New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 307
  1. - Top - End - #151
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Feb 2008

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    would casting single crystal blades out of iron be a bit too cheesy? (in order to qualify for both weapon properties)

  2. - Top - End - #152
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Fortuna's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long Shiny Cloud-land
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gan The Grey View Post
    Okay, I'm going to say this about infinity without dropping math equation bombs all over the place.
    The problem is that you need "math equation bombs" to talk about infinity in any kind of rigorous fashion.

    1. The basic premise of infinity is something that never ends. If there is a problem with this definition, webster it.
    2. Infinity is NOT a specific number. It is an idea, and sometimes a state.
    3. In order to achieve the ability to continue on for an infinite amount of time, there must be a 100% chance or greater to do so.
    4. Infinity either IS or IS NOT. There is no middle ground. Either you have a 100% chance of being infinite, or you are finite.
    1. Fine
    2. Fine
    3. Wrong. By means of "math equation bombs", it has been demonstrated that the build has a chance to achieve a number of attacks which is not finite, that is, which is infinite. Specifically, it has been shown that as the number of attacks which has been made increases arbitrarily, the likelihood that the system has collapsed DOES NOT become arbitrarily close to zero. It instead becomes arbitrarily close to something very close to 5/9. Therefore, it is possible to plug in the highest natural number, that is aleph-0, as the number of attacks which has been made and recieve a probability that the system has not collapsed a non-zero number. Which means that there is a chance that the system will achieve an infinite amount of attacks, specifically about 5 times in nine starting attacks (an interesting side effect is that each attack which is spawned has the same chance to go infinite, but that is beside the point).
    4. See 3.
    If I creep into your house in the dead of night and strangle you while you sleep, you probably messed up your grammar.

    I'm always extremely careful to hedge myself against absolute statements.

  3. - Top - End - #153
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Quote Originally Posted by Random_person View Post
    The problem is that you need "math equation bombs" to talk about infinity in any kind of rigorous fashion.

    3. Wrong. By means of "math equation bombs", it has been demonstrated that the build has a chance to achieve a number of attacks which is not finite, that is, which is infinite. Specifically, it has been shown that as the number of attacks which has been made increases arbitrarily, the likelihood that the system has collapsed DOES NOT become arbitrarily close to zero. It instead becomes arbitrarily close to something very close to 5/9. Therefore, it is possible to plug in the highest natural number, that is aleph-0, as the number of attacks which has been made and recieve a probability that the system has not collapsed a non-zero number. Which means that there is a chance that the system will achieve an infinite amount of attacks, specifically about 5 times in nine starting attacks (an interesting side effect is that each attack which is spawned has the same chance to go infinite, but that is beside the point).
    Wrong. There is no 'chance'. It either is, or is not. The failure chance gets smaller the further and further in you go, but that chance is ALWAYS there. There is no getting rid of it. And as long as it is there, the possibility of going on forever is 0.

    You are treating infinity as a specific, though massively large, number. Something that infinity IS NOT. Infinity is not 100. Nor is it 10^10000^10000000. Nor is it aleph-0. It's not even a number. It's an idea.

    I'm not arguing that you will get a lot of attacks. But alot does not equal infinite. Either their is no chance of failure, or there is.

  4. - Top - End - #154
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    I think what you're saying is that, as the number you're trying to reach increases, the chance you will get to that number approaches 5/9. Right? Unfortunately, this has no correspondence to infinity, since infinity isn't actually a number.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  5. - Top - End - #155
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Okay the way I found to treat infinities in situations like this is to state the following:
    Assertion 1: Infinity is not a number.
    Assertion 2: D&D works with numbers.
    Therefore: Nothing in D&D is truly infinite.
    Therefore: Infinity will instead represent all permutations of chance simultaneously.
    Therefore: If there is a permutation that would end the supposed chain, no matter how mathematically improbable, comparing it to infinity means that it will occur.
    Therefore: An Infinite loop must show that all possible permutations of an event have no chance of not seeding the next permutation (i.e, you must prove that the build will continue under the most statistically unfavorable of conditions).

  6. - Top - End - #156
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    I think what you're saying is that, as the number you're trying to reach increases, the chance you will get to that number approaches 5/9. Right? Unfortunately, this has no correspondence to infinity, since infinity isn't actually a number.
    Thanks for the backup.

