Posts for p4wn3r
1 2
17 18 19
34 35
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Vykan12, you said you're a CS undergrad. If you have the time, take a look at algorithmic programming competitions, the most well known of them is the ICPC. To participate in the regional level, you just need to register a team. Getting to the World Finals is quite a challenge, though :) Preparing for those contests will teach you a lot about programming (the wikipedia article lists some online judges), though the actual problems you have to solve there have little to do with real world ones. Almost everyone that does well at competitions like that gets job offers from big companies like Google, Facebook and Microsoft. In fact, Google and Facebook like these so much as a recruiting tool that they now organize competitions of their own, Google Code Jam and Facebook Hacker Cup.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Ah, in that case yes, it's been verified that save corruption does that. IIRC you just need to change the reset inputs in the .vbm from the old format to the new one and it'll work in v24.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
bortreb wrote:
Also, the only part that may suffer from emulation problems is the "restarting glitch" used at the beginning, taken from p4wn3r's run. I believe that someone actually did that on a console if I'm not mistaken?
Do you mean the reset on the first frame I used to manipulate the trainer ID? If I don't reset in v23, I'll get the ID 1 unit smaller, which won't work. In v24, the ID is always the value that doesn't work, no matter where I reset. I have a good guess to why that happens. The RNG depends on the GB divider register, that works like a timer. Possibly, when you reset in v23, it probably leaves some time ticks before starting emulation again, so the register is incremented by one a little earlier, if earlier means before the luck manipulation frame it'll increase the RNG by 1. In v24 they changed resets, now it probably clears the time ticks after a reset, so the trick won't work. That's some dirty emulation trick in the TAS. I don't know if the DIV register always starts cleared after a hard reset, so I'd just consider it a nitpicky emulation case. Besides, if the RNG is sensitive to timing variations of that magnitude, chances of console verifying TASes of this game are almost negligible.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Of all the numerous codes you could inject into the game you chose to inject MLP. You should definitely be burned alive for this heresy, but for now, a Yes vote for this run will suffice. Anyway, this seems to be the same video you posted on the Pokemon thread some time ago. I think the run would be better if you followed the suggestion in that topic to manipulate the RAM faster and optimize the shellcode. But well, if speed is not important in this movie, then speed is not important in this movie. Congratulations and hoping for a high tier. If the number of Pokémon movies is a problem, then we could just pick the most boring one and get rid of it.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Warp wrote:
I wonder what he thinks "democracy" means.
American politicians in general don't understand the meaning of democracy. The whole idea is that people with most votes are elected, no if's and no but's, it doesn't matter if you might not like them. Actually, American politicians are the most democracy hating crowd in the planet, they have a history of overthrowing democratically elected governments they don't like. As some Latin American leader once said: "The only reason there's never been a coup in the United States is because there's no US embassy in the United States". Anyway, I'm happy that Obama won, but only because the republican party is full of crazy people. Romney, despite still being a bad choice, was the most moderate of the GOP, and could have beat Obama if he hadn't flipped on just about everything to please the most conservative members of his party. That's bad, since it shows the Republicans aren't willing to adjust their agenda to the 21st century.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Nice induction! I managed to finish my solution with pure number theory. I found that the amount of factors of 2 in (2n n) is the sum of (n mod 2^k - n mod 2^(k-1))/2^(k-1). The converse is simple, the terms of the sum are just the digits of n expressed in base 2! In fact, I've proven p4wn3r's theoremTM: Let s be the sum of the digits of n in base 2, then 2s || (2n n) The symbol || means that 2s is the largest prime power of 2 that divides (2n n). With this result, it's simple. We analyze the parity of Cn = (2n n)/n+1. Pick, if it exists, the rightmost bit that's 0. When you evaluate n+1, that bit becomes 1 and all to the right become 0. Say the number of bits to the right is d, so 2^d || n+1. We know 2^s || (2n n) and s is the sum of bits of n, but since the d rightmost bits of n are 1, s>=d. Assuming the bit we picked exists, either n=0 (C_0 odd) or there's at least one more bit that's one, the most significant bit of n, so s>d, and the numerator has more factors of two than the denominator, and C_n is even. If the bit doesn't exist, then n is 11...1 = 2^j - 1 for some j. In this case s=d, all the factors of 2 cancel out and C_n is odd. Similar proofs should also answer which Catalan numbers are not divisible by 4, 8, etc. The ones not divisible by 4 have the form 2^a + 2^b - 1, a>b. By 8, 2^a + 2^b + 2^c - 1, a>b>c and so on.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
