Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

286 Neutral

About NotAnAnonymousPoster

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. NotAnAnonymousPoster

    Half-Life One on Windows XP (black screen problem in fullscreen)

    I played Half-life 1 earlier this year on XP. At first, the game would only allow very poor quality software rendering, but I got that all fixed by downloading patches. I suggest trying the same.
  2. NotAnAnonymousPoster

    The Power of Nightmares: fear as a tool of government

    Quote:Original post by ROBERTREAD1 As a Londoner who uses the Tube I have to say that to the 700 people injured and 52 killed on 7/7/2005 "the Power of nightmares" is an insult to the facts. Even it's maker the institutionally socialist BBC stopped this pack of shite programme from being shown.The series originally screened on BBC4 and was repeated on BBC2 several years ago. It is not recent and the BBC tend not to repeat documentaries anyway. Nowhere does Curtis say that a terror attack in the UK could not happen. He was writing after 9/11 so he was quite aware that future terror attacks were foreseeable, and admits that international terrorism is a danger. Whether his overall theory is bunk or not, I was extremely impressed by the way Curtis traces ideas and attitudes down to key intellectuals and influentials, in this case, Leo Strauss and Sayyid Qutb, and follows the chains of cause and effect which lead to the current state of affairs. He produced another series some time ago called "Century of the Self" in which he tried to do the same for modern consumerism.
  3. NotAnAnonymousPoster

    Help me find a funny LOTR gif...

    Quote:Original post by BBB What about a Trebutch?And its variant (prequel) What about a Catapult.
  4. NotAnAnonymousPoster

    Fun math puzzle

    The sequence can be defined by x_0 = sqrt(2) and x_(n+1) = sqrt(2)x_n. Every term is less than 2, since the first term is less than 2 and for x<2, sqrt(2)x < 2. We can verify that x_0 < x_1, and then, on the assumption that x_n < x_n+1, we know that sqrt(2)x_n < sqrt(2)x_(n+1), which just means that x_(n+1) < x_(n+2). By induction, we have that the sequence is increasing. The sequence is therefore convergent with some limit l. By the continuity of the exponential function, we can take limits of both sides of the recurrence relation to give l = sqrt(2)l. Since the second derivative of x |-> sqrt(2)x - x is positive on the reals, this equation can have at most two solutions, which happen to be 2 and 4. Since 2 is an upper bound of the sequence, l<=2, giving l=2. The sequence is also convergent on replacing sqrt(2) by any non-negative real x less than or equal to e1/e. The limit is y where x = y1/y, or 0. [Edited by - NotAnAnonymousPoster on May 31, 2006 2:40:29 PM]
  5. NotAnAnonymousPoster

    I've just discovered "Westerns"

    Quote:Original post by LessBread Thinking over the plot of the movie, I suppose it is based on Yojimbo, but just because a movie is based on Yojimbo doesn't make it a Western anymore than it makes it a Samurai movie. Star Wars was loosely based on Hidden Fortress, does that make it a Samurai movie or a Western? I don't think so. It certainly has elements of both, but it's neither.I never said that "Last Man Standing" was a western. I was just trying to explain why the film is somewhat relevant to this thread, in that it imitates westerns and is a credited remake of "Yojimbo", which inspired "For a Fistful of Dollars". But now that I think about it, I would not call "Last Man Standing" a gangster film either. It is a gangster film only to the extent that "For a Fistful of Dollars" is a gangster film.
  6. NotAnAnonymousPoster

    I've just discovered "Westerns"

    Quote:Original post by LessBread Isn't that more of a gangster movie?It is, though it is set in a small desert town. It is also based on "For a Fistful of Dollars" and, in turn, "Yojimbo".
  7. NotAnAnonymousPoster

    I've just discovered "Westerns"

    Quote:Original post by Sandbar Hello all, So I am laying in bed late at night flipping through the channels looking for something decent to watch, and this movie called "For a few dollars more" was starting, so I thought I'd indulge my curiousity. It featured some guy called Clint Eastwood, and had lots of bad guys running around on horses speaking out of synch, and robbing high secure banks guarded by some dozy guy eating a sandwich.It is not out of sync. These films are called spaghetti westerns because they are made in Italy. Half of the actors Sergio Leone uses are Italian, while the rest are Americans. The Italians are dubbed for the English-version, and the Americans are dubbed for the Italian-version. As has already been mentioned, this film is the second of "the man with no name" series, and you should definitely watch the other two. Each star Clint Eastwood, and the third has Lee Van Cleef (the other bounty hunter in "For A Few Dollars More") as the main bad guy. Another seriously good Leone epic western you should watch is "Once Upon A Time in the West", starring Charles Bronson and Henry Fonda. A more humourous western is the fantastic "My Name is Nobody", also with Henry Fonda, though this time as a good guy. You might also like to check out "Once Upon A Time in America", a Sergio Leone gangster film with Robert De Niro and James Woods. One of the coolest things about each of these films is the superb soundtracks by Ennio Morricone, which for "Once Upon A Time in the West" were played during shooting. The standoffs in these films are some of the most tense I have ever seen in a western, especially the three-way standoff in "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly." However, the first standoff in "A Fistful of Dollars" has my favourite dialogue: "See my mule don't like people laughing. Gets the crazy idea you're laughing at him. Now if you were to all apologise, like I know you're going to, I might be able to convince him that you really didn't mean it." Quote:Note that ["The Magnificent Seven" is] based on a Kurosawa samurai film, The Seven Samurai.And "A Fistful of Dollars" is based on another superb Kurosawa film, starring Mifune, "Yojimbo". And while these films inspired the westerns, that inspiration may have come full circle with Kurosawa's "Sanjuro", the final fight of which is an extremely tense quick draw samurai duel.
  8. NotAnAnonymousPoster


