Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Quantum Burrito

Pages: [1] 2
Spore: General / Buying star systems.
« on: August 31, 2009, 07:16:01 am »
Does the economic capture bar that appears when you form a trade route in space stage always move at the same rate, or are there things that can speed it up?

Everything Else / The Jammy Son of a $%&*! Bragging Thread!
« on: August 26, 2009, 10:40:43 am »
Okay, so I just got incredibly lucky, and wanted to brag. I completely screwed up my A-levels, I needed ABB, I got ADD. Four grades below. Then, this morning, I get a letter from the university I most wanted to go to (Sussex), telling that they're going to give me a place anyway. There are people with ABC struggling to get a place anywhere, and I get in to my favourite uni with ADD. I think that qualifies me as a Jammy son of a $%*!.

Anyone else achieved amazing, jealousy inspiring feats of luck?

Forum Games / Forum Nomic
« on: August 24, 2009, 11:10:09 am »
For those of you not familiar with nomic, it's a game where changing the rules of the game is an allowed rule. That's basically it. All you can really say, because as a result, the game is immensely variable. It's turn based (initially), which makes it ideal for forum gaming, I think.

Let me know if you're interested in playing. You will be added to the game so long as a simple majority of current players agree to let you in. I have  no discretion in this, or any other rule. Please do not moan at me.

Also feel free to ask if the rules seem unclear, or you have any other concerns.

Current proposal (proposed by putspooza):
309. I propose to change rule 308 to read the following: "Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes. If a period of 8 days has passed and not all voters have voted, the remaining voters' votes will be ignored and the they will lose 5 points each."
5 votes for, 1 vote against
Awaiting votes from: Quantum Burrito, putspooza, Kenotai, Yannick, dndfreak, kenobro and Detoxicated

Previous Proposal (Proposed by Quantum Burrito):
Rule change proposal #308: Rule #105 becomes mutable
Final count:
4 votes for, 3 votes against.
Motion passes: rule 105 is now rule 308. Quantum Burrito gains 10 points for positive votes; dndfreak, putspooza and Kenotai gain 10 points apiece for voting against a passing motion.

List of players:
Quantum Burrito: 5
putspooza: 41
Kenotai: 40
Yannick: 17
dndfreak: 14
kenobro: 10
Detoxicated: 5

The current rules for Forum Nomic are as follows:

101* All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect whenever a game begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-213 (mutable).
102* Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers.
103* A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.

(Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.)
104* All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.
106* All proposed rule-changes shall be posted before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on, notwithstanding subsequent changes to the forum post.

All current rules shall be kept, in numeric order, in the "statutes at large", which shall be in the original post. Immutable rules shall be signified with an asterisk (*), and mutable ones with a full stop (.). Rules shall be separated by a line consisting of only three hyphens (---).
107* No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.
108* Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.

If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.
109* Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.
110* In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.
111* If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.
112* The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed.
113* A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgement of the player to incur it, may be imposed.
114* There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule-changes must never become completely impermissible.
115* Rule-changes that affect rules needed to allow or apply rule-changes are as permissible as other rule-changes. Even rule-changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No rule-change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a rule.
116* Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.
202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) subtracting 291 from the ordinal number of their proposal and multiplying the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer. This number shall then be added to the player's score. (This yields a number between 0 and 10 for the first player, with the upper limit increasing by one each turn; more points are awarded for more popular proposals.)
203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if a simple majority of voters agree to it.
204. If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the players who vote against winning proposals shall receive 10 points each.
205. An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.
206. When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points.
207. Each player always has exactly one vote.
208. The winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.
209. At no time may there be more than 25 mutable rules.
210. If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.

If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.

If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.
211. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.

When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.

The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate.

Unless a Judge is overruled, one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge.

New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges. New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked. All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.
212. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner.

This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.
303. Players shall alternate in the order they joined the game, or applied to join the game, taking one whole turn apiece. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. The begining number of points for newcomes will be the lowest scoring persons score, less one tenth, rounded down.  If the lowest score is in fact zero, then the newcomer shall also have zero, and the less one tenth, rounded, clause will not apply.
x-(x/10), where x is the lowest score upon entry.
304. Whenever a new player requests to join, the current players hold a vote. If the majority of the eligible voters accept the new player, he can join the game.
307. if a player can not complete his turn due to not being active for at least 5 days, his turn is skipped and passed on to the next player in line. Any player who does not manage to post his change-rule in time gets a penalty of -10 points.
308. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.

