July 17th, 2022, 01:02 PM

Remove Town Support as a category. It just makes role counting easier

that's one extra suggestion

As an aside, I've always wanted to play as a Neutral Evil Jailor.

Remove Town Support as a category. It just makes role counting easier

that's one extra suggestion

As an aside, I've always wanted to play as a Neutral Evil Jailor.

July 14th, 2022, 03:48 PM

You are locked in a room full of boxes containing chinese symbols, and rule book in English for manipulating the symbols. You get as input from the outside some Chinese symbols; you look up in the rule book what you're supposed to do with those symbols, and give back some symbols in Chinese.

Unbeknownst to you, the symbols you get are questions, and the symbols you give back are correct answers, in Chinese, to the questions, such that they are indistinguishable from those a Chinese speaker would give.

Assuming you don't understand a word of Chinese, you still pass the Turing test for understanding Chinese; you fool the other person outside into thinking they really are speaking with someone who speaks Chinese. All the same, you don't understand a single word of Chinese.

If you cannot get from the syntax of the computer program to the semantics of understanding Chinese, then neither can any other digital computer, because no computer has something that you don't have.

TL;DR:

Syntax is not semantics. Computer programs are defined entirely syntactically; operations over syntactical elements.

Human intelligence requires more than just a syntax; it requires a semantics.

Therefore, programs which are syntactical, do not have intelligence.

You are locked in a room full of boxes containing chinese symbols, and rule book in English for manipulating the symbols. You get as input from the outside some Chinese symbols; you look up in the rule book what you're supposed to do with those symbols, and give back some symbols in Chinese.

Unbeknownst to you, the symbols you get are questions, and the symbols you give back are correct answers, in Chinese, to the questions, such that they are indistinguishable from those a Chinese speaker would give.

Assuming you don't understand a word of Chinese, you still pass the Turing test for understanding Chinese; you fool the other person outside into thinking they really are speaking with someone who speaks Chinese. All the same, you don't understand a single word of Chinese.

If you cannot get from the syntax of the computer program to the semantics of understanding Chinese, then neither can any other digital computer, because no computer has something that you don't have.

TL;DR:

Syntax is not semantics. Computer programs are defined entirely syntactically; operations over syntactical elements.

Human intelligence requires more than just a syntax; it requires a semantics.

Therefore, programs which are syntactical, do not have intelligence.

July 14th, 2022, 08:50 AM

[QUOTE=Voss;968481]I like how staff makes decisions based on macro observations rather than one guy's personal experience :)[/QUOTE]

Staff could also try and talk to Exeter and see why he left... and then use their brains & knowledge of people to see if it's applicable to many people. But even so, 1 player when there's probably 100 people who play mafia, at most, is A LOT.

Originally Posted by

**Voss**
I like how staff makes decisions based on macro observations rather than one guy's personal experience

Staff could also try and talk to Exeter and see why he left... and then use their brains & knowledge of people to see if it's applicable to many people. But even so, 1 player when there's probably 100 people who play mafia, at most, is A LOT.

July 14th, 2022, 08:13 AM

[QUOTE=Unknown1234;968496]Given that he told his teammate that he was going to do something, but not specifically what he was going to do, I think this can be safely ruled out as a possibility.[/QUOTE]

If you're convinced you've discovered some big-brain play you may feel so excited you will literally forget about everything else. For example, Fermat's last theorem took 378 years to prove, and Fermat stated he had discovered a proof of it (but the particular page (he was writing on the margins of a book) he was using wasn't wide enough for him write the proof down on it), but since his proof was never discovered people now assume he deluded himself into thinking he had discovered a proof whereas he hadn't. This is a relevant example because pretty much the same thing could've happened to this guy

Originally Posted by

**Unknown1234**
Given that he told his teammate that he was going to do something, but not specifically what he was going to do, I think this can be safely ruled out as a possibility.

If you're convinced you've discovered some big-brain play you may feel so excited you will literally forget about everything else. For example, Fermat's last theorem took 378 years to prove, and Fermat stated he had discovered a proof of it (but the particular page (he was writing on the margins of a book) he was using wasn't wide enough for him write the proof down on it), but since his proof was never discovered people now assume he deluded himself into thinking he had discovered a proof whereas he hadn't. This is a relevant example because pretty much the same thing could've happened to this guy

July 14th, 2022, 04:19 AM

[QUOTE=DJarJar;968436]the guy tried to make the justification "Why did I do that? I thought that indicting 6 as rb immune would be harmless and would even give a boost to triad. Considering that I rbed 12, I expected him to claim escort and claim that he rbed 12 "

First of all, that plan is just stupid. it will be obvious at least one of you is lying 1 day later when you only roleblock 1 person and not 2.

That being said, that might fly if he said anything like that to his teammate during n1 (reminder spy can't read night chat anymore).