    Quote:Original post by CubicAwareness I think it is clear even without a label saying "This is a definition". It is explaining what a singularity is. That's pretty clear.Not to me. So to clarify, is a singularity defined as: nothing; zero; a single solitary point; or some combination of the three? Quote:Well for instance, if you are at one end of a principle of opposites, you can move out of that end and into the other. So there can indeed be some movement there. That is a point. When there is "something", movement can occur. When there is "nothing", no movement can occur.When there is just a point, I can move from that point to the space around the point. So movement can occur in this case also. Quote:You need movement in order to express a Will to Power. But a singularity would suppress movement, since it is "nothing". A singularity would defeat a Will to Power.Let's stick to discussing your abuse of mathematics rather than your abuse of Neitzsche. I suspect you are no more familiar with his writings than you are with modern mathematics. Quote:The axiomatic proof at that link was written by me, not by Gene Ray.Okay. Then you have never seen an axiomatic proof. Quote:It merely expresses the proof that has already been provided by Gene Ray, but in a more sequential and enumerated fashion. Yes, the "axiomatic proof" part is an axiomatic proof. It takes an axiom, and performs logical manipulations upon it in order to prove certain things. That's what an axiomatic proof is, generally.You do not explicitly state this axiom, you do not state your undefined terms, your logical manipulations are anything but, you use bizarre terminology, omit definitions, and you don't even state what theorem you are trying to prove. A modern axiomatic proof is a deduction from explicitly stated axioms which is sufficiently formal that, when expressed entirely in the undefined terms, it is possible to uniformly substitute those undefined terms with words such as "beer", "table" and "chair" without affecting the validity of the argument. Your "proof" does not even match up to the older notion of axiomatic proof. Compare some axiomatic proofs from over two thousand years ago: Euclid's Elements. Quote:See article -1*-1=+1 is Stupid and Evil. It would be: the proposition that i != ±1, and the fact that the system actually indicates that i = ±1.No it doesn't. Your manipulations are invalid as has already been pointed out. Quote:Yes, it actually means that you pretended that a number could exist based on an infinitesimal,No, it doesn't. 0.999... is not an infinitesimal, nor is it based on one. Quote:but you actually only typed in 8 ascii characters, "0.999...".That is true. I use 8 ascii characters to refer to 0.999.... I tend to use a lot of ascii characters to communicate on the internet. Your point is? Quote:For in reality, there are none of these infinitesimal numbers, and one can only make false vacuous statements to the contrary.0.999... is the sum of the series whose nth summand is 9*10^(-n). That sum is 1. Quote:Yes, so why are the complex numbers treated differently from the real numbers? That's a violation of Occam's Razor right there.They satisfy different properties because they are different. Try this one: it is a defining property of the naturals, and an axiom of Peano Arithmetic, that x+1!=0 for all x. This property fails to hold on the negative integers, because they are different objects and so do not satisfy all the same properties. Similarly, it is a general proprety of the non-negative reals that sqrt(x)sqrt(y)=sqrt(xy). This property fails to hold on the complex numbers in general, because, again, they are different objects and so do not satisfy all the same properties. Quote:That's just an analysis of an already defined system. We're talking about the system itself, not some external analysis of it.I have no idea what you are talking about. Quote:We're talking about fundamental logical contradictions that are entailed by the system's definitions.Please state what definitions you have in mind here and formally demonstrate a contradiction from them. As it stands, I very much doubt you have any idea how the reals and the complex numbers are defined. [Edited by - NotAnAnonymousPoster on April 17, 2006 12:09:44 PM]
  9. NotAnAnonymousPoster


