On January 07 2011 21:38 shaunnn wrote: Doing a maths degree and ive literally never heard of greater infinity rofl, pretty sure thats complete bs
I have a math degree, and have also never heard of it. Why? Because the concept of infinity literally doesn't allow for anything greater than it.
Uh... some infinities are larger than others dude. I'm no maths grad so sorry for the bad example but: e.g.
inf/exp(inf) = 0
by that reasoning some infinities are `greater' than others. I'm also pretty sure that last time I spoke with a maths grad they were telling me that there's much more formal ways to prove that's the case.
Its all about limits. Think about the two functions f(x)=X and f(x)=x^2. Intuitively you know that x^2 gets bigger faster, so if you consider x^2 going to infinity and x going to infinity both of these eventually become infinity but X^2 is a bigger infinity.
(going to infinity meaning X becoming closer and closer to infinity)
That's my simplistic explanation from a engineering student thats awful at math.
theres actually no such thing as a bigger infinity. f(x)=x^2 only approaches infinity faster than f(x)=x does. they will both only be infinitely approaching infinity, no such thing as a "bigger" infinity.
only in 1st yr of college but in calc I
The guy you quoted is wrong, but doesn't mean you're correct. f(x) = x & f(x) = x^(2) can be mapped to each other, so they're the equally "sized" of infinity (we'll ignore that there's conception of "size" with what we're talking about, but that'll pickle your brain if you spend too much time thinking about it).
But f(x) = x is a "countable" infinity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_infinity) while you can map all of the numbers between 0 and 1 to the "uncountable" infinity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncountable_infinity ). This is more logic theory than all that advanced of mathematics, but, really, it will pickle your brain. That isn't a joke, as the stuff doesn't make any concrete "sense" in the physical world and are mathematical constructs (though important in Set theory). So don't get too hung on up on it.
No he is correct. He is saying that there can be no number greater than infinity, you are referring to the cardinality of a infinite set. It's true this could be different for infinite sets but that is a different topic.
ogsMC prolly the best sc2 player in the world at the moment. He didn't do well in seasons 1 and 2 even though everyone that knew him kept saying he's perhaps the best player, but he stepped it up in season 3 and has been very impressive ever since.
On January 07 2011 22:01 Aquafresh wrote: I don't think people are realizing the implications of that Ro16 graphic. It is entirely possible, probable even, that we have an IdrA vs Clide Ro16 matchup.
I want to hear what Tastosis has to say about THAT.
The groups for Groupstage 2 next week Group A IMNesTea SlayerSBoxeR oGsZenio TSL_Trickster
Group B IMMVP ChoyafOu theBestfOu oGsHyperDub
Group C NsPGenius Winner Group G oGsNaDa Runner up Group H
Group D oGsMC Winner Group H ST_RainbOw Runner up Group G
Doesn't matter what place IdrA or Jinro hopefully advances. Either way they are going to get matched up vs heavy competetitors for the championship.
Clide / MarineKing probably going to end up like that.
In any case it's going to look like either vs Clide or MarineKing for anyone from group H. Both are tough and the groups are really stacked (except for B).
lol yea group B is awful, so easy compared to the others.
On January 07 2011 18:15 Exarl25 wrote: lol at the Tastosis bias. They wouldn't be acting like this if it was anyone else who did that strat.
Um, yea...it's freakin Julyzerg man.
Julyzerg or not, that was still a <10min game resolved in 1 rush. Just like a 2rax allin.
Did guys who are trashtalking July for his banelings really expect a long TvZ game on DQ? >.>
Might want to get off the computer and go level up your reading comprehension, brah. No one here is trashing JulyZerg, and it's certainly not inaccurate to say that Tasteless and Artosis wouldn't have been splooging their pants over what was basically a routine baneling bust with a cute little gimmick. Love Tasteless and Artosis but they can get a tad carried away with the HYPE HYPE HYPE at times
Please change the question from "do you recommend this game?" to "is the game at least 30 minutes with no early aggression or cheese?" That way it's more telling, because TL as a whole has this Idra attitude of wanting to crucify anyone who DARES TO PLAY THE GAME WRONG. I'd highly recommend the Inca proxy rush game.
Sorry if this was mentioned, too many posts to look manually through and search/google didn't work well, can someone explain to me exactly why July's "cheese" was so good?
To my understanding, he was doing a normal build, with a Hatch building, and then he must have saw something (saw Terran teching to fact so decided to bust?), canceled the Hatch, and built a bling nest there (versus building a bling nest at home and brining that hatch-drone back to base, which would slightly decrease mining time) because it was convenient.