Instead he just said he was going to do something dumb and be ready for it. There is a reason for that that anybody reading can acknowledge is true - he knew if he actually explained his plan, his teammate would not be on board. This is why he just said he's going to do something dumb instead of explaining the plan. I'm not really sure how that's defensible but sure, w/e, staff giving a warning watchlist (AND NOT A BANLIST) is the bad thing here, not a guy who has been warned repeatedly about excessive hostility and toxicness once again finding a way to shit on others and act like it's morally okay (yes that's you renegade).[/QUOTE]

"Anybody reading can acknowledge is true"

No, [B]you[/B] can acknowledge it's true. I cannot. Perhaps the guy was thinking so intensely that he literally forgot to talk to the guy about his strategy. Maybe he was super excited about what he was going to do...

Originally Posted by

**DJarJar**
the guy tried to make the justification "Why did I do that? I thought that indicting 6 as rb immune would be harmless and would even give a boost to triad. Considering that I rbed 12, I expected him to claim escort and claim that he rbed 12 "

First of all, that plan is just stupid. it will be obvious at least one of you is lying 1 day later when you only roleblock 1 person and not 2.

That being said, that might fly if he said anything like that to his teammate during n1 (reminder spy can't read night chat anymore).

Instead he just said he was going to do something dumb and be ready for it. There is a reason for that that anybody reading can acknowledge is true - he knew if he actually explained his plan, his teammate would not be on board. This is why he just said he's going to do something dumb instead of explaining the plan. I'm not really sure how that's defensible but sure, w/e, staff giving a warning watchlist (AND NOT A BANLIST) is the bad thing here, not a guy who has been warned repeatedly about excessive hostility and toxicness once again finding a way to shit on others and act like it's morally okay (yes that's you renegade).

"Anybody reading can acknowledge is true"

No, **you** can acknowledge it's true. I cannot. Perhaps the guy was thinking so intensely that he literally forgot to talk to the guy about his strategy. Maybe he was super excited about what he was going to do...

July 14th, 2022, 04:18 AM

[QUOTE=Unknown1234;968489]But- you did react.

-_-[/QUOTE]

Not in the way I was expected to, I think. I think I was expected to freak out so I could get banned again.

Originally Posted by

**Unknown1234**
But- you did react.

Not in the way I was expected to, I think. I think I was expected to freak out so I could get banned again.

July 13th, 2022, 01:21 PM

[QUOTE=Voss;968481]I like how staff makes decisions based on macro observations rather than one guy's personal experience :)[/QUOTE]

If this is an attempt to get me to react it's a very weak one.

Originally Posted by

**Voss**
I like how staff makes decisions based on macro observations rather than one guy's personal experience

If this is an attempt to get me to react it's a very weak one.

July 13th, 2022, 01:18 PM

I don't like this suggestion. It affects rolecounting because if someone is a new player you will 100% know they cannot be a "complex" role.

I don't like this suggestion. It affects rolecounting because if someone is a new player you will 100% know they cannot be a "complex" role.

July 13th, 2022, 07:58 AM

When I was young I heard pitbulls get put down at a certain age because they become too violent. That being said I don't think any of the arguments in this thread point to them being unintelligent. Ted Bundy had an IQ of 130 and was very violent. Aggression has nothing to do with intelligence

When I was young I heard pitbulls get put down at a certain age because they become too violent. That being said I don't think any of the arguments in this thread point to them being unintelligent. Ted Bundy had an IQ of 130 and was very violent. Aggression has nothing to do with intelligence

July 13th, 2022, 03:04 AM

The question staff should be asking themself is whether it's worth it to start punishing people more now, seeing as SC2 is dying. Some of these punishments I am pretty sure I have never heard of before and I've been here a long time.

Exeter got infracted for leaving multiple lobbies because he didn't like the save. He specifically said in discord he might stop playing now. So that's one more player that's not coming back, in an already dying game. That's not to mention the myriad players who got banned for pedophiliac and racist names (lol). Maybe I'm just a retard, but I'm there to play the game; I don't give a rat's ass about some guy with Tourette's spamming dumb shit in the game. I play Mafia to win

The question staff should be asking themself is whether it's worth it to start punishing people more now, seeing as SC2 is dying. Some of these punishments I am pretty sure I have never heard of before and I've been here a long time.

