Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[silverspawn]

Anyway you're right, so let me do the step properly

The operation fails to reduce the number of chains iff (a) the starting letter is different from the one put to the beginning, and (b) the row ends with the chain (otherwise the one before and after merge). Since you rotate through all chains, that means it has to perpetually target the last chain, so all chains must be >= 2n-k+1 in length. (b) with (a) also means the number of chains must be even.

Hence the maximum length of chains is n/4. Which is your counterexample. And it's n/4 rounded down; if n=5 for example, then the most inconvenient example is AAABBBAABB which has still length 2.

Ok so the solution should be all (n,k) where n<=k<2n+1 - floor(2n/4). Or probably there's an algebra mistake here somewhere. If I had more patience I could avoid it!

I bet the exercise designed that trap deliberately.

[silverspawn]

faust if you happened to do the puzzle tell me if this is all wrong

[silverspawn]

Probably should have played Dominion instead!

No then I'd have less patience and more overconfidence, both of which would make it more likely that I decide to skimp on a step (which is what heppened here, you found a mistake in the part that I said I'm not proving bc I'm sufficiently confident).

Why? You don't optimize your Dominion winrate by having less patience and more overconfidence, you do it by having more patience and the exact right amount of confidence.

yes, but the way I played dominion didn't maximize my dominion winrate. I kept being annoyed and clicking on the next game button anyway, which is why I always performed worse on ladder than in the dominion league.

I agree that if you maximize your winrate, this will have desirable side-effects. I strongly dispute that this is the effect of playing a lot for most people.

[silverspawn]

If you genuinely think playing video games has all these benefits, couldn't it be because you're an atypical case? I've never seen you on tilt so I don't really doubt your claim, but I feel like you're just unusually "gifted" in that your psychology avoids these traps and most people are less lucky.

[Awaclus]

yes, but the way I played dominion didn't maximize my dominion winrate. I kept being annoyed and clicking on the next game button anyway, which is why I always performed worse on ladder than in the dominion league.

I agree that if you maximize your winrate, this will have desirable side-effects. I strongly dispute that this is the effect of playing a lot for most people.

Did you want to be annoyed and keep clicking on the next game button anyway? Presumably not, and this kind of immediate negative feedback from the consequences of having failed at something you were trying to do (probably to win games, or to have fun or something) is extremely efficient at helping you learn to avoid doing the same thing in the future.

If you genuinely think playing video games has all these benefits, couldn't it be because you're an atypical case? I've never seen you on tilt so I don't really doubt your claim, but I feel like you're just unusually "gifted" in that your psychology avoids these traps and most people are less lucky.

As a child, I was godawful at losing at games/being unable to beat certain maps etc. and sometimes got extremely angry, like not angry enough to get violent at people or break things but I did sometimes have to physically take my anger out on things that wouldn't break, I cried a lot, etc. The fact that I don't mind losing games anymore and can rather enjoy the opportunity to learn from my losses is literally just from practice.

I have also done the thing where I keep playing e.g. Dominion past the point where I'm having fun anymore, but I used to do it frequently like 8-10 years ago and now I do it rarely; I don't even remember what was the last time I did that (with Dominion or any other game), probably like more than a year ago. I play generals.io more than any other game recently, and it is definitely more emotionally challenging than Dominion because of the fast pace and the fact that you can easily blunder games you were winning by far. And I'm clearly not perfect at regulating my emotions yet, because I am aware of having a bias where I'm more likely to watch replays and analyze games I have won or at least been able to put up a decent fight in than games where I have gotten REKT, but I the fact that I am motivated to win more games means I have an incentive to overcome this bias and I am slowly making progress towards overcoming it.

[Awaclus]

I mean, I guess I am an atypical case in the sense that for me, playing video games had the benefit that Lunarch hired me to write a soundtrack. But in a more generalized sense, it is not that atypical to network with people through gaming and benefit from your networks.

[Awaclus]

But yes, I do genuinely believe that playing video games is likely the best way to improve your thinking (in an extremely general sense including things like emotions, reaction speed etc), besides having real-life problems to solve for real.

[silverspawn]

yes, but the way I played dominion didn't maximize my dominion winrate. I kept being annoyed and clicking on the next game button anyway, which is why I always performed worse on ladder than in the dominion league.

I agree that if you maximize your winrate, this will have desirable side-effects. I strongly dispute that this is the effect of playing a lot for most people.

Did you want to be annoyed and keep clicking on the next game button anyway? Presumably not, and this kind of immediate negative feedback from the consequences of having failed at something you were trying to do (probably to win games, or to have fun or something) is extremely efficient at helping you learn to avoid doing the same thing in the future.