1) C_(k+1) = (2k+2)!/((k+2)!(k+1)!) = (2k+2)(2k+1)/(k+2)(k+1) * C_k So, C_k divides C_(k+1) if that fraction is an integer. Simplifying it we have 2(2k+1) = m(k+2) => (4-m)k = 2(m-1) => k = 2(m-1)/(4-m) Since k>=0, m<4 and m>=1 and we can simply test m=1,2,3. k is integer for all these 3 and we have k=0, k=1 and k=4. So, C_0 divides C_1, C_1 divides C_2 and C_4 divides C_5, no more cases like this occur. 2) C_k = (2k)!/k!(k+1)! = 1/k+1 (2k k) = (1 - k/(k+1)) (2k k) = (2k k) - (2k k+1) The (n m) denotes the binomial "n choose m". We have to calculate C_k mod 2, so just apply Lucas' theorem to the binomials. If we express k using binary digits, 2k is k shifted to the right with a 0 appended to the end. From Lucas' theorem, (2k k) is even if, for some position d, the d-th digit on 2k is 0 and the d-th digit on k is 1, because (0 1) = 0 and all the others are 1. Now, assume k>0 and pick the least significant bit of k that's 1, the bit on the same position on 2k will be either 0, if k is the rightmost bit, or the bit to the right, which by our choice should be 0 too. This proves that (2k k) is even for k>0. Now for (2k k+1). Also assume k>0 and pick the least significant bit of k that's 0, at position d. When you calculate k+1, this bit becomes 1, all others to the right become 0 and all others to the left don't change. From our choice, the bit at position d on 2k is 1, and we get (1 1) = 1. To the right, k+1 has only 0 bits, so we get (x 0) = 1, so no problems there. Now pick, if it exists, the rightmost bit of k that's 1 and is to the left of d, at position e. The bit on position e at 2k is necessarily 0, and since adding 1 to k doesn't change the bit at position e, we get (0 1) = 0 and (2k k+1) is even. If this bit doesn't exist then k is represented by a string of 1's, so for (2k k+1) we would have (1 1) in the leftmost bit, (0 0) in the rightmost and (1 0) for all others, and (2k k+1) is odd. If k is represented by a string of 1's, then k = 2^j - 1, j>0. For this, we have (2k k) even and (2k k+1) odd, so the subtraction, C_k is odd. For all other k>0, both (2k k) and (2k k+1) are even, so C_k is even. It's trivial to check that C_0 is odd. Therefore, we conclude C_k is odd iff k = 2^j - 1, j>=0 EDIT: I solved the "if" part of 2) without using Lucas' theorem: By counting the number of multiples of 2, 4, 8, 16, ... we get the number of factors of 2 in n!: sum(floor(n/2^k),k), k>=1 We use this to find how many factors of two are in (2n n) = (2n)!/(n!)² So, there are sum(floor(2n/2^k),k) - 2*sum(floor(n/2^k),k) = sum(floor(2n/2^k)-2*floor(n/2^k),k) factors of two, if we let n/2^k = floor(n/2^k) + a_k and 2n/2^k = floor(2n/2^k) + b_k, we have: floor(2n/2^k) - 2*floor(n/2^k) = 2a_k - b_k a_k = (n mod 2^k)/2^k b_k = (2n mod 2^k)/2^k We have b_1 = 0 and b_k = a_(k-1). The k-th term of the sum is (n mod 2^k - n mod 2^(k-1))/2^(k-1). If n = 2^j - 1 then n mod 2^k = 2^k - 1, if k<=j, for k in that range the term reduces to (2^k - 2^(k-1))/2^(k-1) = 1, there are exactly j terms in that range. So the sum evaluates to j, meaning that, when n=2^j-1 there are exactly j factors of 2 in (2n n). C_n = (2n n)/(n+1) = (2n n)/2^j, that means we take off all j factors of two, and an odd integer is left over. I think I can prove the converse if I assume n + 1 = m*2^e, with m an odd integer, and prove that the number of factors of two in (2n n) is larger than e, maybe I'll do it later.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Thanks for answering my questions, adelikat. For me the best would be to simply lower the publication requirements and then filter the runs based on a revised rating system. Assigning tiers like this would make drama go from accept/reject to tierA/tierB. But since you mentioned on IRC that you want to preserve "people bickering, and flinging poo at the judges" it's at least consistent. So, in short, I vote Yes, because publishing on a Vault is better than rejecting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Warp wrote:
Brandon wrote:
Representative democracy has, and always will be, a way for the very rich to construct an oligarchy while making the people think they have control over it.