Spore: General / Devs, about the centre of the galaxy... [massive spoilers]
« on: September 13, 2008, 08:31:07 am »
I like spore. I liked the cell stage, I liked the creature stage. The tribal stage was cool, I don't think it deserves four pages of critique. Civ was brilliant, I liked the "ending powers". I was apprehensive about space at first, but once you get the hang of it, it's awesome. I'd appreciate a few more unpopulated worlds, so I can have some fun with the monolith and such, but it's still excellent.

I enjoyed becoming omnipotent, and being able to crush whoever I want beneath my jackboot :D

However, although I enjoyed the fight against the Grox to get to the centre of the galaxy, and the more or less accurate depiction of it, and I loved the travel cut scene, and getting to meet Steve, the "reward" was the height of lame. Really, it was pathetic. The concept of the staff of life (aka "the genesis device") was brilliant, it was irritating having to get a whole set of animals in order to terraform a planet, but only 42 uses? I get the reference. The achievement name was enough. There was an empty slot in the unlimited terraforming tools, dammit >:(

So, I fight all the way to the centre of the galaxy, through the Grox, and reach what was pretty much the ultimate goal of the space stage. And all I get is a marker on my timeline saying I've achieved "enlightenment", and 42 uses of the genesis device. This was really disappointing. You know what would have been cool? Unlimited genesis device. In fact, the most awesome way to change it, would be to make it so you can choose, from your sporepedia, which plants and animals you want on the planet. That would have been really cool.

Even cooler would have been getting more that just the device. Maybe the ability to go from any black hole to the centre of the galaxy, and from there to any other black hole. That would have been amazingly awesome. Really, I just feel like if my race is "enlightened", they should have some kind of god-like power.

Don't get me wrong, I still like Spore. And I still think you guys are awesome. I just thought that the "ending" (not to say I've stopped playing ;)) was really weak. I'd really like to see something more awesome in a patch, if you have time :)

Spore: General / It's too crowded!
« on: September 07, 2008, 10:28:36 am »
Quote from: Douglas Adams
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

Keeping this in mind, why are all the space empires bunched up against one another? This is the one thing in the entire game that irritated me. There should be space between empires, and so plenty of room to expand. Instead it's like a game of civ in the late stage, and you have to squeeze in between other people.

It should be possible to stay out of contact of empires if you want to, not have them shoved in your face! Please, please, can we at least have a slider in the options or something to control how populated space is? This just seems like the cause of all the problems with the space stage. I know you need to resolve the Fermi paradox somehow, but I just think this is overdoing it.

Also, as a minor point, do we really have only six save slots? I mean, it makes sense in the same way that limited lots in The Sims did, but that had more than one neighbourhood. Is there any way to get more save slots?

I found a crashed spaceship, it'd left a massive "skidmark" before ramming into a hill.

Now, previously, I'd seen some kind of massive explosion that sent everyone running, and debris flying. I'm guessing that's what that was! So, I was wondering if this has happened to anyone else? I also had a spacecraft peacefully visit my tribe, but I don't have a screenshot of it :-\ Does this wreckage have any impact on the later game?

Everything Else / UK Prisons completely full, for the first time. Ever.
« on: February 22, 2008, 10:32:38 pm »

This is ridiculous. They're having to release dangerous criminals because they have nowhere to put them. This is supposed to be what happens when I screw up in Sim City, not actually happening in a country. And it's not even a poor country! Jack Straw an friends could have pressured for more prisons, the money's there. As evidenced by the fact that this is never happened before, in the whole of recorded history. And the whole of recorded history includes the bit after the gunpowder plot, where you could be thrown in the klink for looking a bit shifty.

I mean, really, how the hell did this happen? Why was nothing done before now? This is f***ing serious! If the government loses the ability to detain the convicted, the rule of law becomes a joke! This could be a full-scale disaster! And judging by how it's been handled so far, it probably will become one.

I hate the government, I hate politicians. Bunch of lying, incompetent tossers.

Actually, reading over my post, I think I might be over-reacting. I really hope so. Someone tell me I am, so I can relax.

Storytelling and Roleplaying / Mystery-poll gamey-thing
« on: January 29, 2008, 12:55:59 pm »
Current situation:
Leaning over a man that we have just brutalised with a meat cleaver.