    Zeful, I like your style, but I think redefining words will just get us into more trouble.
    Last edited by Gan The Grey; 2009-11-29 at 03:11 AM.

  7. - Top - End - #157
    Banned
     
    Superglucose's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    It's possible that there's a point where it tends to be infinite.

    If we let the number of attacks be N, then the number of 1s that must be rolled in a row to break the chain will be f(N). That is, if we roll 1 attack, it will take 1.1 1s in a row to break the chain (assuming the average attack nets us 1.1 attacks afterwords). The probability of rolling f(N) 1s in a row is easy, it's (1/20)^(f(N)) or 1/(20^f(N)).

    Now we can examine end behavior simply:

    if the limit as f(N) approaches infinity is infinity, then the loop is infinite in that as you get more and more attacks it will be less and less likely to break out of the loop. If you get 1.1 attacks back for every attack you get in, then f(N) is 1.1^N, and as N approaches infinity, 1.1^N approaches infinity, so the loop is infinite in the sense that its limit is infinite.

    more importantly: because the probability of rolling what you need to roll decreases as N gets large, it's not as simple as "infinite monkeys" scenario, because the "infinite monkeys" are making the proverbial works of shakespear even less likely. The probability that ALL monkeys on typewriters type the works of shakespear decreases as you get more and more monkeys.

  8. - Top - End - #158
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Quote Originally Posted by Superglucose View Post
    It's possible that there's a point where it tends to be infinite.

    If we let the number of attacks be N, then the number of 1s that must be rolled in a row to break the chain will be f(N). That is, if we roll 1 attack, it will take 1.1 1s in a row to break the chain (assuming the average attack nets us 1.1 attacks afterwords). The probability of rolling f(N) 1s in a row is easy, it's (1/20)^(f(N)) or 1/(20^f(N)).

    Now we can examine end behavior simply:

    if the limit as f(N) approaches infinity is infinity, then the loop is infinite in that as you get more and more attacks it will be less and less likely to break out of the loop. If you get 1.1 attacks back for every attack you get in, then f(N) is 1.1^N, and as N approaches infinity, 1.1^N approaches infinity, so the loop is infinite in the sense that its limit is infinite.

    more importantly: because the probability of rolling what you need to roll decreases as N gets large, it's not as simple as "infinite monkeys" scenario, because the "infinite monkeys" are making the proverbial works of shakespear even less likely. The probability that ALL monkeys on typewriters type the works of shakespear decreases as you get more and more monkeys.
    The problem here is you are talking about certainties in a realm of possiblities. It is not certain that you will always get 1.1 attacks back. That's an average. Averages don't take into account the ten times out of twelve I rolled less than a five on a d20. If we went by that....

    If winning the lottery was a 1 in a million chance, and I bought 1 million tickets, I would win. But it doesn't work like that. (Lets not get caught up on this example. I think you know what I mean.)

    If you can tell me that there is NO chance of rolling more 1's than any of the other numbers combined, then you are right. Unfortunately, we both know that isn't true.
    Last edited by Gan The Grey; 2009-11-29 at 03:22 AM.

  9. - Top - End - #159
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Fortuna's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long Shiny Cloud-land
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    As I see it, there are two arguments going on here. One is based on a conceptual argument, and one on a rigorous mathematical proof. I humbly request, sir, that you attempt to state your argument mathematically as I tried to (and failed), by directly countering any step in the proof that this does in fact produce an infinite number of attacks some of the time.

    And incidentally, aleph-0 is not infinity. I beg your pardon. Aleph-0 is a transfinite number, and if you insist then I will go back and edit every single one of my posts to make it clear that I am talking only about a number which emulates infinity in EVERY WAY IMAGINABLE.
    Last edited by Fortuna; 2009-11-29 at 03:44 AM.
    If I creep into your house in the dead of night and strangle you while you sleep, you probably messed up your grammar.

    I'm always extremely careful to hedge myself against absolute statements.

  10. - Top - End - #160
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Quote Originally Posted by Random_person View Post
    As I see it, there are two arguments going on here. One is based on a conceptual argument, and one on a rigorous mathematical proof. I humbly request, sir, that you attempt to state your argument mathematically as I tried to (and failed), by directly countering any step in the proof that this does in fact produce an infinite number of attacks some of the time.
    The problem is not with your math. I applaud your math, sir. Your math freakin rocks.