Exeter got infracted for leaving multiple lobbies because he didn't like the save. He specifically said in discord he might stop playing now. So that's one more player that's not coming back, in an already dying game. That's not to mention the myriad players who got banned for pedophiliac and racist names (lol). Maybe I'm just a retard, but I'm there to play the game; I don't give a rat's ass about some guy with Tourette's spamming dumb shit in the game. I play Mafia to win

July 13th, 2022, 02:57 AM

Renegade is absolutely correct though. That guy was not throwing or griefing. Further, I don't think people should be punished for this kind of this thing. Its a legitimate strategy to bus your scummates, consent notwithstanding. If someone bussed I would mind it, but at the end of the day their goal was to win, same as mine. There is nothing reportable there lol

Also, the real issue here, since the guy wasn't bussing his teammates, is that now potentially you can get infracted for pulling off a big brain move that fails for 'griefing' (lol)

Renegade is absolutely correct though. That guy was not throwing or griefing. Further, I don't think people should be punished for this kind of this thing. Its a legitimate strategy to bus your scummates, consent notwithstanding. If someone bussed I would mind it, but at the end of the day their goal was to win, same as mine. There is nothing reportable there lol

Also, the real issue here, since the guy wasn't bussing his teammates, is that now potentially you can get infracted for pulling off a big brain move that fails for 'griefing' (lol)

July 12th, 2022, 01:36 PM

[QUOTE=CaNNoN;968236]I think some of the suggestions you've made are excellent, including Poisoner being non-killing, electro being less accessible, lover being NI, cult being restricted, coroner being support, and escort becoming town power (thus making it more likely).. I disagree with some, which I've elaborated below.

1. Party host could be made more useful. It exists basically to be an intermediately-confirmed person until gov reveals. They die early and often, and are easy to counterclaim. It could be made stronger by giving it a vest option, OR, by making it more confirm-able (special chat during parties, for example). It is most certainly not a town power role in its current state.

2. Escort is almost 100% always thought of as liaison/consort, and there's no way around it. There either needs to be a differentiator, or the role needs to be adjusted. It also needs a confirmation message. It's one of the few without. That said, making it town power may result in people believing it more, as it will be more frequent.

3. Coroner is IMHO the strongest town invest role, but IT. NEEDS. EXTRA. NOTEPAD. SPACE. I agree it's more of a support role (invest/det/sheriff being invest, the coroner is always their supporting function). However, that will make it less common in games, as town support is looked down upon in saves.

4. HB/Swinger are kind of boring roles. It could be made more interesting by allowing them to select another lover on a alter night (which does out them, but late-game, it could be an edge for evils)

5. Lover being NI is a FANTASTIC addition. However, I feel like Lover (and another role I am going to suggest) deserve a new category: Neutral Chaotic (win with anyone). They're not REALLY benign, they're not REALLY evil, they exist to cause Chaos. Auditor would also fall into this category.

6. So Poisoner is like a neutral 49er, but they don't make someone lose their powers? Interesting. Should it have a toggle option to disable abilities permanently, a la 49er?

7. While we're at it, Spy either should be removed, or allowed to see night chat again. At least have it as a toggle option. In its current form, it basically exists as an easy role for triad to claim.

8. Oracle literally exists to die and only to die. Perhaps one option that help confirm its existence would be a message to the person they visit "The diviners look down upon you this night" or something. It would both A) Confirm it, and B) also give mafia an edge, knowing whether they should target/lynch them.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree on 2). The game as is fine as it is with Escort/Consort being mistaken for one another (which was the intent).

3) Couldn't agree more

1) Party Host should be collapsed into Crier, and Crier should not have the ability to speak during the day; Judge should always be able to talk at night

Originally Posted by

**CaNNoN**
I think some of the suggestions you've made are excellent, including Poisoner being non-killing, electro being less accessible, lover being NI, cult being restricted, coroner being support, and escort becoming town power (thus making it more likely).. I disagree with some, which I've elaborated below.

1. Party host could be made more useful. It exists basically to be an intermediately-confirmed person until gov reveals. They die early and often, and are easy to counterclaim. It could be made stronger by giving it a vest option, OR, by making it more confirm-able (special chat during parties, for example). It is most certainly not a town power role in its current state.

2. Escort is almost 100% always thought of as liaison/consort, and there's no way around it. There either needs to be a differentiator, or the role needs to be adjusted. It also needs a confirmation message. It's one of the few without. That said, making it town power may result in people believing it more, as it will be more frequent.

3. Coroner is IMHO the strongest town invest role, but IT. NEEDS. EXTRA. NOTEPAD. SPACE. I agree it's more of a support role (invest/det/sheriff being invest, the coroner is always their supporting function). However, that will make it less common in games, as town support is looked down upon in saves.

4. HB/Swinger are kind of boring roles. It could be made more interesting by allowing them to select another lover on a alter night (which does out them, but late-game, it could be an edge for evils)

5. Lover being NI is a FANTASTIC addition. However, I feel like Lover (and another role I am going to suggest) deserve a new category: Neutral Chaotic (win with anyone). They're not REALLY benign, they're not REALLY evil, they exist to cause Chaos. Auditor would also fall into this category.

6. So Poisoner is like a neutral 49er, but they don't make someone lose their powers? Interesting. Should it have a toggle option to disable abilities permanently, a la 49er?

7. While we're at it, Spy either should be removed, or allowed to see night chat again. At least have it as a toggle option. In its current form, it basically exists as an easy role for triad to claim.