    Quote:Original post by CubicAwareness One cannot, however, deny that Time Cube itself is proven true. See the Cubic Proof for absolute irrefutable proof of Time Cube.The "axiomatic proof" that Ray claims to provide is nothing of the sort. He clearly hasn't seen an axiomatic proof in his life. Quote:Yes, that bit about positive real numbers is an arbitrary and superfluous patch that was applied in order to mask a logical contradiction.Explicitly identify the two mutually inconsistent propositions which form this logical contradiction, please. This square root difficulty occurs because we want the square root function to map to complex numbers (not to a pair of complex numbers), and so we arbitrarily choose a root based on the principal argument of a number, which causes problems because the principal argument function is discontinuous on the negative reals. What we do have is that the product of square roots of any two numbers z and w is always a square root of their product. Quote:0.999... does not exist. 0.999... entails infinitesimals, and infinitesimals entail infinity, and infinity does not exist. Therefore, 0.999... does not exist.If you think 0.999... entails infinitesimals, you have no clue what "0.999..." actually means. Quote:Yes that's like saying that "a human should be well-defined, so it should be made of only a head, without a torso, arms or legs".No it isn't. It's a notational convention. It means that mathematical expressions, when translated into English expressions, should be singular. If you want to say that products are no longer unique, you can still have well-definedness by creating more operations, in this case say, * and @, and define a*b to be the positive product of a and b and a@b to be the negative product of a and b. Otherwise, you will end up with expressions which denote an uncumbersome number of possible values. Quote:Yes I am using the index law of mainstream mathematics to disprove mainstream mathematics.You are not doing a very good job. The index law is qualified to a certain domain, usually the positive real numbers. There is no reason to think it should apply to the complex numbers in general. Note that it is a "principle" in modern mathematics that every collection of positive integers has a minimum (this is known as the Well-ordering Principle). But well-ordering fails on the integers in general. Is this also a contradiction in mathematics, or is it again just a trivial example of a result which works for one structure but not for one of its extensions? [Edited by - NotAnAnonymousPoster on April 17, 2006 7:11:37 AM]
  10. NotAnAnonymousPoster


    Why is "something" in scare-quotes? Quote:Originally posted by CubicAwareness Proof-by-contradiction. Without opposites, there would be nothing. More specifically: without opposites, there would be but a singularity, and a singularity is nothing. So again, without opposites, there would be nothing.Ray has not provided an argument as to why a single point is nothing. It does not seem like nothing to me. Quote:I do believe that directly after mentioning a singularity, it defines what a singularity is.Then for the sake of clarity, it should state that it is a definition. Otherwise, how am I supposed to recognise definitions from ordinary propositions, especially when "singularity" is already an established mathematical term. Quote:Doesn't have to be a door. If I draw a circle on the ground, I can go "in" and "out" of that. Use a more abstract frame of reference in thinking about "going in and out".Why are you putting "in" and "out" in scare-quotes? And you are speaking in no more abstract terms by appealing to a simple example such as a circle than I am in talking about doors. In the sense that you can go in and out of a circle, you cannot go in and out of any of the geometric constructions that Ray produces on that page. So what is the significance of saying that you cannot go in or out of a singularity? [Edited by - NotAnAnonymousPoster on April 17, 2006 4:46:24 AM]
  11. NotAnAnonymousPoster


    Quote:Original post by nilkn A minor curiosity. Suppose I pose a simple practical problem which requires a sequence of arithmetical computations, such as those above, to be made. The result, if computed in your system, will be a 4-tuple, yet I am looking for a single value.A general problem in all of this Time Cube nonsense. Mathematical expressions ought to be well-defined, which in the case of multiplication, means that an expression a*b should stand for a unique number.
  12. NotAnAnonymousPoster


    Quote:Original post by Roboguy That paper misrepresents the currently accepted algebra. sqrt(-1)2 is not the same as sqrt(-1*-1). The rule is sqrt(a) * sqrt(b) == sqrt(a * b), where a and b are positive real numbers.More generally, sqrt(a) * sqrt(b) = sqrt(ab) if -pi < Arg(a) + Arg(b) <= pi.
  13. NotAnAnonymousPoster


    Quote:Original post by Dmytry If (in some axiomatic system) you can prove one axiom from other axioms (of this axiomatic system), this axiom is redundant and becomes a theorem (in this axiomatic system), no?No. Every axiom is a theorem anyway, and redundancy is not prohibited, though can be avoided for the sake of economy. In ZF, there are axioms of pairing, comprehension, power set and separation. Comprehension can be deduced from separation alone, and pairing can be deduced from power set and separation, meaning there is redundancy. It is acceptable because separation is usually considered a significantly stronger axiom than pairing and comprehension.
  14. NotAnAnonymousPoster

    Snakes on a plane

    The Walken impersonation is particularly brilliant.
  15. NotAnAnonymousPoster


    Quote:Original post by Dmytry As for giving proof, axioms is not something that you prove.Sometimes they are. The axiom of pairing is an axiom, and yet I can happily prove it from the axioms of power set and separation. Quote:edit: btw, how's about solving this very simple game-related problem with your algebra: some object has been tossed into air. Ignoring air resistance, given velocity v, point p, and gravity g, find position and velocity after time t has passed. Or similarly, given position and velocity of such falling object, find what position it had time t ago. With normal algebra, you just have single formula: p'=p+v*t+g*t*t/2 v'=v+v*t where results is consistent with real world where object doesn't magically appear flying along four trajectories, but is in one point.*Sigh*. This is clearly a 1-corner problem. You need more corners!
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!