    The problem is a problem of logic. Something cannot 'possibly' be infinite. It's a true or false, not a percentage.

    Here's what little math I can muster to prove that infinity and percentages cannot function together:

    100% of infinity = infinity
    99% of infinity = infinity
    infinity = infinity K that works.
    99% = 100% that doesn't work.

    Hell, 1% of infinity is still infinity, except that percentages are a measurement of numbers, and infinity is NOT a number, so frankly I can't even say that.

    Either something goes on forever 100% of the time (100% = true) or 0% of the time (0% = false). Anything in between doesn't fit the boundaries of the equation. For a true/false, there is no in between.

    And incidentally, aleph-0 is not infinity. I beg your pardon. Aleph-0 is a transfinite number, and if you insist then I will go back and edit every single one of my posts to make it clear that I am talking only about a number which emulates infinity in EVERY WAY IMAGINABLE.
    I'm not sure what's with your tone here, and frankly I'm not even sure what you are trying to say to me. Sarcasm (or whatever this is) doesn't have much of a place in an intelligent discussion, especially a text-based intelligent discussion.

    To quote the Wikipedia:

    The aleph numbers differ from the infinity (∞) commonly found in algebra and calculus. Alephs measure the sizes of sets; infinity, on the other hand, is commonly defined as an extreme limit of the real number line (applied to a function or sequence that "diverges to infinity" or "increases without bound"), or an extreme point of the extended real number line.
    We're talking about infinity here, more so towards the 'increases without bound'. Aleph-0, while similar, is not the same, and for the purposes of this conversation, not appropriate.
    Last edited by Gan The Grey; 2009-11-29 at 04:12 AM.

  11. - Top - End - #161
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Fortuna's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long Shiny Cloud-land
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    I just accepted that we could not work with the truly infinite. There, you win. Working with the truly infinite is, as far as I am aware, at the boundaries of modern mathematics. Therefore, let's see whether we can achieve Cantor's poor imitation thereof. You say that the problem is not with math, but with logic. Your argument in that post says nothing to me except that dividing by infinity gives nonsensical answers. Where did we divide by infinity? If we did not, then I do not think that your argument holds water. And also, all that your last statement says is that any average value that we extract will also be nonsensical.
    Last edited by Fortuna; 2009-11-29 at 03:57 AM.
    If I creep into your house in the dead of night and strangle you while you sleep, you probably messed up your grammar.

    I'm always extremely careful to hedge myself against absolute statements.

  12. - Top - End - #162
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Quote Originally Posted by Random_person View Post
    I just accepted that we could not work with the truly infinite.
    This is the crux of the issue, because no, you can't "really" get infinite attacks. Mathematically you have an infinite series; while for all intents and purposes you can treat this as being an infinite number, it does not actually exist as infinity.

    For the numbers term1nally s1ck mentioned earlier, the odds of getting X number of attacks are going to be approximately 5/9. This is not literally the same thing as an infinite number of attacks, but it does mean that any time you declare you're going to be rolling an attack, you have a 5/9 chance of having however many attacks as you want.

    The odds that you will have a thousand attacks to work with? 5/9.
    The odds that you will have a million attacks to work with? 5/9.
    The odds that you will have a hundred billion attacks to work with? 5/9.
    The odds that you will have more attacks than the number of atoms that exist in the universe? 5/9.

  13. - Top - End - #163
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Well, something *can* be possibly infinity. Just for example, say you got some slew of feats that made it so, with each attack, if you rolled a 10 or more, you get to attack again, with a cumulative +1 bonus. And let's say the designers were silly, and this +1 bonus counted for getting above 10, so if you were on your fifth roll, and rolled a 7, you'd get 7+5=12, giving you another roll and another +1 bonus. There's a certain % chance that you will do this 10 times, giving you a +10 bonus, at which point you will make an infinite amount of attacks. Thus, you can say that each attack has an X% chance of going infinite.