Who is to blame? The voters.
I tire of hearing this year after year, if in a representative democracy every voice has the same value, why didn't they immediately end the inequality that plagued them? The US has been a democracy since 1789, still, of all OECD countries, only Mexico and Turkey are more unequal. It's irrational to think that the system is perfect and people have voted consistently wrong for more than two centuries. The answer to this apparent paradox is simple. Although you can't buy votes directly in a democracy, the enormous bureaucracy of the system can make it almost impossible to detect the money's influence. The system has now become too complex for ordinary voters and even to many experts. It's just impossible to go through the mazes of laws and acronyms and to filter research that's not politically biased. On the other hand, money is very efficient at bringing down bureaucratic barriers, it thinks it's extremely fun to drill holes at the most obvious reforms, like Wall Street regulations. I risk to say that 90% of American citizens don't have a candidate. Still, many of these will pick one of the major two (and they don't need to be too many, since one can get elected with around 25% of all American voters), because what happens when you don't pick the less crazy of them both is eight years of George W. Bush. Even the American Communist Party is supporting Obama!
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Put simply, yeah, that's pretty much it. You probably were confused because you thought pure GR (the Einstein Field Equations) uniquely determines the evolution of a mechanical system. It doesn't, and things get worse if you take into account stuff like charge and temperature. Different people will explain this in different ways. The Einstein equations are an overly complicated mathematical way to relate the geometry of spacetime with the matter distribution. Do we know the exact spacetime geometry? No. Do we know the exact matter distribution? Neither. So, if we don't impose conditions that are physically observable for certain phenomena, GR becomes a useless theory. In fact, if someone taught you all the math right now and asked immediately after: "give me a solution", you could ṕick any Lorentzian metric, and through some simple math operations find out what the other side of the equation is, and you'd have a solution with little effort. The challenge is to impose symmetries and boundary conditions that describe a physical problem well and play with the algebra until you get a solution that can actually be tested empirically.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
amaurea wrote:
That's a nice, pedagogical paper you found p4wn3r. I haven't read all of it yet, but it appears to agree with what I said above: as long as the H is decreasing we can see recessional velocities higher than c, but if H is constant, c is the limit. The steady state universe is one (obsolete) example of a case with constant H. Inflation is another. And a dark-energy-dominated universe is a third. The latter is the case we seem to be approaching right now, and if our current understanding of the universe (LCDM) is correct, we will be thoroughly dark-energy-dominated in a few tens of billions of years.
I put that citation to say that if you assume exponential expansion, you'll conclude correctly that no observable galaxies can recede faster than light. Working with any of these three theories indeed doesn't matter. However, the authors of the article are emphatic saying that we have always observed galaxies receding faster than light. The problem is that when you set a(t) = exp(Ht) you're extending the expansion of the dark-dominated era to the end of time, this is a good approximation for short time intervals, but like in the snail in the rubberband analogy, it can take enormous amounts of time for the encounter to happen, so this approximation breaks apart. In the context of the Lambda-CDM model, at no moment the Hubble sphere is an event horizon, it's irrelevant if we're passing through a dark-dominated era, since galaxies outside the sphere can reenter it when this era ends. EDIT:
Warp wrote:
Of course the rate of expansion affects whether light reaches the other object or not. That's not what I was asking. I was asking about "the largest recession speed observable could be anything between 2c and 4c." I don't understand why that depends on anything else then the recession speed itself. Why isn't the maximum observable recession speed a certain fixed value?
You got it wrong. The graph I showed you doesn't contain only one line for General Relativity, but a red blur that represents a lot of models that make good predictions. Some of them put the cutoff at 2c, others at 4c, we don't know which is correct, because the evidence isn't strong enough to do that. The values of 2c and 4c aren't precise anyway, I just looked at the graph and guessed close values. If you really want only one value, I think the red line is the one with most acceptance, so look at where that line gets flat, just don't take it as a sure answer though.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
amaurea wrote:
Right now, the universe seems to be transitioning from a phase where a = (t/t0)^(2/3) to one where a = exp(H(t-t0)). In the former, the integral evaluates to 3ct0([t/t0]^(1/3)-1), and in the latter, it becomes c/H*(1-exp(-H(t-t0))).