Is there more to it? Is something I thought was intentional or given wrong? Was it to make it look like a hatch was building while a bling nest was building instead? I still don't get it since Tastosis said that they think he canceled the Hatch twice, so I'm pretty confused here.
On January 10 2011 13:30 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Sorry if this was mentioned, too many posts to look manually through and search/google didn't work well, can someone explain to me exactly why July's "cheese" was so good?
To my understanding, he was doing a normal build, with a Hatch building, and then he must have saw something (saw Terran teching to fact so decided to bust?), canceled the Hatch, and built a bling nest there (versus building a bling nest at home and brining that hatch-drone back to base, which would slightly decrease mining time) because it was convenient.
Is there more to it? Is something I thought was intentional or given wrong? Was it to make it look like a hatch was building while a bling nest was building instead? I still don't get it since Tastosis said that they think he canceled the Hatch twice, so I'm pretty confused here.
Thanks a lot in advance
when terran scans zerg's base, terran will not see baneling nest and would think it woul be expansion. there's no reason for terran to scan expansion base when hatchery is in a process of getting built. and this all in hatchery tech, no lair. thus no creep throw out from overlord as well.
On January 07 2011 21:38 shaunnn wrote: Doing a maths degree and ive literally never heard of greater infinity rofl, pretty sure thats complete bs
I have a math degree, and have also never heard of it. Why? Because the concept of infinity literally doesn't allow for anything greater than it.
Uh... some infinities are larger than others dude. I'm no maths grad so sorry for the bad example but: e.g.
inf/exp(inf) = 0
by that reasoning some infinities are `greater' than others. I'm also pretty sure that last time I spoke with a maths grad they were telling me that there's much more formal ways to prove that's the case.
Its all about limits. Think about the two functions f(x)=X and f(x)=x^2. Intuitively you know that x^2 gets bigger faster, so if you consider x^2 going to infinity and x going to infinity both of these eventually become infinity but X^2 is a bigger infinity.
(going to infinity meaning X becoming closer and closer to infinity)
That's my simplistic explanation from a engineering student thats awful at math.
theres actually no such thing as a bigger infinity. f(x)=x^2 only approaches infinity faster than f(x)=x does. they will both only be infinitely approaching infinity, no such thing as a "bigger" infinity.
only in 1st yr of college but in calc I
The guy you quoted is wrong, but doesn't mean you're correct. f(x) = x & f(x) = x^(2) can be mapped to each other, so they're the equally "sized" of infinity (we'll ignore that there's conception of "size" with what we're talking about, but that'll pickle your brain if you spend too much time thinking about it).
But f(x) = x is a "countable" infinity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_infinity) while you can map all of the numbers between 0 and 1 to the "uncountable" infinity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncountable_infinity ). This is more logic theory than all that advanced of mathematics, but, really, it will pickle your brain. That isn't a joke, as the stuff doesn't make any concrete "sense" in the physical world and are mathematical constructs (though important in Set theory). So don't get too hung on up on it.
No he is correct. He is saying that there can be no number greater than infinity, you are referring to the cardinality of a infinite set. It's true this could be different for infinite sets but that is a different topic.
Where did Shaunnn and timmyfred get their math degrees from / working on them at. I learned freshman year of college that that there are an infinite amount on infinities. Take the largest value of f(x) = x and plug it inot g(x) = x^2. Your infinity just got larger.
On January 07 2011 21:38 shaunnn wrote: Doing a maths degree and ive literally never heard of greater infinity rofl, pretty sure thats complete bs
I have a math degree, and have also never heard of it. Why? Because the concept of infinity literally doesn't allow for anything greater than it.
Uh... some infinities are larger than others dude. I'm no maths grad so sorry for the bad example but: e.g.
inf/exp(inf) = 0
by that reasoning some infinities are `greater' than others. I'm also pretty sure that last time I spoke with a maths grad they were telling me that there's much more formal ways to prove that's the case.
Its all about limits. Think about the two functions f(x)=X and f(x)=x^2. Intuitively you know that x^2 gets bigger faster, so if you consider x^2 going to infinity and x going to infinity both of these eventually become infinity but X^2 is a bigger infinity.