    However, that's not what's happening here. For the above to happen, the chance of each attack terminating has to become 0% at some point, which it does not. Instead, this would generate an arbitrarily higher number, so high that it may as well be infinite (maybe this is the aleph-0 you're talking about? might be nice to know what that even is) but it is NOT infinite. It is in fact exactly as far away from infinity as the number 0, or a gaboojillion*, or even negative gaboojillion*.

    *A Gaboojillion being X^Xth power X number of times, with X being the number of atoms in the universe
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  14. - Top - End - #164
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Fortuna's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long Shiny Cloud-land
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Aleph-0 is, as far as I am aware, the lowest transfinite number, being defined as the cardinality of the set of natural numbers. It is the largest number which you can name, including by means of this process, with an arbitrary increase in size. It is about as close to infinity as you get while still being vaguely able to work with it sanely.
    If I creep into your house in the dead of night and strangle you while you sleep, you probably messed up your grammar.

    I'm always extremely careful to hedge myself against absolute statements.

  15. - Top - End - #165
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    Well, something *can* be possibly infinity. Just for example, say you got some slew of feats that made it so, with each attack, if you rolled a 10 or more, you get to attack again, with a cumulative +1 bonus. And let's say the designers were silly, and this +1 bonus counted for getting above 10, so if you were on your fifth roll, and rolled a 7, you'd get 7+5=12, giving you another roll and another +1 bonus. There's a certain % chance that you will do this 10 times, giving you a +10 bonus, at which point you will make an infinite amount of attacks. Thus, you can say that each attack has an X% chance of going infinite.

    However, that's not what's happening here. For the above to happen, the chance of each attack terminating has to become 0% at some point, which it does not. Instead, this would generate an arbitrarily higher number, so high that it may as well be infinite (maybe this is the aleph-0 you're talking about? might be nice to know what that even is) but it is NOT infinite. It is in fact exactly as far away from infinity as the number 0, or a gaboojillion*, or even negative gaboojillion*.

    *A Gaboojillion being X^Xth power X number of times, with X being the number of atoms in the universe
    That was sexy. I like being shown holes in my argument. *cookie for you* Very interesting, though I think you step-outside the boundaries of mathematics when you start houseruling lol. So the only way you have the ability of possibly achieving the state of infinity is if you can somehow completely eliminate all chance of failure. I dig that.

    And Random, I was providing proof that infinity is not a number, but a state. Numbers can function with percentages, states cannot. That's all I was saying with that example. Like I said, your math rocks. I was in no way criticizing or even attempting to understand the sexiness that was those 'math equation bombs'. I was trying to show that infinity was being used wrong, something which didn't really require math to show. That's all.

    Oh, and I quoted the differences between Aleph-0 and infinity a few posts back if you are curious.
    Last edited by Gan The Grey; 2009-11-29 at 04:26 AM.

  16. - Top - End - #166
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Fortuna's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long Shiny Cloud-land
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Good. I am glad that we have reached an understanding. You be happy with your proof that it is not quite infinity, and I'll be happy with our proof that it is not quite finite either.
    If I creep into your house in the dead of night and strangle you while you sleep, you probably messed up your grammar.

    I'm always extremely careful to hedge myself against absolute statements.

  17. - Top - End - #167
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    However, that's not what's happening here. For the above to happen, the chance of each attack terminating has to become 0% at some point, which it does not. Instead, this would generate an arbitrarily higher number, so high that it may as well be infinite (maybe this is the aleph-0 you're talking about? might be nice to know what that even is) but it is NOT infinite. It is in fact exactly as far away from infinity as the number 0, or a gaboojillion*, or even negative gaboojillion*.
    There will always be a chance for each attack to terminate, but the chance for all attacks to terminate becomes infinitely close to 0 as the number of attacks increases. While you never get a literal infinity of attacks, the number of attacks generated in a successful chain is mathematically equal to infinity.

  18. - Top - End - #168
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Quote Originally Posted by Random_person View Post
    Aleph-0 is, as far as I am aware, the lowest transfinite number, being defined as the cardinality of the set of natural numbers. It is the largest number which you can name, including by means of this process, with an arbitrary increase in size. It is about as close to infinity as you get while still being vaguely able to work with it sanely.
    See, that I can agree with. I have no problem with this having a chance of reaching an arbitrarily high number. I even said it would do that. It's just when you start confusing an arbitrarily high number with infinity that the problems crop up.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  19. - Top - End - #169
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Quote Originally Posted by Random_person View Post
    Good. I am glad that we have reached an understanding. You be happy with your proof that it is not quite infinity, and I'll be happy with our proof that it is not quite finite either.
    Lol alrighty then. Though if you've got a math equation to explain how something can't be either of only two possibilities, I'm up for some learning.