Davis-Lineweaver wrote:
The myth that superluminally receding galaxies are beyond our view, may have propagated through some historical preconceptions. Firstly, objects on our event horizon do have infinite redshift, tempting us to apply our SR knowledge that infinite redshift corresponds to a velocity of c. Secondly, the once popular steady state theory predicts exponential expansion, for which the Hubble sphere and event horizon are coincident.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Warp wrote:
I have two questions about this: 1) If two objects are receding from each other slightly faster than c (due to the metric expansion of space) and the first object sends light to the other, what's the color of the light when it arrives? (I'm thinking about redshift here.) 2) I think there's a cutoff point for how fast the two objects can recede from each other before light can reach one from the other. In other words, if the two objects recede faster than a certain speed, light will never be able to travel between them. What is this speed?
Good questions. I'll post a link to the paper I used when answering something similar: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808v2.pdf Equations (1) and (2) relate the redshift z to the recession speed according to GR and SR, respectively. What's important to know is that while SR's equation is straight-forward, GR's depends largely on the model and the time elapsed since the beginning of the universe. The paper also has a graph plotting those equations using convenient values, it looks like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Velocity-redshift.JPG Infinite redshift means you're unreachable by particles at that recession speed. The graph shows that SR is wrong, predicting z=infty for v=c. The red blur for GR is in fact a variety of possible models, all of them approximate fairly Hubble's law (linear) and SR for small recession speeds, but diverge on the velocity for higher redshifts. So, by looking at the graph, since z is approx 1 when v=c, you would observe light at half its original frequency. And the largest recession speed observable could be anything between 2c and 4c. That made me wonder why one would assume GR's superluminal speeds instead of SR's subluminal ones if redshifts are what we can effectively measure. But it seems the authors of that paper already took care of that and showed experimental data that rules out SR's predictions by 23 standard deviations. I didn't read this part, but it looks good enough for me :)
Post subject: United States presidential elections, 2012
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
It's again election time in the USA and American (and to some extent many non-American) citizens are faced with political promises and dozens of random statistics about economic issues and opinion polling because of the selection of the president of the world's most influential country. As you can see below my avatar I don't vote in that election. However, I have many relatives living in the US and this particular election has called my attention because it's likely that I'll soon be an immigrant living in the United States. So, after being surprised by the extremely polarized media coverage of the election, I decided to ask people here what they think. Do you think Obama is a God hating liberal who's trying to destroy America? Do you think Romney is a brainless pawn of an elite trying to revive Bush's failed policies? Do you think America has degenerated into a plutocracy and the two major candidates suck? Or do you think this topic is just another excuse for pointless arguing in the forum? Share your hate below!
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Any updates on this?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
bortreb wrote:
I wonder how many other games could be reprogrammed in this way?
I'm not aware of any other. Probably there's an obscure title somewhere that allows this, but probably no one did the reversing necessary to do it. Some runs in this site exploit buffer overflows, most just change some data to allow warping somewhere or getting an item way before intended. I think the SMW glitched run manages to corrupt a function pointer, but even this is useless if you don't have a plausible way to store the malicious code. One possible way to do a run like this in other games would be to corrupt the length limit for a routine that names a character, so you can write letters in arbitrary memory locations. The opcodes would be limited to alphanumeric characters, but it's usually possible to get around this with self-modifying code. Alternatively, for games like RPGs that have complex save data, it should be possible to put the code in SRAM. With this, we'd be relying on an overflow of few bytes in a stack variable to corrupt the stack to the code location.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Starting at D1CA there are 6 spaces for pokemon data, each pokemon data is 44 bytes. After those, starting at D272 there are six chunks of 11 bytes (I think they are the nickname or OID, I don't remember). After those six, there are another six chunks of 11 bytes, one for each pokemon. After those, pokedex and inventory follow. As you can see, since the game doesn't check bounds, when you have a pokemon of number higher than 6 these areas overlap. When you switch pokemon, the game swaps the 44 bytes that have its main data and then their two corresponding 11 byte chunks (in that order). Since the size of these chunks is odd, by switching the correct pokemon, you can make data that was in even addresses change to odd addresses and vice versa. EDIT: Also, why does your code get the input byte like that? The game already has a function that gets the 8 bits and stores them at FFF5, I checked just now and it's in bank 3, address 4004. It looks easier to do something like "switch to bank three" (don't remember how you do that), "call 4004", and take the contents from fff5.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