Story so far:

We have woken up, looked around us and seen a moving object. We cut our arm badly crawling away from it, but it turned out to be a man. A man who's car we got into and fell asleep in. We then woke up in a bed naked. We met the man in the corridor outside the bedroom, who said he stripped us because our clothes got soaked, and then gave us a sheet to wear after much hesitation. We then decided to go to the kitchen to get something to eat, he followed us and insisted on being irritating. So we grabbed a knife and threatened him with it. We then got him to lie down on the floor. We made ourselves an omelette, and after eating, we calmed down. We apologised for it, and realised that we don't remember much about ourselves. He offers to drive us to the nearest town, but we decide to stay for at least the rest of the night. When we go to watch TV, he sits next to us, making us uncomfortable. When we see what channel he left it on, we decide to try tempting him into doing what we say. But it backfired, and he took what he wanted. After we woke up, we went to the kitchen, got a knife, and then went to cut him up. We paused just short of killing him.

1.) No nagging for extra options
2.) No asking for fanservice
2½.) That means no Rule 34
3.) No going off on tangents, this is for discussion of the story and how you should act only.
4.) No moaning about the update schedule. Daily, but not to the minute, and it might hit complications on the weekend.

Right, I saw these mentioned on the internet, and read up a bit about them, they're an alternate algebraic closure of the rational field.

So, after my maths teacher, an obsessive pure-maths sort I'll call T, mentions he'll be doing infinities in the next class (I'm in the top set of double maths, so he can afford to waste lessons on fun stuff like that). He also runs maths club, which I don't normally go to, because it'd mean walking back to college after I've gone home, and I'm lazy.

But, I thought it might be worth mentioning to him the concept of surreal numbers, inside of which can be constructed not only the real numbers, but infinite numbers, and infinitesimal numbers. He patiently listens to me go over the concept, and then says "Cool." Then I suggest that it would be a good concept to cover in maths club. He then says that's a good idea, and would I do the talk on surreal numbers, as I am the only one in college who understands them.

Now, my normal reaction when faced with the prospect of talking to a large group of people is to bolt for the door, but I decided that it might be worth it this time, what with the whole gaining the respect of my fellow nerds thing. So I agreed, and I just need to get my notes in order for the talk, and then give them a few weeks notice to publicise (!) it. Not only that, but my mum, a psychology teacher, and her friend, a sociology teacher, are going to show up. That ought to be fun.

So, that's my nervous involvement with them, and as well as making this post not completely useless for non-maths types, explains why I'm discussing such an esoteric subject all of a sudden.

Now for the maths:

This subject makes heavy use of set notation, and I have tried to make this as painless as possible, but I'm warning you not to continue if you have a headache.

There are two important definitions in the field of surreal numbers, the two you absolutely must have to get started.

Definition of a surreal number
(Note: S is the set of surreal numbers, no blackboard bold, sorry. and the ∋ sign is the wrong way round, but it would be even more confusing to write these out backwards, so sorry, just keep on your mental toes)

{L|R} ∋ S ⇔ ∀l∋L:l∋S ^ ∀r∋R:r∋S ^ ∀l∋L∀r∋R:¬(r≤l)

Definiton of less than or equal to
(note: Xl means the left set of the surreal number x, similarly with Xr)

x≤y ⇔ ¬∃m ∋ Xl:y≤m ^ ¬∃n ∋ Yr:n ≤ x

Now, these definitions may seem circular, but that's because they are. Mathematicians prefer "iterative", however.

Now, the simplest set possible is the empty set, {}, which is also represented by the symbol ∅.

So, let us consider the set {∅|∅}. Is this a surreal number? Well, first let us consider the statement


Is it true? Yes, trivially so. Any condition is true for all members of the empty set. That covers the first and second part of the surreal number definition. Now let us look at the third:
Again, trivially true, as there are no members in the empty set.

So, {∅|∅} is a surreal number, and to save time, I shall assign it the label 0. At the moment these labels are arbitrary, but when it comes to mapping the reals as a subset of the surreals, they will be meaningful (and it can be done, the reals are a proper subset of the surreals).

Now, an important question: is 0≤0? Well, considering that 0={∅|∅}, and applying the definition of ≤, we get:
0≤0 ⇔ ¬∃n ∋ ∅:0≤xL ^ ¬∃m ∋ ∅:m ≤ 0

Both halves are trivially true. There does not exist an element in the empty set. So, 0≤0, and if we now establish a few conventions:
x≤y ⇔ y≥x
x≤y ^ ¬(y≤x) ⇔ x<y
x<y ⇔ y>x
x≤y ^ y≤x ⇔ x=y

These are definitions, and so need no justification. Using these conventions, we can say than 0=0. Interesting, huh?

