, if I were discussing the equipment she used I would refer to her kit, not kits. Dictionaries, however, will always eventually catch up with popular usage. But, they will leave a trail in terms of etymology. ‘Prevent’ when Shakespeare was writing meant ‘to go before’. And , if you understand the Latin roots it makes much more sense than its current definition. It is, however, not what the word means today. Words and their forms will change over time.

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

To be honest I wouldn’t really call this a discussion.

If I had a problem using the word ‘option’ properly, I probably wouldn’t call this a discussion either.

If you merely assert that someone is wrong it bears no weight. If you have an esoteric tool, say, a dictionary, you can at least argue that, conventionally, a person might be wrong in their use of a common word like option. The person who can’t function at the level of basic English, however, is unlikely to move beyond assertions. Generally they function at the level of the ad hominem, never actually engaging with a stated proposition. Unfortunately, that is where you find yourself.

I really love these kind of thinly veiled insults which only further show your ignorance and level of “discussion”. I have nothing against people with a condescending attitude, but you better be right or it looks really dumb.

My character needs better gear. The clock tower contains several gears. “My character needs better gears.” is not proper usage. Also, “The clock tower contains several gear.” is not proper usage. Gear when used to refer to equipment is a singular collective. It refers to all of the component pieces of equipment used for whatever purpose. When used to refer to machine parts, it’s not collective.

/endtangent

Wethospu.6437:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

To be honest I wouldn’t really call this a discussion.

If I had a problem using the word ‘option’ properly, I probably wouldn’t call this a discussion either.

If you merely assert that someone is wrong it bears no weight. If you have an esoteric tool, say, a dictionary, you can at least argue that, conventionally, a person might be wrong in their use of a common word like option. The person who can’t function at the level of basic English, however, is unlikely to move beyond assertions. Generally they function at the level of the ad hominem, never actually engaging with a stated proposition. Unfortunately, that is where you find yourself.

I really love these kind of thinly veiled insults which only further show your ignorance and level of “discussion”. I have nothing against people with a condescending attitude, but you better be right or it looks really dumb.

Thinly veiled? I wasn’t aware of being subtle with you. The game is played, ideally, not through asserting that someone is dumb, but rather in showing how that someone is dumb. That’s the way adults do it—they don’t simply stick out their tongues like children. And, since when have you ever dealt with whether I was ‘right’ or not. You’ve seldom got close to any issue raised. You seem much more comfortable with simple-minded assertions.

But, let’s play. Have you caught me being ‘not right’ and therefore ‘dumb’? Let’s discuss this; I think it should be fun. Don’t say it, show it.

Raine.1394:

But, let’s play. Have you caught me being ‘not right’ and therefore ‘dumb’? Let’s discuss this; I think it should be fun. Don’t say it, show it.

Every time you’ve been shown to be wrong you simply deny having been shown anything. It’s like talking to an evangelical Christian creationist who listens to conservative talk radio.

Why even attempt to discuss proper math when you continually confuse who you’re talking to and can’t tell the difference between an equation and a function?

IndigoSundown.5419:

My character needs better gear. The clock tower contains several gears. “My character needs better gears.” is not proper usage. Also, “The clock tower contains several gear.” is not proper usage. Gear when used to refer to equipment is a singular collective. It refers to all of the component pieces of equipment used for whatever purpose. When used to refer to machine parts, it’s not collective.

/endtangent

Bravo!

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

But, let’s play. Have you caught me being ‘not right’ and therefore ‘dumb’? Let’s discuss this; I think it should be fun. Don’t say it, show it.

Every time you’ve been shown to be wrong you simply deny having been shown anything. It’s like talking to an evangelical Christian creationist who listens to conservative talk radio.

Why even attempt to discuss proper math when you continually confuse who you’re talking to and can’t tell the difference between an equation and a function?

Do you notice anything interesting or significant about your post? I found it interesting that you simply asserted I was ‘wrong’ and didn’t suggest anything I said that was wrong. Playing with you will be almost as fun as with Weth though. Go ahead, talk to this creationist and show me…exactly…where all those places are where I was wrong. BTW, I never even discussed a function, other than to tell you that I haven’t been discussing functions, so I don’t really understand how you determine I didn’t know it from an equation. Regardless your mental process certainly won’t be logical. But, let’s start there. Prove to me that I don’t understand a function. And, remember context—when I referred to algebraic expressions it was always (and stated specifically, over and over) that I was discussing an expression of the nature of x=4.. I suppose it would be possible to discuss functions but I’ve not found any compelling need to so far. They are even farther off topic than we’ve gone to date. Weth is certainly the king of simple-minded assertions, but you rank right up there as queen. At any rate, go for it.