bortreb, do you understand the data manipulation in the latest Yellow run? I use a trick there that swaps chunks of 11 bytes. It changes the alignment of the data and allows you to change the bytes with bad parity. It seems to me that you could remove the entire Celadon shopping by manipulating these.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Epic! I knew there was this possibility of a concept run when I submitted my last movie, and BrandonE even showed some interest in working on it, but the input limitations of the game made the job difficult. In fact, reading your YT description, this took three months! I'm glad you took this huge amount of work and finished the run! For people who are confused, this is basically how the most severe attacks in computer security work. The attacker normally uses a buffer overflow to inject code instructions in RAM and uses stack smashing, function pointer corruption, etc. to make the program execute the malicious code. Normally this is just some instructions to make the computer bring up a shell, but the GB has no operating system, so this is not a possibility here. bortreb's run seems to write a program in machine code to fetch bytes from the joystick input and putting them on RAM, I had this idea some time ago, but obviously the hard part is to get the data for the program in RAM without taking a huge amount of time. Anyway, congratulations, man! I know how frustrating breaking this game can be and appreciate your effort to keep R/B TASing alive.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Heh, that function was one of the first I constructed looking at n=4 and tried to extend it to larger sizes, I should have at least double-checked a generalization I made in ten minutes before posting it. Anyway, I solved it using a totally different function. It's f = sum(i*a_i) Every operation does one of the following: n*a + (n+1)*b + (n+2)*c + (n+3)*d -> n*(a-1) + (n+1)*(b+2) + (n+2)*c + (n+3)*(d-1) n*a + (n+1)*b + (n+2)*c + (n+3)*d -> n*(a+1) + (n+1)*b + (n+2)*(c-2) + (n+3)*(d+1) For the first case, f_new - f_old = -n + 2n + 2 - n - 3 = -1 and for the second, f_new - f_old = n - 2n - 4 + n + 3 = -1 So, it's decreasing. The motivation behind it is that I found out that repeating the procedure on a tuple indefinitely, you'd be reducing c and increasing b, like carrying units from one end of the array to the other, so I made a function that gave more weight to the numbers if they were at the end. This one was the first one I tried and it turned out much more elegant than I thought it would. Can you share your polynomial solution?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
FractalFusion wrote:
You don't need to express symmetry of Sn, but I don't understand what you mean by this: "given a permutation that has a k-cycle, you can always extend it so that you have m! ones".
You're right, that sentence is problematic, I meant that if you have the 4-cycle (1234) you can generate, say, 3! different ones, by permuting the numbers 1,2,3 and get (1234), (1324), (2134), (2314), (3124) and (3214). So, the assumption that 3! doesn't divide the set of 4-cycles is contradictory, since you can pick everyone of them and generate 3! ones. Anyway, the way you expressed it is clearly better.
FractalFusion wrote:
Let n>3 and k>2. Take a sequence of integers (ai) of length n, where each integer is between 0 and k inclusive. Apply the following step to this sequence over and over:
    Take any four consecutive numbers in the sequence and call them a,b,c,d from left to right. Do one of the following two:

    * Replace a with a-1, b with b+2, and d with d-1, provided all numbers remain between 0 and k.
    * Replace a with a+1, c with c-2, and d with d+1, provided all numbers remain between 0 and k.
Prove that eventually, the whole procedure must come to an end (only finitely many steps can be taken) no matter what.
Consider a function f taking the sequence as an argument, such that f = sum( min(2a,k-b,2d) + min(2k-2a,c,2k-2d) ), where the summation is done for each consecutive tuple (a,b,c,d). We'll consider the values of the function before and after a step of the algorithm. Suppose you applied the operation to a tuple (a,b,c,d). Suppose the operation increased a term in the summation. In order to increase the value of min(r,s,t) you have to increase both r,s and t. For our function f, that implies that both a and d must be different, but in only one term a and d are changed, and that term is the one that corresponds to the tuple where you applied the algorithm. Looking at this particular term, if you used the first option: term = min(2a-2,n-b-2,2d-2) + min(2n-2a+2,c,2n-2d+2) And for the second: term = min(2a+2,n-b,2d-2) + min(2n-2a-2,c-2,2n-2d-2) In both cases, one of the minimums is less than or equal to before (one of the arguments not changed) and the other is certainly less than before. Thus, that term decreases after we apply the algorithm. So, after the operation one of the terms in f decreases, while the others cannot increase. So, f decreases overall. The restriction that all numbers in the sequence are between 0 and k makes f always return a natural number. So, if it were possible to apply these operations indefinitely, one could construct a strictly decreasing sequence of natural numbers, violating the well-ordering property of N. So, there must always be a situation where the algorithm can no longer be applied after finitely many steps. (This is not very didactic, but I'm in a hurry right now)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Well, if a permutation has a k-cycle, with k > m, you can take m numbers in the cycle, permute them and you'll get a different cycle and thus, a different permutation, as long as the permutation done on the m numbers you chose is different. So, given a permutation that has a k-cycle, you can always extend it so that you have m! ones. So, the amount of permutations with a k-cycle is divisible by m!. Since that's true for every k > m, the amount of permutations not in S is divisible by m!. Since the sum of the elements of S with its complement is n!, which is also divisible by m!, the number of permutations in S must also be divisible by m!. Is this enough or is it necessary to express the symmetry with group actions in Sn?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
FractalFusion wrote:
p4wn3r wrote:
1) Prove that the smallest non-abelian group has order 6.