  20. - Top - End - #170
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Wings of Peace's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    Okay the way I found to treat infinities in situations like this is to state the following:
    Assertion 1: Infinity is not a number.
    Assertion 2: D&D works with numbers.
    Therefore: Nothing in D&D is truly infinite.
    Therefore: Infinity will instead represent all permutations of chance simultaneously.
    Therefore: If there is a permutation that would end the supposed chain, no matter how mathematically improbable, comparing it to infinity means that it will occur.
    Therefore: An Infinite loop must show that all possible permutations of an event have no chance of not seeding the next permutation (i.e, you must prove that the build will continue under the most statistically unfavorable of conditions).
    This is mostly nitpicking but there are some cases in D&D such as the Omnificer which achieve actually infinite values.

    Edit: Possible never mind. May have misread your last point.
    Last edited by Wings of Peace; 2009-11-29 at 04:44 AM.
    Doc Roc: We're going to eat ourselves.

  21. - Top - End - #171
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wings of Peace View Post
    This is mostly nitpicking but there are some cases in D&D such as the Omnificer which achieve actually infinite values.

    Edit: Possible never mind. May have misread your last point.
    Yeah, I just re-re-reread Zeful's post, and I think I finally understand what he's trying to say. And I like it.

  22. - Top - End - #172
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalirren View Post
    Yeah, you're right, I should have made the error of the approximation more explicit...as you said, the next-higher order term in the approximation is

    ln(1+u) = u - 1/2 u^2 + O(u^3) < u

    so it happens to work. I was relying on the fact that as u-> 0, it's really just u +/- O(u^2), but I guess that's not really sound, is it?
    Not quite, when you're dealing with a proof like this...you need a bound, not an approximation, because we don't know how good the approximation is without the bound. In general, if you have an approximation, you can always have it work, because for small/large/specific enough values of your numbers in the equations, you have a bound which satisfies the conditions, but you have to specify what bound you use, because there are a few times when you're dealing with something REALLY close to your approximation that it won't quite work.

    Quote Originally Posted by SensFan View Post
    You seem to not understand the concept of infinite.

    Does your build keep attacking even if you roll one hundred billion 1s in a row? If not, you won't go infinite.
    In fact, if you roll long enough, you will have n rolls, and will then roll 9999n 1s in a row.

    Haven't read past this post, so if you learnt what infinite means in the meantime, great.
    By the time it is remotely likely for me to roll that many 1s, I have more attacks than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalirren View Post
    On the contrary, -you- seem not to understand the concept of infinite. Specifically. you're confusing "finite" with "non-deterministically infinite".

    As it stands, the sequence of partial sums representing the probability that the attack sequence terminates converges to a number less than 1. This build therefore has a finite, nonzero probability of an attack sequence not terminating. It has a -chance- of going infinite in the sense that it does not terminate. It -also- has a chance of terminating. This is thus "non-deterministically infinite", and the expected value of the number of attacks you make is undefined.

    Suppose that a revised version of this build had a luck feat or something attached to it that allowed the rerolling of natural 1s, and one was attacking on a 2 to hit. Then the probability that the attack sequence does not terminate is 1. This is -also- infinite: it differs from the first case in that it is deterministically infinite.
    This is here because of the distinction made between deterministically infinite, and non-deterministically infinite.

    The posts past here start arguing about aleph-0 vs infinite.

    The distinction is that a series (say, the number of attacks) tends towards infinity if and only if it is provable that it eventually exceeds any known natural number. I can't prove that the number of attacks is equal to infinity, because infinity itself isn't really a number. I can prove that the number of attacks tends towards infinity, which is what is known as a 'divergent function' where the limit of f(x) is infinity as x tends to infinity.