Well, now let's get to creating more numbers. Using 0 and ∅, we can create:

They are all sets of surreal numbers, but the middle one is not well formed, as 0≤0. The others are well formed, as there is nothing in the null set to be less then or equal to.

Let's have a look at {{0}|∅}. Specifically, is {∅|∅}≤{{0}|∅}? For this to be so, these two conditions must be met:

¬∃m ∋ ∅:{∅|{0}}≤m
¬∃n ∋ {0}:n ≤ ∅

First is true, as there does not exist an element in the empty set. Second is true, because any comparisons to the empty set are false.

So, {∅|∅}≤{{0}|∅}. But, is {{0}|∅}≤{∅|∅}? Well, lets check:
¬∃m ∋ {0}:0≤m
¬∃n ∋ ∅:n ≤ {{0}|∅}

The first is false, as 0≤0. Therefore, the statement {{0}|∅}≤{∅|∅} is false, and by our conventions, we can say 0<{{0}|∅}. So, let us label this number 1. Lo! We hath achieved much. From nothing, and structure, we have created unity.

Anyway, glossing over the details, {∅|{0}}=-1, {{1}|∅}=2.
In general, to map a real integer to a surreal integer,
if x=0, f(x)={∅|∅}
if x>0, f(x)={f(x-1)|∅}
if x<0, f(x)={∅|f(x+1)}

Anyway, integers are boring, lets look at a couple of more interesting combinations: first, {{0}|{1}}. Skipping the proof, 'cause I'm lazy,


So it shall be called 1/2. This is a good label, because when surreal addition is defined, {{0}|{1}}+{{0}|{1}}=1.

Anyway, now {{-1}|{1}}. {{-1}|{1}}=0; that is to say, {{-1}|{1}}≤0 ^ 0≤{{-1}|{1}}.

That's a significantly surprising result that it justifies proving. So, in academic tradition, I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader.

Anyway, you probably get the idea that we can represent all integers in surreal number form, and 1/2. But we can do 1/8, and 1/16 too. Now, these statements would take a definition of multiplicative inverse over the surreals to justify, but let me just state the mapping for all fractions m/2n:

Now, one more definition: addition. Addition is the basic operation of arithmetic, and all others can be derived from it. Over the surreals it is defined as:

x+y={Xl+y, x+Yl|Xr+y, x+Yr}

Again, this is circular. But, as any operation done to the null set results in the null set, it is usable. Take 1+2,

{{0}|∅}+{{1}|∅}={{0}+{{1}|∅}, {{0}|∅}+{1}|∅+{{1}|∅}, {{0}|∅}+∅}

Which simplifies to:
{{0}+{{1}|∅}, {{0}|∅}+{1}|∅}

Which leaves two sums,
0+{{1}|∅}={∅+{{1}|∅}, {0}+{1}|∅+{{1}|∅}, 0+∅}
{{0}|∅}+1={{0}+{1}, {1}+∅|∅+{1},{1}+∅}
Which leaves us with one sum needed to do, 0+1.
{∅|∅}+{{0}|∅}={∅+{1}, {0}+{0}|∅+{1},{0}+∅}

now, 0+0:
{∅|∅}+{∅|∅}={∅+{0}, {0}+∅|∅+{0}, {0}+∅}

now, substituting back in:


1+2={{0}+{2}, {1}+{1}|∅}={{2},{2}|∅}

Which, dues to a property of surreal numbers, is equal to {{2},∅}. A sensible name for which, from our mapping, is 3.

Yes, I know it's a lot simpler to calculate in real arithmetic, but that's not the point. Anyway, S is abelian over +. And the number that was called '-1' really is the additive inverse of 1. Subtraction is merely shorthand for adding negative numbers.
And multiplication is shorthand for repeated addition. So, essentially, they are all defined. Yes, this is a sloppy job, but it's good enough for an introductory text.