For me, it isn't. I understood intellectually that it was bad, but it didn't make it better, at all. And I'm very surprised that you think it does that for most people. My model is that I'm neurotypical in this regard, among people who play competitive games. My model permits that many people have a way better mindset to begin with (like Stef) but it says that improving your mindset through playing is very rare.

[Awaclus]

For me, it isn't. I understood intellectually that it was bad, but it didn't make it better, at all. And I'm very surprised that you think it does that for most people. My model is that I'm neurotypical in this regard, among people who play competitive games. My model permits that many people have a way better mindset to begin with (like Stef) but it says that improving your mindset through playing is very rare.

Why do you have a model that says it is rare for people to get better at things by practicing?

[silverspawn]

But yes, I do genuinely believe that playing video games is likely the best way to improve your thinking (in an extremely general sense including things like emotions, reaction speed etc), besides having real-life problems to solve for real.

since you're in politics, this may be something worth discussing because it seems very wrong to me.

I know it came up previously but usually in comparison with school, and my opinion of school similar to yours afaik. If it's a choice between these two, video games may be better. But I think that's because both are bad.

[silverspawn]

For me, it isn't. I understood intellectually that it was bad, but it didn't make it better, at all. And I'm very surprised that you think it does that for most people. My model is that I'm neurotypical in this regard, among people who play competitive games. My model permits that many people have a way better mindset to begin with (like Stef) but it says that improving your mindset through playing is very rare.

Why do you have a model that says it is rare for people to get better at things by practicing?

I don't agree with this summary. I think by playing dominion, I practiced Dominion (and maybe some related skills, but I don't think they generalize broadly). I don't think I was practicing losing with the right mindset. I may even have gotten worse at it, detesting losing more and more over time.

Just because you do something a lot doesn't mean you practice it. It depends how you do it. There are also people who play a game forever where practice does matter, yet never get better.

(I actually came back after my initial break from dominion and resolved to do better. I have a post in the brag board thread where I say that I always typed gg even against offensive ggs. So maybe at that point I was practicing this, but I only got there after spending time not playing and doing a lot of reflecting, and I think that's already a bar most people don't clear. Also it didn't last that long I don't think.)

[silverspawn]

I'd be interested in a poll about how adults who've played a lot of videogames rate their usefulness. Though I'd want to adjust the results downward bc I think people are biased to rationalize their past actions.

[Awaclus]

since you're in politics, this may be something worth discussing because it seems very wrong to me.

I know it came up previously but usually in comparison with school, and my opinion of school similar to yours afaik. If it's a choice between these two, video games may be better. But I think that's because both are bad.

I mean, for children, if it's a choice between playing video games and going on a camping trip with your friends (or possibly with your parents even, if they let you take some responsibilities), then maybe the camping trip will be more useful since you'll be solving real life problems with real life stakes — there's a risk of injury if you make a mistake with a knife or a portable stove or something, and that'll both help you learn how to use these kinds of tools carefully enough to avoid hurting yourself and to regulate your emotions when doing something risky, and getting to do these kinds of things and succeeding (even if after some failures at first) is extremely important for building confidence. You also have to get along with everyone who's there, because you'll be having problems otherwise. In terms of improving your IQ, the gaming would be more useful, but I would argue that IQ is not as important as the benefits of handling real-life situations.

However, there's a lot of social pressure for parents to not let their children do anything like that, so often video games are actually the closest approximation of it that's available for children.

[Awaclus]

Like, it's very well established at this point that video games have all kinds of benefits. They wouldn't be so fun to play if they didn't.

https://effectiviology.com/cognitive-benefits-of-playing-video-games/

[Awaclus]

I don't agree with this summary. I think by playing dominion, I practiced Dominion (and maybe some related skills, but I don't think they generalize broadly).

Dominion is all about probability management, which generalizes very broadly because you need it all the time.

[silverspawn]

I don't agree with this summary. I think by playing dominion, I practiced Dominion (and maybe some related skills, but I don't think they generalize broadly).

Dominion is all about probability management, which generalizes very broadly because you need it all the time.

granted, but this skill has diminishing returns. I am very good with probabilities; I don't think I gain much from being even better.

[silverspawn]

Like, it's very well established at this point that video games have all kinds of benefits. They wouldn't be so fun to play if they didn't.

https://effectiviology.com/cognitive-benefits-of-playing-video-games/

sorry but one article claiming something means absolutely nothing to me. the probability that such an article exists is 100%, so the update is 0. I know that because I have good probability management!

[Awaclus]

granted, but this skill has diminishing returns. I am very good with probabilities; I don't think I gain much from being even better.