Your continued denial and failure to understand the relevance of functions demonstrates your own lack of understanding and failure to keep up.

As everyone’s attempts to show how you have been wrong have flown over your head or ignorantly dismissed as irrelevant and off-topic, there is nothing more we can say other than to tell you to educate yourself.

I always find people who try to show off their education as arrogant and ignorant. I always think “Are you overcompensating for something?”. You can be well educated but stupid. So drawing attention to yourself to make yourself look smart often has the opposite effect to people who can see through it.

ps. This isnt anything personal. But its more directed at Raine as he is the one who seems to enjoy flaunting his education even when uncalled for.

You guys do realize you’re so far off mark with the discussion now it’s not even in the same galaxy.

The math doesn’t matter. It’s human nature to find the best way to do something. It’s also human nature to want to find that and use it as much as they can when they do find it.

DaveGan.8065:

Your continued denial and failure to understand the relevance of functions demonstrates your own lack of understanding and failure to keep up.

As everyone’s attempts to show how you have been wrong have flown over your head or ignorantly dismissed as irrelevant and off-topic, there is nothing more we can say other than to tell you to educate yourself.

So the absence of any statements on functions indicates the absence of knowledge of functions. That seems legit logic. Humor me though, since everyone’s attempts have flown over my head just show me one more time what you are talking about. (This should be educational for you.) As queen of assertion (and not proof) this may, of course, be impossible for you. Maybe I’ll win big and get the king to chime in here, but I’m looking at you dear.

And, really, ’everyone’s’ attempt to show me? What is this an appeal to and what weakness does it display?

Raine.1394:

—
But, let’s play. Have you caught me being ‘not right’ and therefore ‘dumb’? Let’s discuss this; I think it should be fun. Don’t say it, show it.

If this was a game all your posts would suddenly make sense.

Harper.4173:

You guys do realize you’re so far off mark with the discussion now it’s not even in the same galaxy.

The math doesn’t matter. It’s human nature to find the best way to do something. It’s also human nature to want to find that and use it as much as they can when they do find it.

In order to give some justification for my posts I will claim that I partially tried to remind everyone that “best” a.k.a “optimal solution” is subjective.

Raine.1394:

So the absence of any statements on functions indicates the absence of knowledge of functions. That seems legit logic. Humor me though, since everyone’s attempts have flown over my head just show me one more time what you are talking about. (This should be educational for you.) As queen of assertion (and not proof) this may, of course, be impossible for you. Maybe I’ll win big and get the king to chime in here, but I’m looking at you dear.

And, really, ’everyone’s’ attempt to show me? What is this an appeal to and what weakness does it display?

Haven’t I already said? It’s far more educational to do the work yourself instead of asking others to do it for you.

It’s why we’re stuck in this mess right now, and it would also explain the deficiencies in your education coupled with that that putrid egocentric arrogance.

DaveGan and Raine will you two just agree to disagree and move back on topic? Or take you arguing to PM

I’d hate for this thread to be locked over an off topic argument.

Wethospu.6437:

Raine.1394:

—
But, let’s play. Have you caught me being ‘not right’ and therefore ‘dumb’? Let’s discuss this; I think it should be fun. Don’t say it, show it.

If this was a game all your posts would suddenly make sense.

Harper.4173:

You guys do realize you’re so far off mark with the discussion now it’s not even in the same galaxy.

The math doesn’t matter. It’s human nature to find the best way to do something. It’s also human nature to want to find that and use it as much as they can when they do find it.

In order to give some justification for my posts I will claim that I partially tried to remind everyone that “best” a.k.a “optimal solution” is subjective.

Realistically, am I going to get anything of import from you—just based on thread history it hasn’t happened yet, should I wait for it?

And, i love what you find on webster’s for ‘subjective’: ‘based on feelings or opinions rather than facts.’

Weth, are you saying that you have come to your personal build(s), the one(s) you use for top of the game content, through your feelings and opinions? Have any facts ever intruded themselves?