8. Oracle literally exists to die and only to die. Perhaps one option that help confirm its existence would be a message to the person they visit "The diviners look down upon you this night" or something. It would both A) Confirm it, and B) also give mafia an edge, knowing whether they should target/lynch them.

I don't agree on 2). The game as is fine as it is with Escort/Consort being mistaken for one another (which was the intent).

3) Couldn't agree more

1) Party Host should be collapsed into Crier, and Crier should not have the ability to speak during the day; Judge should always be able to talk at night

July 12th, 2022, 01:33 PM

I've played a few Mafia 2.0 games, and I can safely say the following:

-Oracle looks like a nice role but I've not had to play against it yet

-Poisoner is nice because it fucks with the bodyguard on mayor/marshall meta

-RNG sucks. EB/Creepy doll have no reason to exist. This is a game based on skill. Don't add RNG to it please

I've played a few Mafia 2.0 games, and I can safely say the following:

-Oracle looks like a nice role but I've not had to play against it yet

-Poisoner is nice because it fucks with the bodyguard on mayor/marshall meta

-RNG sucks. EB/Creepy doll have no reason to exist. This is a game based on skill. Don't add RNG to it please

July 12th, 2022, 12:39 AM

[QUOTE=Helz;968458]I would disagree. Have you actually spent a real amount of time with one? You seem pretty anti-dog in general.[/QUOTE]

I think oops is just trolling

Originally Posted by

**Helz**
I would disagree. Have you actually spent a real amount of time with one? You seem pretty anti-dog in general.

I think oops is just trolling

July 10th, 2022, 10:22 AM

The argument here isn't even valid, because it's based on the faulty assumption that the guy wanted to bus his Dragon Head. Here he explains his intent:

"thought that indicting 6 as rb immune would be harmless and would even give a boost to triad. Considering that I rbed 12, I expected him to claim escort and claim that he rbed 12 or town roleblock immune. And as such, increasing trust in case of one of us dies. I never expected 6 to be lynched d2."

So it isn't even about bussing. He was trying to improve triad position by calling basically both him and the dragon head escorts. There is no bussing here lol

The argument here isn't even valid, because it's based on the faulty assumption that the guy wanted to bus his Dragon Head. Here he explains his intent:

"thought that indicting 6 as rb immune would be harmless and would even give a boost to triad. Considering that I rbed 12, I expected him to claim escort and claim that he rbed 12 or town roleblock immune. And as such, increasing trust in case of one of us dies. I never expected 6 to be lynched d2."

So it isn't even about bussing. He was trying to improve triad position by calling basically both him and the dragon head escorts. There is no bussing here lol

July 10th, 2022, 10:18 AM

[QUOTE=Lumi;968446]I'm Lumi and I support this message.

Also, mandatory disclaimer because of my red name: this is NOT just my point of view, it is prompted by MM, it doesn't represent staff's views as a whole, but it does represent both the word of God and the will of Santa Claus.

What is allowed and works in arcade, isn't necessarily allowed in FM and vice versa. They're two different environments with two different sets of rules. There are parallels between them leading to many similar rules, but any argument based on "it's allowed in X, therefore it should be allowed in Y" is not logically sound.

As MM pointed out the core concept in question here is whether or not punishment should be based solely on intent.

I also reviewed the case and believe the correct decision was made, and would be more than willing to discuss it with anyone who wishes, just message me on Discord.

Making this thread about "should punishments be solely based on intent, or should other factors be considered as well?" would also be neat.

I think the case for punishing on intent AND other factors is a pretty easy conclusion to reach.[/QUOTE]

Why would you punish for anything other than intent? Intent is all that counts. If the guy didn't mean to bus and was just executing a strategy, I actually see nothing wrong with what he did. Its not like he's gonna throw every game away or something

Originally Posted by

**Lumi**
I'm Lumi and I support this message.

Also, mandatory disclaimer because of my red name: this is NOT just my point of view, it is prompted by MM, it doesn't represent staff's views as a whole, but it does represent both the word of God and the will of Santa Claus.

What is allowed and works in arcade, isn't necessarily allowed in FM and vice versa. They're two different environments with two different sets of rules. There are parallels between them leading to many similar rules, but any argument based on "it's allowed in X, therefore it should be allowed in Y" is not logically sound.

As MM pointed out the core concept in question here is whether or not punishment should be based solely on intent.

I also reviewed the case and believe the correct decision was made, and would be more than willing to discuss it with anyone who wishes, just message me on Discord.

Making this thread about "should punishments be solely based on intent, or should other factors be considered as well?" would also be neat.

I think the case for punishing on intent AND other factors is a pretty easy conclusion to reach.

Why would you punish for anything other than intent? Intent is all that counts. If the guy didn't mean to bus and was just executing a strategy, I actually see nothing wrong with what he did. Its not like he's gonna throw every game away or something

July 10th, 2022, 10:15 AM

Why is it not allowed to bus people?? Also, from the sounds of it, it doesn't even sound like bussing was the intent. It also doesn't sound like a strategy someone would disagree with: "claim escort and that you Rb'd whoever I actually Rb'd". Why is this such an extreme play? Its actually valid.