I am skeptical of the claim that a human is "very good with probabilities".

sorry but one article claiming something means absolutely nothing to me. the probability that such an article exists is 100%, so the update is 0. I know that because I have good probability management!

TL note: it is a huge collection of links to scientific studies.

[silverspawn]

since you're in politics, this may be something worth discussing because it seems very wrong to me.

I know it came up previously but usually in comparison with school, and my opinion of school similar to yours afaik. If it's a choice between these two, video games may be better. But I think that's because both are bad.

I mean, for children, if it's a choice between playing video games and going on a camping trip with your friends (or possibly with your parents even, if they let you take some responsibilities), then maybe the camping trip will be more useful since you'll be solving real life problems with real life stakes — there's a risk of injury if you make a mistake with a knife or a portable stove or something, and that'll both help you learn how to use these kinds of tools carefully enough to avoid hurting yourself and to regulate your emotions when doing something risky, and getting to do these kinds of things and succeeding (even if after some failures at first) is extremely important for building confidence. You also have to get along with everyone who's there, because you'll be having problems otherwise. In terms of improving your IQ, the gaming would be more useful, but I would argue that IQ is not as important as the benefits of handling real-life situations.

However, there's a lot of social pressure for parents to not let their children do anything like that, so often video games are actually the closest approximation of it that's available for children.

I think anything with long term tangible progress is much better. Playing an instrument, writing, creating games, whatever.

And reading is probably better, too.

Also, why are we talking about only children now? I don't think it's great for children, but it seems more arguably than for adults.

[silverspawn]

granted, but this skill has diminishing returns. I am very good with probabilities; I don't think I gain much from being even better.

I am skeptical of the claim that a human is "very good with probabilities".

relative to other humans, anyway

[silverspawn]

TL note: it is a huge collection of links to scientific studies.

that's still basically no update; I have a hard time seeing how there couldn't be lots of studies finding positive effects. Assuming all studies are done perfectly, one in 20 studies finds a positive effect where no effect exists -- and there have to have been hundreds of studies looking into this stuff. It's not that uncommon to have lots of studies finding X and then to find that the net evidence from all studies shows there is no effect.

and my position isn't even "there is no effect". Lots of these, like reaction time and visual processing ability, sound plausible enough.

[Awaclus]

I think anything with long term tangible progress is much better. Playing an instrument, writing, creating games, whatever.

The long term progress of playing a game is way more tangible than any of those. Not only can it be measured at all, this measurement is done automatically by the game itself. Meanwhile, there's nothing stopping you from feeling like you're writing a masterpiece even if you're actually writing an incoherent mess. Many people are falsely under the impression that they're good at a creative activity, but not many people are falsely under the impression that they're good at a game.

And reading is probably better, too.

Sure, reading is useful, at least because it makes people improve at literally identifying the shapes of letters and words, which apparently is a thing more and more people are struggling with nowadays.

Also, why are we talking about only children now? I don't think it's great for children, but it seems more arguably than for adults.

Because you brought up school.

[Awaclus]

that's still basically no update; I have a hard time seeing how there couldn't be lots of studies finding positive effects. Assuming all studies are done perfectly, one in 20 studies finds a positive effect where no effect exists -- and there have to have been hundreds of studies looking into this stuff. It's not that uncommon to have lots of studies finding X and then to find that the net evidence from all studies shows there is no effect.

If that was the explanation for all of these studies, then you would expect there to be lots of studies showing the opposite effects too. I'm not aware of those being a thing. There are negative effects in general, mostly associated with gaming addiction, but not the kinds of effects that would make you dumber.

[faust]

But yes, I do genuinely believe that playing video games is likely the best way to improve your thinking (in an extremely general sense including things like emotions, reaction speed etc), besides having real-life problems to solve for real.

Except for board games, which are better.

[faust]

I'm kind of on the fence with this discussion. I certainly agree with silver that playing lots of games doesn't always improve skills. I play Dominion mostly as a break from work, and I do research, so when I need a break I am not in the mood for analyzing things in depth. But that would be the mood I need to be in to improve.

I also tend to play some low-key game like Slay the Spire alongside listening to a podcast or something, which means I won't play as well as if I gave it my full attention. So overall, I doubt that playing more games always means you'll improve skills.

And I play video games to fill time. When I do that, I often regret it. It's not necessarily the games' fault though; if they didn't exist I would probably find something else.

But it's certainly the case that games can teach valuable skills, and I'd certainly much rather have a child play Minecraft than many other things they could be doing with their free time. I would maintain that board games and RPGs do all that video games do and more, and are generally a much more rewarding experience.