I've said this before, but I don't understand people's extreme aversion to opponents denying an undo. The very fact that the undo system exists is a nice-to-have extra that allows you to sometimes deal with misclicks. I think if the system were better-done, then undo would be automatic / not require approval if no information was revealed, and never allowed if information were revealed.I would not approve of that. There is a setting for auto-allowing some undos, and that's good. But sometimes I want to allow information-revealed undos, if my opponent believably assures me that e.g. they would have drawn anyway, but wanted to play the Village before the Smithy, or something.
My son just took his first steps!!
I just had a classic example of failing to do basic math: I went for Masterpiece-Feodum in a game with Bandit Fort. I was thinking enough Feodum points would outweigh the Bandit Fort penalty. Then I actually did the math and realized I would need at least 7 Feodums for that to happen... which was no longer possible because my opponent was pursuing the same boneheaded strategy I was!
I stopped quite a few screens before the door. I was in one of the first screens with the blowfish, I was supposed to dash into it, boost myself across some spikes, then dash back to that fish so it would blow me into another and so on. I kept not being able to bounce hard enough from dashing into the fish to clear the spikes without using the dash I needed to go back to the fish afterwards. After feeling rather frustrated with some of the screens in Core (and beating them through sheer persistence rather than skill), I thought it was a good spot to end.
Snark aside, I don’t really see this. We’re talking about a two card combo, and it was asserted that hunting party is no better than menagerie with patron. How do menagerie and patron constitute an engine that will reliably draw your deck?
Well, I'll try hard to keep this thread in mind the next time I play Dominion with a 2-card kingdom and the cards happen to be Hunting Party and Patron. After all, there is no way I could possibly figure out on the spot that there's anything going on there.And why is the +buy “easier to fit in?”
Because you're playing an engine, not a Hunting Party stack.
This isn't really a combo; there isn't much of anything that makes hunting party differ from eg menagerie or any other reveal card here, and hunting party makes it difficult to actually find all your patrons
combo threads are generally for things that completely change the game when present: hermit / market square, lurker / hunting grounds, etc
(hunting party is much better than menagerie here because you reveal the patrons that you don't draw as well as the ones in your hand; point taken that the word "combo" is controversial)
Yeah, this is the entire point. Maybe try it out before declaring it "not a combo?" In a Hunting Party strategy you're revealing your *whole deck* *many times* *every turn* (edgecasesedgecases). There is no comparison with Menagerie.
In a typical Menagerie strategy (also known as an "engine"), you can easily be revealing your *whole deck* *many times* *every turn* and the +buy is a lot easier to fit in.
This isn't really a combo; there isn't much of anything that makes hunting party differ from eg menagerie or any other reveal card here, and hunting party makes it difficult to actually find all your patrons
combo threads are generally for things that completely change the game when present: hermit / market square, lurker / hunting grounds, etc
(hunting party is much better than menagerie here because you reveal the patrons that you don't draw as well as the ones in your hand; point taken that the word "combo" is controversial)
How would you describe math to a layperson, in such a way as to try to break through their preconceived notions of what it is?
People were able to compute plenty of derivatives perfectly well far before any of the modern rigorous notions of limits, which was primarily due to Cauchy. They did so mostly with "handwaving."
The key issue here is more subtle, and it's more about being circular than being handwavy. The approximation e^h = 1+h when h is small is only valid for the number e. It's equivalent to the fact that the tangent line to the graph of e^x at x=0 is y=1+x, which can't be established without knowing that the derivative of e^x is e^x in the first place.
I don't think that's a different issue from what I said. Being handwavy is what allows the argument to get away with whatever wrong thing it's actually doing, like being circular. If it spelled out the argument explicitly, we would see what exactly it relies on.
Taking shortcuts is never a mistake in itself, it's always a black box where real mistakes may or may not be hiding.
The physicist's proof for the derivative of ex:
(ex + h - ex)/h = ex(eh - 1)/h. Because h is small, eh = 1 + h, so ex(eh - 1)/h = ex(1 + h - 1)/h = ex(h/h) = ex.
What prevents that from working with any number other than e?
The substitution step could be done rigorously if you use the infinite series definition of the exponential. That would give a different result if you have a number other than “e”.
I think without the infinite series definition of the exponential function (or the definition as the inverse of the logarithm), the farthest you can go with this is that the derivative of exp is proportional to exp.
EDIT: what cuzz said
I'll take Things-I'll-Never-Have for $800, Alex.
I don't like staring at source code to learn something, so I made a texed version of your explanation.
You even explained how to do exponentiation of two complex numbers, which I've wondered about for a while. You'd think they'd teach that in Analysis lectures, but nope.