Why is it not allowed to bus people?? Also, from the sounds of it, it doesn't even sound like bussing was the intent. It also doesn't sound like a strategy someone would disagree with: "claim escort and that you Rb'd whoever I actually Rb'd". Why is this such an extreme play? Its actually valid.

July 10th, 2022, 10:12 AM

[QUOTE=MrMostache;968435]If you consider bussing your teammate without consent to be a legitimate strategy, then you should accept the fact that reactionary gamethrowing in this case should not be punished either.

You now have situations where a mafia is selling out their teammate, and then they react with" "yea.. my teammate is throwing the game, 2 7 10 are mafia. I'm joining next lobby".[/QUOTE]

This is a stupid point. [B]Anything [/B] could lead to reactionary gamethrowing because people are different and complicated. You don't punish Godfathers who fuck up even though it could result in throwing by salty mafia players.

Originally Posted by

**MrMostache**
If you consider bussing your teammate without consent to be a legitimate strategy, then you should accept the fact that reactionary gamethrowing in this case should not be punished either.

You now have situations where a mafia is selling out their teammate, and then they react with" "yea.. my teammate is throwing the game, 2 7 10 are mafia. I'm joining next lobby".

This is a stupid point. **Anything ** could lead to reactionary gamethrowing because people are different and complicated. You don't punish Godfathers who fuck up even though it could result in throwing by salty mafia players.

July 10th, 2022, 01:38 AM

(I don't really care cuz I barely play mafia much anymore but yeah)

(I don't really care cuz I barely play mafia much anymore but yeah)

July 10th, 2022, 01:37 AM

[QUOTE=Stealthbomber16;968429]It's not fun to be lynched by your scummate who didn't tell you that it was going to happen ahead of time. I hope you play because you have fun.[/QUOTE]

This is a weak argument. Why don't we start punishing people who make really bad jokes in the game? Aka half the population

Originally Posted by

**Stealthbomber16**
It's not fun to be lynched by your scummate who didn't tell you that it was going to happen ahead of time. I hope you play because you have fun.

This is a weak argument. Why don't we start punishing people who make really bad jokes in the game? Aka half the population

June 29th, 2022, 12:05 PM

Marshmallow Marshall is a furry and I will have at him.

RAWR

Marshmallow Marshall is a furry and I will have at him.

RAWR

June 27th, 2022, 12:00 AM

I actually have no idea how you could misunderstand my point so hard lmao, unless you just didn't read or something

I actually have no idea how you could misunderstand my point so hard lmao, unless you just didn't read or something

June 26th, 2022, 03:20 AM

A natural number can be represented in any number encoding; for example, in binary, every natural number is some sequence of 0s and 1s. In decimal, it's a sequence of the decimal digits (0, 1, ... 9). Depending on which encoding you pick, if you try to enumerate every element in the sequence (0, 1, 2...), you get a sequence that looks slightly different, and you'll notice the length of some strings changes depending on the number of digits you use. However, it cannot be disputed that the encoding does not have any impact on the number of elements in the sequence.

You can think of the "rational" numbers as being the natural numbers, but encoded in a number system wherein there are 11 digits: the 10 digits from (0, ... 9) and an 11th digit for representing fractions, '/'. Seeing as we've stated that it does not matter how many digits you use to represent the natural numbers, it is perhaps unsurprising that there are as many rational numbers as natural numbers. You of course have to add the constraint that '/' can never precede a sequence of all 0s, but that's a relatively minor thing. Even without that constraint they're still the same set.

This is [B]not[/B] the case for the irrational numbers, because every irrational number is a [B]countably infinite[/B] sequence of digits.

A natural number can be represented in any number encoding; for example, in binary, every natural number is some sequence of 0s and 1s. In decimal, it's a sequence of the decimal digits (0, 1, ... 9). Depending on which encoding you pick, if you try to enumerate every element in the sequence (0, 1, 2...), you get a sequence that looks slightly different, and you'll notice the length of some strings changes depending on the number of digits you use. However, it cannot be disputed that the encoding does not have any impact on the number of elements in the sequence.

You can think of the "rational" numbers as being the natural numbers, but encoded in a number system wherein there are 11 digits: the 10 digits from (0, ... 9) and an 11th digit for representing fractions, '/'. Seeing as we've stated that it does not matter how many digits you use to represent the natural numbers, it is perhaps unsurprising that there are as many rational numbers as natural numbers. You of course have to add the constraint that '/' can never precede a sequence of all 0s, but that's a relatively minor thing. Even without that constraint they're still the same set.

This is **not** the case for the irrational numbers, because every irrational number is a **countably infinite** sequence of digits.

June 26th, 2022, 01:31 AM

[QUOTE=Plotato;968274]Your definitions are awful, inaccurate and unhelpful.