(going to infinity meaning X becoming closer and closer to infinity)
That's my simplistic explanation from a engineering student thats awful at math.
theres actually no such thing as a bigger infinity. f(x)=x^2 only approaches infinity faster than f(x)=x does. they will both only be infinitely approaching infinity, no such thing as a "bigger" infinity.
only in 1st yr of college but in calc I
The guy you quoted is wrong, but doesn't mean you're correct. f(x) = x & f(x) = x^(2) can be mapped to each other, so they're the equally "sized" of infinity (we'll ignore that there's conception of "size" with what we're talking about, but that'll pickle your brain if you spend too much time thinking about it).
But f(x) = x is a "countable" infinity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_infinity) while you can map all of the numbers between 0 and 1 to the "uncountable" infinity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncountable_infinity ). This is more logic theory than all that advanced of mathematics, but, really, it will pickle your brain. That isn't a joke, as the stuff doesn't make any concrete "sense" in the physical world and are mathematical constructs (though important in Set theory). So don't get too hung on up on it.
No he is correct. He is saying that there can be no number greater than infinity, you are referring to the cardinality of a infinite set. It's true this could be different for infinite sets but that is a different topic.
Where did Shaunnn and timmyfred get their math degrees from / working on them at. I learned freshman year of college that that there are an infinite amount on infinities. Take the largest value of f(x) = x and plug it inot g(x) = x^2. Your infinity just got larger.
no, that's not accurate. where are you all getting your maths from?
first, infinity is usually not considered a number unless it's convenient for some reason. so i'm not sure why are people using functions to talk about sizes of infinity. there is no such thing as the largest value of f(x) = x, that doesn't even make sense. but if you take limits to infnity both x and x^2 tend to infinity, one quicker than the other but they aren't different infinities.
that kind of thinking could be right if you had said: take an infinite set S and now do 2^S (the power ser of S), NOW your infinity just got bigger. but that's only notation, you can't do number algebra on cardinalities (unless they're finite).
On January 07 2011 21:54 Corrupted wrote: best day yet...round of 16 is looking sick.
Best day is still the Boxer group imo, think pretty much all the games delivered there =)
Im a HUUUGE NaDa fanboy but I gotta give the best play-day ever to the BoxeR group! That day was sikkkk...
Best day was by far the Boxer group. Great macro games all around (except for hyperdub vs hongun g2). Boxer played like a boss that day, same for Hyperdub in Hyperdub vs Hongun G1
I didnt actually expect a decent game from boxer vs hyperdub but it ended up pretty awesome.
On January 07 2011 21:38 shaunnn wrote: Doing a maths degree and ive literally never heard of greater infinity rofl, pretty sure thats complete bs
I have a math degree, and have also never heard of it. Why? Because the concept of infinity literally doesn't allow for anything greater than it.
Uh... some infinities are larger than others dude. I'm no maths grad so sorry for the bad example but: e.g.
inf/exp(inf) = 0
by that reasoning some infinities are `greater' than others. I'm also pretty sure that last time I spoke with a maths grad they were telling me that there's much more formal ways to prove that's the case.
Its all about limits. Think about the two functions f(x)=X and f(x)=x^2. Intuitively you know that x^2 gets bigger faster, so if you consider x^2 going to infinity and x going to infinity both of these eventually become infinity but X^2 is a bigger infinity.
(going to infinity meaning X becoming closer and closer to infinity)
That's my simplistic explanation from a engineering student thats awful at math.
theres actually no such thing as a bigger infinity. f(x)=x^2 only approaches infinity faster than f(x)=x does. they will both only be infinitely approaching infinity, no such thing as a "bigger" infinity.
only in 1st yr of college but in calc I
The guy you quoted is wrong, but doesn't mean you're correct. f(x) = x & f(x) = x^(2) can be mapped to each other, so they're the equally "sized" of infinity (we'll ignore that there's conception of "size" with what we're talking about, but that'll pickle your brain if you spend too much time thinking about it).
But f(x) = x is a "countable" infinity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_infinity) while you can map all of the numbers between 0 and 1 to the "uncountable" infinity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncountable_infinity ). This is more logic theory than all that advanced of mathematics, but, really, it will pickle your brain. That isn't a joke, as the stuff doesn't make any concrete "sense" in the physical world and are mathematical constructs (though important in Set theory). So don't get too hung on up on it.
No he is correct. He is saying that there can be no number greater than infinity, you are referring to the cardinality of a infinite set. It's true this could be different for infinite sets but that is a different topic.
Where did Shaunnn and timmyfred get their math degrees from / working on them at. I learned freshman year of college that that there are an infinite amount on infinities. Take the largest value of f(x) = x and plug it inot g(x) = x^2. Your infinity just got larger.
but that's only notation, you can't do number algebra on cardinalities (unless they're finite).
EPT