    Unfortunately, X in this case is the number of attacks made. I have already shown that there is an excellent chance of X finishing in any finite number, so to stretch the whole number line across the 6 seconds we have in the turn, I have to use what is known as the projective real line. In this case, we basically take a line representing 6 seconds, 'twist' them into a quarter-circle, put a point at the centre of the circle it is part of, and draw a straight line down to twice the radius of the quarter-circle directly below the leftmost end of the quarter-circle. This means that as we go through the line, we get higher on the numberline MUCH faster, and we can re-write X as a function of t, and hence f(x) as f(t). But for t = 6, X(6) is defined as infinity, and f(infinity) as the limit of the function, namely infinity. This is a direct result of trying to fit an infinite sequence into a finite time, you HAVE to reach infinity, or you don't have an end-point. The number of attacks made in 6 seconds has a 5/9 chance (or 60/133 for the build I posted) of being infinite.)

    This is the non-deterministic infinity.

    Aleph-0 is the deterministic infinity, as it is well-defined (the cardinality of the natural numbers), and is NOT the number of attacks I can make, as we're looking at a limit to a sequence, and I'm not sure if I can find a projection from N to the attacks.

    (Picky point....aleph-0 is NOT a natural number.)


    EDIT: Zeful would be very right...if Infinities weren't a natural result of certain calculations that exclusively involve numbers. How do you think they started to use them? it's not exactly a normal concept....
    Last edited by term1nally s1ck; 2009-11-29 at 05:27 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #173
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Quote Originally Posted by term1nally s1ck View Post
    Not quite, when you're dealing with a proof like this...you need a bound, not an approximation, because we don't know how good the approximation is without the bound. In general, if you have an approximation, you can always have it work, because for small/large/specific enough values of your numbers in the equations, you have a bound which satisfies the conditions, but you have to specify what bound you use, because there are a few times when you're dealing with something REALLY close to your approximation that it won't quite work.



    By the time it is remotely likely for me to roll that many 1s, I have more attacks than that.



    This is here because of the distinction made between deterministically infinite, and non-deterministically infinite.

    The posts past here start arguing about aleph-0 vs infinite.

    The distinction is that a series (say, the number of attacks) tends towards infinity if and only if it is provable that it eventually exceeds any known natural number. I can't prove that the number of attacks is equal to infinity, because infinity itself isn't really a number. I can prove that the number of attacks tends towards infinity, which is what is known as a 'divergent function' where the limit of f(x) is infinity as x tends to infinity.

    Unfortunately, X in this case is the number of attacks made. I have already shown that there is an excellent chance of X finishing in any finite number, so to stretch the whole number line across the 6 seconds we have in the turn, I have to use what is known as the projective real line. In this case, we basically take a line representing 6 seconds, 'twist' them into a quarter-circle, put a point at the centre of the circle it is part of, and draw a straight line down to twice the radius of the quarter-circle directly below the leftmost end of the quarter-circle. This means that as we go through the line, we get higher on the numberline MUCH faster, and we can re-write X as a function of t, and hence f(x) as f(t). But for t = 6, X(6) is defined as infinity, and f(infinity) as the limit of the function, namely infinity. This is a direct result of trying to fit an infinite sequence into a finite time, you HAVE to reach infinity, or you don't have an end-point. The number of attacks made in 6 seconds has a 5/9 chance (or 60/133 for the build I posted) of being infinite.)

    This is the non-deterministic infinity.

    Aleph-0 is the deterministic infinity, as it is well-defined (the cardinality of the natural numbers), and is NOT the number of attacks I can make, as we're looking at a limit to a sequence, and I'm not sure if I can find a projection from N to the attacks.

    (Picky point....aleph-0 is NOT a natural number.)
    Ok, now you're just writing down a bunch of nonsense that looks like complicated math but in the end is just a bunch of words. For one, when does the amount of time in a round even come into the equation? It has no relevance to the number of attacks you make at all.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  24. - Top - End - #174
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    By the time it is remotely likely for me to roll that many 1s, I have more attacks than that.
    Unless you don't, which law of probability states is possible. You can't use absolutes like that when you are talking about probability. You say 'likely to roll that many 1s' which is a statement of probability, then turn around and say 'I have more attacks that that' which is basically an absolute. That doesn't work.
    Last edited by Gan The Grey; 2009-11-29 at 05:31 AM.