You can't say it is obvious that there is "more of something". There are no more even numbers than there are natural numbers. There are no more numbers of the Fibonacci sequence than there are natural numbers. Alluded to earlier there is no more fractional numbers than there are natural numbers. Cantor's diagonalization states specifically that such a construction exists where you can generate an entirely new number from an infinite list of numbers that was not previously recorded in an infinite mapping with the natural numbers. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Plotato]

Your third line misrepresents the whole argument because the set of rational numbers are countable and are a certain permutation of the natural numbers.

[/QUOTE]

[B]The set [/B]of rational numbers is a permutation of the naturals. Yes, hence why the set of rationals is countable. But for irrational numbers, it is every irrational number, itself, that is a permutation of the entire set of natural numbers and is, hence, countably infinite.

[QUOTE=Plotato]

You haven't defined what "certain permutation" means and therefore is moot and your definition of irrational number is also completely unhelpful.

[/QUOTE]

A permutation is a certain way of ordering some set.

[QUOTE=Plotato]

Permutation implies a certain order and as far as it goes, the decimal construction of irrational numbers have no order to them (and therefore can't be represented as a fraction).

[/QUOTE]

Yes, indeed. However, I'm talking about the permutations of the set of [B]natural[/B] numbers, not reals. Whether or not the real numbers have a well-ordering is not relevant to my point.

[QUOTE=Plotato]

This isn't an "inbetween argument" like the way you put it. Infinity does not work the way you describe it like it has a certain scale or something.

[/QUOTE]

It's not an in-between argument. You misunderstood my point about the "infinity of infinities"; I'm not talking about all the segments of [0, 1) that you can copy paste onto each other over and over, but I'm talking about the numbers [B]themselves[/B] being infinite; their representation is infinite. If their representation is infinite, you clearly need a "higher" ordinal to index into the list of infinite things: a number that can index into an infinite list of finite things has less information than it, because... you can change a finite number number of digits in a finite number, and get a fully unique, distinct number. For infinite numbers, if you change only a finite number of the first few digits you've written, there are still many numbers you could be referring to.

So perhaps it is unsurprising that if you have an infinite list A of infinite things, that you have more information in A than in the infinite list B of finite things.

Originally Posted by

**Plotato**
Your definitions are awful, inaccurate and unhelpful.

You can't say it is obvious that there is "more of something". There are no more even numbers than there are natural numbers. There are no more numbers of the Fibonacci sequence than there are natural numbers. Alluded to earlier there is no more fractional numbers than there are natural numbers. Cantor's diagonalization states specifically that such a construction exists where you can generate an entirely new number from an infinite list of numbers that was not previously recorded in an infinite mapping with the natural numbers.

Originally Posted by

**Plotato**
Your third line misrepresents the whole argument because the set of rational numbers are countable and are a certain permutation of the natural numbers.

**The set **of rational numbers is a permutation of the naturals. Yes, hence why the set of rationals is countable. But for irrational numbers, it is every irrational number, itself, that is a permutation of the entire set of natural numbers and is, hence, countably infinite.

Originally Posted by

**Plotato**
You haven't defined what "certain permutation" means and therefore is moot and your definition of irrational number is also completely unhelpful.

A permutation is a certain way of ordering some set.

Originally Posted by

**Plotato**
Permutation implies a certain order and as far as it goes, the decimal construction of irrational numbers have no order to them (and therefore can't be represented as a fraction).

Yes, indeed. However, I'm talking about the permutations of the set of **natural** numbers, not reals. Whether or not the real numbers have a well-ordering is not relevant to my point.

Originally Posted by

**Plotato**
This isn't an "inbetween argument" like the way you put it. Infinity does not work the way you describe it like it has a certain scale or something.

It's not an in-between argument. You misunderstood my point about the "infinity of infinities"; I'm not talking about all the segments of [0, 1) that you can copy paste onto each other over and over, but I'm talking about the numbers **themselves** being infinite; their representation is infinite. If their representation is infinite, you clearly need a "higher" ordinal to index into the list of infinite things: a number that can index into an infinite list of finite things has less information than it, because... you can change a finite number number of digits in a finite number, and get a fully unique, distinct number. For infinite numbers, if you change only a finite number of the first few digits you've written, there are still many numbers you could be referring to.

So perhaps it is unsurprising that if you have an infinite list A of infinite things, that you have more information in A than in the infinite list B of finite things.

June 26th, 2022, 01:27 AM

[QUOTE=Plotato;968273]Let's not conflate mathematical definitions with whatever definitions we feel comfortable with, because this is the biggest source of definitional fuckery that goes nowhere. These definitions in math are constructed from the ground up and have no notion of what infinity is. As a result of multiple theorems and proofs, we can show that different kinds of infinities exist, and while some are larger than others, no infinity can be smaller than the set of natural numbers.