The symmetric group on 3 elements (S3) has order 6 and is non-abelian, since (cycle notation) (12)(13)=(132) and (13)(12)=(123). For a group G with a smaller number of elements: |G|=1: That is the trivial group, which is abelian. |G|=2: That is Z2, which is abelian. |G|=3: That is Z3, which is abelian. |G|=4: There are two groups. If there is an element of order 4, then it is Z4, which is abelian. Otherwise, the group is K=Z2xZ2, which is abelian. |G|=5: That is Z5, which is abelian.
I don't like this, since you just list the groups without proving they are the only ones at that order. Citing a result like Lagrange's theorem would be nice. Anyway, for a group of prime order p, the element is either the identity or has order p, so the only possible group is cyclic and, thus, abelian. That removes groups of order 2, 3 and 5. For the group of size 4, Lagrange's theorem restricts the order to 1, 2 or 4. If there's an element of order 4, then the group is cyclic and abelian. If there isn't, a2=e for all a. And from this we deduce that the group must be abelian, since ab(ab) = abb-1a-1, ab = b-1a-1 = b2b-1a-1a2 = ba. For (2) I used the first isomorphism theorem, but it's basically the same thing. And for (3), our solutions are almost identical.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
I also prefer the current motto, "not enough" is a common expression and has good impact without the contraction, I think a better alternative would be to use the singular: "When human skill is just not enough" Googling "is just not enough" returns 45 million results, "just isn't enough" 15 million, "are just not enough" 38 million, and "just aren't enough" 3.2 million. Obviously getting more results doesn't mean it's better, but I don't have much to work with. Besides, I don't really care which one goes there, the difference is minimum. I also agree with putting "video game" instead of "game" and whichever choice you take you can make them occupy the same space by justifying. P.S: I really want to reply to Pointless Boy and say how much he missed the point, but now that we had our fun can we get that shit out of the way and not risk getting this locked, for the sake of everyone who replied thinking this is important? (If there is anyone)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Pointless Boy: People don't think you're trolling because you suggested a slogan change, but because you're suggesting it based almost entirely on linguistic prejudice (you'll probably deny this, but it's true). It's generally agreed that this kind of argumentation is arrogant and at the very least detrimental to your own discourse. Seeing that you failed to recognize this, it's reasonable to have some doubts about your authority in language aesthetics. It's obvious that you are good with English grammar, but that can be irrelevant for the purposes of a motto. I'll give you an example in my native language since you care about this so much: once a large bank used in its slogan the sentence "Vem pra Caixa você também!" ("You, come to Caixa too!"), it was very successful because it rhymes and coulb be put in songs easily. Thing is, it's grammatically incorrect because "vem" expects a pronoun in the 2nd person and "você" is in the third. However, this sounds more familiar to people, even highly educated ones, because the correct language is used mostly in writing. Depending on what you want to say with too much formalism, people will ask "Why are you talking like a book?". As you can see, there's at least one slogan that was made based on what non-experts on a language would think and it worked, simply because there are situations where being strictly correct is unimportant or just doesn't matter. Anyway, seeing that the grammar in the motto is correct and people seem to like it, there's little motivation to change it, even less to have a novel written about it. The tasvideos IRC channel could be used right now for discussing things the users would like to see, but at the moment, people are having fun there replacing "English speaker" with "penis sucker" in your sentences. This shows that this discussion is not just stupid, but also counter-productive.
1 2
17 18 19
34 35