Now, a few rules for the surreals (all have been proved, but I wouldn't want to spoil your fun by depriving you of mathematical exercise):

  • The simplification theorem: you can remove all but the biggest of L and the smallest of R without changing the value of a surreal number.
  • A surreal number is greater than all members of its left set and lesser than all members of its right set.
  • A surreal number is equal to the oldest number between the largest member of its left set, and the smallest member of its right set. (oldest means the one that you would have to go through the least number of generative iterations to get to)

Anyway, this could all be done in the reals to far, so let me show you something interesting:

Consider the set Zs, the set of surreal integers. It is defined thusly:


As you can probably tell, this is identical to the set Z of integers. So, I'll call it Z for simplicity's sake. Anyway, consider the number: {Z|∅}. And, yes, it is a number. It meets all the requirements. But what is its value?

Well, the set Z contains all numbers that can be created in the form 1+1+1+... Therefore, by the second bulletpoint, it is greater than them. So therefore, it must be infinity. Oh, I'm sure you've had your maths teacher tell you infinity is not a number. But that's in the reals. But, we don't call it infinity. Infinity is too vague. The proper name for this number is ω. It is an ordinal. All ordinal infinities can be constructed in the surreals. You can calculate ω-1, ω+ω, ω2, ωω, etc. And the smallest ordinal not constructible using ω, by using the set of all ordinals constructible from ω in the left set. It is called ω1, and the smallest ordinal not constructible using ω1 is called ω2. Neat, eh? You could make up a complete set of ordinal arithmetic.

But also, consider the set D of unit dyadic fractions:

n∋D ⇒ 1/2n ∋D

i.e., {1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8...}

Now, consider the number {∅|D}. What value does it have? Well, it is smaller than all the unit dyadic fractions. But whatever positive fraction you pick, there will be a member of D that is smaller. So, this number is smaller than all possible fractions of a unit. But, it is bigger than zero. This is an infinitesimal number, which I shall call ε. Even though ε is smaller than all possible fractions, you can still have ε/2. You can have 2ε, 1+ε, and ωε (which is equal to one). This creates another whole section of arithmetic to play with.

And this also leads to a real, genuinely interesting exercise for the reader: How do you represent a non-dyadic fraction as a surreal number? Of course, like all my 'exercises for the reader', you could look this up on Google. That's why this has so many holes in, it's just an introduction. But, if you think you've followed what I've explained so far, working this one out might actually be worth your time.

Neat, eh?

Forum Games / Neverending story!
« on: August 31, 2007, 02:15:51 pm »
Here's how this works: Each poster takes off from where the last person left off (which can be mid-sentence, mid-word, mid-paragraph, or a sensible place) and can write as much as they want. There's no overall theme, but try to keep some bare minimum of sense in it. Here's your start:

Milton was an ordinary man, not exceptional in any real way. He was flossing his teeth after lunch when he heard the front door open. Rushing to the door he saw his daughter speeding off on a motorcycle, driven by who he assumed was her boyfriend. They never let him join in. He went to the living room and sat down in front of the TV, still with the floss hanging out of his mouth. He turned on the news channel

Everything Else / International Day of Irrational Hatred
« on: August 24, 2007, 04:01:55 pm »
I just heard about this from a friend, and was wondering if anyone else has heard of it? It doesn't get any hits on Google, but Google is not the source of all knowledge. Almost, yes, but not quite.

Anyway, apparently it's on June 13th (or it may have been 30th), and was invented by someone who was fed up with days randomly being declared for peaceful causes. The point is that you just irrationally hate everything for a day. It's a slightly weird idea, and you might lose your job 'celebrating' it, but I just wondered if any of this rang any bells with you guys?

Everything Else / An essay I wrote
« on: August 10, 2007, 04:12:05 pm »
I wanted to know what you guys think of my essay, I wrote it as a response to a question someone asked me (it was a bit more than she expected) and I want to know if you guys have any pointers.

Neomaterialist desituationism and expressionism

1. Fellini and neomaterialist desituationism

The primary theme of Hanfkopf’s essay on postdialectic semanticism is the dialectic of capitalist sexual identity. Thus, if neomaterialist desituationism holds, we have to choose between neopatriarchial cultural theory and the subtextual paradigm of discourse.

Cameron states that the works of Fellini are empowering. But if neomaterialist desituationism holds, we have to choose between precapitalist deappropriation and the dialectic paradigm of reality.

Many sublimations concerning not deconstruction, but subdeconstruction exist. It could be said that the premise of neomaterialist desituationism implies that context is a product of communication.

The defining characteristic, and eventually the dialectic, of postcapitalist narrative which is a central theme of Fellini’s 8 1/2 emerges again in Amarcord. In a sense, Porter suggests that we have to choose between neomaterialist desituationism and cultural submodernist theory.

2. The semantic paradigm of narrative and neocultural desituationism

In the works of Smith, a predominant concept is the concept of capitalist reality. Bataille uses the term ‘expressionism’ to denote the role of the writer as artist. However, the subject is contextualised into a neomaterialist desituationism that includes art as a whole.

If expressionism holds, we have to choose between neocultural desituationism and substructuralist sublimation. It could be said that Marx’s model of the cultural paradigm of discourse states that language is used to reinforce the status quo.

The subject is interpolated into a neomaterialist desituationism that includes reality as a paradox. Therefore, in Chasing Amy, Smith analyses expressionism; in Mallrats, however, he denies neotextual constructive theory.

3. Realities of collapse

“Society is part of the genre of truth,” says Lyotard. The main theme of the works of Smith is a postsemanticist whole. However, Debord promotes the use of neocultural desituationism to challenge capitalism.

In the works of Smith, a predominant concept is the distinction between ground and figure. Lacan uses the term ‘expressionism’ to denote the stasis, and some would say the paradigm, of capitalist reality. In a sense, several narratives concerning Lyotardist narrative may be found.

“Class is impossible,” says Bataille. Porter suggests that the works of Smith are postmodern. However, many constructions concerning the bridge between society and class exist.

Foucault uses the term ‘expressionism’ to denote not theory, but subtheory. But in Dogma, Smith examines Baudrillardist simulacra; in Chasing Amy, although, he deconstructs expressionism.

Lacan suggests the use of postcapitalist narrative to read and modify sexual identity. It could be said that if neocultural desituationism holds, we have to choose between constructive nihilism and neocultural theory.

The subject is contextualised into a neomaterialist desituationism that includes consciousness as a totality. However, a number of narratives concerning expressionism may be discovered.

Sartre promotes the use of textual postpatriarchial theory to attack sexism. Therefore, neocultural desituationism states that expression is created by the masses.

Any number of desituationisms concerning the role of the participant as artist exist. In a sense, the primary theme of la Tournier’s essay on Lyotardist narrative is the absurdity of submodern society.

Movies / Idiocracy
« on: July 19, 2007, 01:09:12 pm »
I just saw Idiocracy half an hour ago, and it was fantastic. Excellent concept. And, scarily, something I can see happening in real life.

But enough worrying, I thought the president was hilarious! And the way he escaped from jail. I'm assuming I'm not the only one who's seen this movie, so I thought I'd ask you all what you thought of it. Do you have a favourite character? Or scene? What about the ending. I thought the ending was pretty good.

Yeah, so, what did you all think?

Everything Else / Abstract/ Esoteric joke thread!
« on: July 07, 2007, 06:15:49 am »
Well, a lot of forums have a joke thread at one time or another, but that quickly loses novelty. So I've decided to put a twist on the old theme. This is a thread for any abstract/esoteric jokes you know.

I'll kick it off with this:

One day a pure mathematician decides he wants to expand his horizons. So he decides to attend a lecture on a more practical field of mathematics, and looks through the list of lectures on the timetable at the open lecture halls of the local university. He finds a lecture that is still firmly grounded in mathematics, but is sure to have a practical use: "The Theory of Gears". So, he makes a note of the time, and eagerly enters the lecture hall early to get a front row seat.

The lecturer mounts the podium, and recites the introduction: "Whereas the theory of gears with a real number of teeth is well known..."

Everything Else / I think I figured out dividing by zero!
« on: June 18, 2007, 09:42:29 pm »
Woooo! Go me!

Okay, I know this has a hole in it somewhere, but I thought I'd float it out here, what with being such a bastion of intellectualism.

As anyone who's been through highschool mostly awake knows, all linear graphs can be represented as y=ax+b

Consider the graph x=0, which is a graph that is exactly on the y-axis, in other words a vertical line.

Now, if x=0, it follows that x=0y; rearranging, that gives us y=x/0. And so the vertical graph x=0 can be represented in generic form as y=x/0+0.

Looking at the graph, it is clear that there are no points anywhere that x does not equal 0. So it follows that the solution for x/0, when x is nonzero, is without answer, or 'undefined'. However, when x is zero, giving us y=0/0, every single possible value of y is plotted, meaning that 0/0 is equal to every single number at the same time, much like x½ is always equal to two values simultaneously. This means that 0/0=4 and 0/0=42 are both valid, and so it follows that 0/0≠0/0.

So, what have I done wrong?

Pages: [1] 2