The definition of infinite in math is something that is not finite. It's weird putting it that way but it really is; infinity is defined by the not finite state of something. In real analysis this means that there is no bound to a set. Saying that something "never ends" is reductive because depending on how we construct that "never ending" collection we will arrive that the place where there are infinities of different sizes, and as Cantor's paradox comes from the fact that there is no such thing as a "biggest" set, and if we were to assume such a set exists that has infinite cardinality then it would be the "biggest infinity", holding other infinities inside it. When people say infinity is an idea, it is; depending on how you construct it and use it.

Normal parlance can suck it because it makes no sense outside of general conversation and metaphors[/QUOTE]

I disagree, if it "makes no sense" outside of normal parlance, then it is mathematical definitions that do not make sense. People came up with these definitions according to an intuitive understanding of what infinity is. Math is intended to represent some "real" notion, it's not just made up nonsense.

Originally Posted by

**Plotato**
Let's not conflate mathematical definitions with whatever definitions we feel comfortable with, because this is the biggest source of definitional fuckery that goes nowhere. These definitions in math are constructed from the ground up and have no notion of what infinity is. As a result of multiple theorems and proofs, we can show that different kinds of infinities exist, and while some are larger than others, no infinity can be smaller than the set of natural numbers.

The definition of infinite in math is something that is not finite. It's weird putting it that way but it really is; infinity is defined by the not finite state of something. In real analysis this means that there is no bound to a set. Saying that something "never ends" is reductive because depending on how we construct that "never ending" collection we will arrive that the place where there are infinities of different sizes, and as Cantor's paradox comes from the fact that there is no such thing as a "biggest" set, and if we were to assume such a set exists that has infinite cardinality then it would be the "biggest infinity", holding other infinities inside it. When people say infinity is an idea, it is; depending on how you construct it and use it.

Normal parlance can suck it because it makes no sense outside of general conversation and metaphors

I disagree, if it "makes no sense" outside of normal parlance, then it is mathematical definitions that do not make sense. People came up with these definitions according to an intuitive understanding of what infinity is. Math is intended to represent some "real" notion, it's not just made up nonsense.

June 22nd, 2022, 10:07 AM

[QUOTE=DJarJar;968231]hmm did you read the 2nd paragraph of the page you linked?

the paradox applies specifically to set theory because of the way sets and the like are defined. If you try to declare there is some set that contains all other sets - well that's cool and all but i can just make the power set of that set and bam i have a bigger one. hence there's no way you could ever have a "largest" set.

this doesn't necessarily apply to other abstract concepts of infinity, although in pretty much any case where your infinity has some arbitrary rules or bounds to it then we could find a way to break those bounds. Meanwhile a "pure infinity" with no limitations would be a pretty useless concept since there'd be no way to interact with it.[/QUOTE]

It seems to me the definition of infinity in math is slightly different than in normal parlance. As far as I can tell, something is infinite if it "never ends" if you try to list every single element in that "it". But normally when we talk about infinity we mean some abstract thing that is very large in size and which includes "everything" else.

Originally Posted by

**DJarJar**
hmm did you read the 2nd paragraph of the page you linked?

the paradox applies specifically to set theory because of the way sets and the like are defined. If you try to declare there is some set that contains all other sets - well that's cool and all but i can just make the power set of that set and bam i have a bigger one. hence there's no way you could ever have a "largest" set.

this doesn't necessarily apply to other abstract concepts of infinity, although in pretty much any case where your infinity has some arbitrary rules or bounds to it then we could find a way to break those bounds. Meanwhile a "pure infinity" with no limitations would be a pretty useless concept since there'd be no way to interact with it.

It seems to me the definition of infinity in math is slightly different than in normal parlance. As far as I can tell, something is infinite if it "never ends" if you try to list every single element in that "it". But normally when we talk about infinity we mean some abstract thing that is very large in size and which includes "everything" else.

June 22nd, 2022, 09:13 AM

According to [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_paradox[/url], there's no such thing as an infinite set that is larger than every other infinite set. I understand the idea behind it, but the notion sounds ridiculous to me. Surely there [I]has[/I] to be something that is absolutely and totally infinite?

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_paradox, there's no such thing as an infinite set that is larger than every other infinite set. I understand the idea behind it, but the notion sounds ridiculous to me. Surely there *has* to be something that is absolutely and totally infinite?

June 22nd, 2022, 01:55 AM

[QUOTE=Plotato;942837]i knew you would still be confused about this, oh, how the germans have stumped the french once again

mathematically, countability is defined of whether you can assign 1, 2, etc. to whatever you want to map to on a [B]one-to-one[/B] basis, no element left unjerked. if the list is infinitely long, then, as unintuitive as it sounds, then a countably infinite list is full... matched with infinite elements, on a one-to-one basis.

Cantor's argument comes with the above presupposition that you can build such a list where you can map every integer (1 -> 0.1232, etc) with a real number [I]once[/I] (therefore making it countable). the order of the list doesn't matter. now why wouldn't such a list already have the whatever number produced by diagonalization? no, i can, through diagonalization, come up with a new number that [B]won't have an sole integer assigned to[/B]. i know it sounds unintuitive, but i will make bold the affirmative. the case is: i have produced a new number [B]of which there is not an assignment of an integer[/B], therefore proving my idea that such a list is countable wrong. guess its not countable. this idea also implies the varying sizes to infinity, as we can't match one-to-one every element from one set of numbers to another without leaving something behind...

the thing with math is that you have to explicitly define, prove and state everything in a sheer logical manner. the definition of "countable" is mentioned earlier, and if i, for some reason, can't make that one-to-one complete map from the integers to whatever, the definition is now uncountable by contradiction. intuition doesn't matter. somethings in math are just unintuitively the case. yes, every number that would exist exists between 0 and 1... can you "count" them all, given the definition of "countable"? if you're still thinking that you could always generate a new integer for a new real number produced, well that would just break the definition of "countable" that we have, which is a pretty good one, based off of mathematical reasoning. if we hold the definition of "countable" to be the case, well, you can't have your intuition go your way.

please understand you escargot[/QUOTE]

I have a much simpler explanation.

What is a natural number? It's a finite sequence of digits. What is the totality of natural numbers? An infinite sequence of digits, ordered in a certain way.

What is a irrational number? An infinite sequence of digits. Every irrational number corresponds to a certain permutation of the set of natural numbers. If you take all these permutations together, it is obvious there are more irrationals than naturals. You effectively run into an infinity of infinities

Originally Posted by

**Plotato**
i knew you would still be confused about this, oh, how the germans have stumped the french once again

mathematically, countability is defined of whether you can assign 1, 2, etc. to whatever you want to map to on a **one-to-one** basis, no element left unjerked. if the list is infinitely long, then, as unintuitive as it sounds, then a countably infinite list is full... matched with infinite elements, on a one-to-one basis.

Cantor's argument comes with the above presupposition that you can build such a list where you can map every integer (1 -> 0.1232, etc) with a real number *once* (therefore making it countable). the order of the list doesn't matter. now why wouldn't such a list already have the whatever number produced by diagonalization? no, i can, through diagonalization, come up with a new number that **won't have an sole integer assigned to**. i know it sounds unintuitive, but i will make bold the affirmative. the case is: i have produced a new number **of which there is not an assignment of an integer**, therefore proving my idea that such a list is countable wrong. guess its not countable. this idea also implies the varying sizes to infinity, as we can't match one-to-one every element from one set of numbers to another without leaving something behind...

the thing with math is that you have to explicitly define, prove and state everything in a sheer logical manner. the definition of "countable" is mentioned earlier, and if i, for some reason, can't make that one-to-one complete map from the integers to whatever, the definition is now uncountable by contradiction. intuition doesn't matter. somethings in math are just unintuitively the case. yes, every number that would exist exists between 0 and 1... can you "count" them all, given the definition of "countable"? if you're still thinking that you could always generate a new integer for a new real number produced, well that would just break the definition of "countable" that we have, which is a pretty good one, based off of mathematical reasoning. if we hold the definition of "countable" to be the case, well, you can't have your intuition go your way.

please understand you escargot

I have a much simpler explanation.

What is a natural number? It's a finite sequence of digits. What is the totality of natural numbers? An infinite sequence of digits, ordered in a certain way.

What is a irrational number? An infinite sequence of digits. Every irrational number corresponds to a certain permutation of the set of natural numbers. If you take all these permutations together, it is obvious there are more irrationals than naturals. You effectively run into an infinity of infinities

June 13th, 2022, 02:11 AM

[QUOTE=HentaiManOfPeacesGhost;967720]Easiest way to tell everyone you have no credibility.

Jordan Peterson is a tough academic who crushes their debate opposition that young, disenfranchised males look up to because they have no control in their lives. The world needs less of him and more better thinkers who have time to fix bigger challenges than bullying trans people because of their inherent biological gender.[/QUOTE]

Jordan Peterson says stuff that is deeper than it looks. It's not all political

And it's not all for helping young men

Originally Posted by

**HentaiManOfPeacesGhost**
Easiest way to tell everyone you have no credibility.

Jordan Peterson is a tough academic who crushes their debate opposition that young, disenfranchised males look up to because they have no control in their lives. The world needs less of him and more better thinkers who have time to fix bigger challenges than bullying trans people because of their inherent biological gender.

Jordan Peterson says stuff that is deeper than it looks. It's not all political

And it's not all for helping young men

April 26th, 2022, 12:48 PM

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;967220]@[URL="https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/member.php?u=29012"]Auwt[/URL] Arise from your slumber, O ye mighty, and come get role madness'd :D[/QUOTE]

Behold, a French summoning

Originally Posted by

**Marshmallow Marshall**
@

Auwt Arise from your slumber, O ye mighty, and come get role madness'd

Behold, a French summoning