  25. - Top - End - #175
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Forgive me, I was under the impression that we were trying to consider the amount of attacks made in a single round. We can't count across the attacks themselves, because there is a non-0 chance of them never ending. There's only the two ways to sum across a range with no limit, one is the sum to infinity (which people don't like, because it has the word infinity in it...despite that you sum it as you would sum any finite sum (unless you actually do the finite sum 1-by-1....), or by the projective number line. For the projective number line (google it if you don't want to take my word, it's pretty easy to understand), you can use any variable you want for the semi-circle , provided there's a way to spread the original variable out across the one used. Time was just an obvious one to me, because it's a bounded variable such that all the attacks happen within the bounds. I've now used both, both give an answer of non-finite and infinite, respectively....the two are identical.

    if you want me to formalise my above post, tell me...but the arguments are such that I'll have to use the logic symbols, and I still just call on the endpoint being equivalent to infinity, because that's the definition of the projective representation.

  26. - Top - End - #176
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    None of which explains how you get over the fact that, even if you're rolling an arbitrarily high number of attacks, you can't then roll an arbitrarily large number of 1s in a row. Since this will happen literally an infinite number of times before you reach infinity, it has a 100% chance of occurring before then. How small the chance is is completely irrelevant. If it's there, it will happen.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  27. - Top - End - #177
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Because 'Arbitrarily high' means any finite number you care to name is eventually rolled. Yes, I eventually roll 1 quadrillion nat 1s. By that time, I have more than 1 quadrillion attacks, almost guaranteed. (expected number of attack rolls required to roll 1 quadrillion (10^15) nat 1s = 2^1000000000000000, expected number of attacks at that point = 1.1(or whatever your build happnes to generate per attack)*(10^15), which is MORE than 10^15.

    Just because you can roll an infinite number of natural ones doesn't mean I don't have more attacks...after all, there are an infinite number of odd numbers, and yet if I remove them all from the natural numbers, not only do I have some left, but I have infinitely many left.
    Last edited by term1nally s1ck; 2009-11-29 at 08:20 AM.

  28. - Top - End - #178
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Quote Originally Posted by term1nally s1ck View Post
    Because 'Arbitrarily high' means any finite number you care to name is eventually rolled. Yes, I eventually roll 1 quadrillion nat 1s. By that time, I have more than 1 quadrillion attacks, almost guaranteed. (expected number of attack rolls required to roll 1 quadrillion (10^15) nat 1s = 2^1000000000000000, expected number of attacks at that point = 1.1(or whatever your build happnes to generate per attack)*(10^15), which is MORE than 10^15.

    Just because you can roll an infinite number of natural ones doesn't mean I don't have more attacks...after all, there are an infinite number of odd numbers, and yet if I remove them all from the natural numbers, not only do I have some left, but I have infinitely many left.
    Yes, it's possible that you won't get enough 1s for the chain to end for an absurdly long time, but you're severely underestimating infinity. It does not matter how small the chance is that the chain will end, if it's more than zero, it WILL END. PERIOD. Infinity doesn't care if it keeps becoming less and less likely that the chain will end, all it cares about is whether that value is zero, or not zero. Since it's no zero, it happens.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  29. - Top - End - #179
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Fortuna's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long Shiny Cloud-land
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    I feel that we have the same problem as before. We have a non-rigorous conceptual agument being used to try to shoot down a rigorous mathematical proof. I suggest that you either attack that proof mathematically, or admit defeat.
    If I creep into your house in the dead of night and strangle you while you sleep, you probably messed up your grammar.

    I'm always extremely careful to hedge myself against absolute statements.

  30. - Top - End - #180
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: Highest Possible Crit Range?

    Just because we aren't throwing a bunch of equal signs around and using big hard-to-understand words, that doesn't mean our argument isn't valid. To assume so is a logical fallacy on your part.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. YOU ARE USING INFINITY WRONG.

    You want a big number? Great. You have a 5/9 chance of getting a big number. Fantastic. You've proved that.

    You want the attacks to go on ENDLESSLY, as in, never ending? Not possible with this build. PERIOD. As long as there is a chance for failure, failure will occur within infinite bounds. I don't need a bunch of math to show that as FACT.

    Now, I suggest you either stop resorting to logical fallacy in order to win your argument, or admit defeat.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •