Minecraft In Game Name (case sensitive): Elnendil
Where are you from?: United States, Arkansas
Your age?: 23
Have you read and agreed to the rules in the post below? Yes
Did you vote for us? No
Extra notes?: -----
How did you hear of Super-Earth?: Forums
The problem with rain putting out torches NOW is that it seriously ruins any sort of protection from outside forces in your home. Thats what a fort/home is SUPPOSED to do, right? Protect you from enemies? So you need light sources in order to protect yourself from mobs just spawning in there and blowing you up. I have a town on a minecraft server and despite me putting torches in several places as little as possible, I still have a creeper dancing on my streets now and again. The only logical conclusion for seriously wanting that would be if lanterns were already in, because it would make more sense for those to not break. Glowstone works too, but its also very hard to acquire en masse.
If any sort of "rain destroys torch" concept comes in I say that:
#1: Mob spawns should be fixed, enemy and friendly alike. Yes, peaceful mobs spawn where light is, but they should huddle around light sources at night, its damn annoying. Turn them off at night. They're asleep. Night monsters shouldn't be so finnicky about the light source either and make it depend more on the blocks. Planks don't spawn naturally. I make a plank home with no light but it is completely sealed. How do zombies get in there realistically?
#2: We need lanterns and we need to make glowstone slightly more plentiful. If torches go out at some point and are even destroyed by rain, torches are absolute garbage. You can make them en masse but they're terrible. So you need a more permanent light source. So eventually you'll have to get glowstone/lanterns. But if its so hard to get lanterns like it is to get diamonds or something, whats the point of even having a lantern? Glowstone is hard to get because its always in a small cluster with ghasts chasing you. There's barely any in a single bunch. The only "cheap" source of light then is a friggen fire, and thats put out by the rain too.
Seriously though, stop trying to make this game like Dwarf Fortress difficulty. Before you know it you'll request that TNT can prematurely explode in your inventory or some bullcrap. Or add tarrasques. Or make it so you get diabetes and die two seconds later and the map deletes.
I'm surprised such creepypasta had such a following that the guy made some sort of community fueled plot in which people find clues trying to find BEN who supposedly has haunted the internet...or something?
Just to make this point i've seen many others have done already: n/0 isn't literally infinity unless you only consider positive numbers. Its undefined unless n=0, in which case it is indeterminate. If a=n/0, then a*0=n. Makes no sense if n isn't 0. No values equal that. If a=0/0, then any value can be it, indeterminate. n/0 is better considered say, complex infinity. And how would a computer handle it? I dunno, I don't deal with computers.
#1: Evolution and Science are not the opposite of Religion. Evolution does not immediately dismiss religion either, nor do studies of the universe. It merely possibly dismisses perhaps literal interpretations of religions or a certain religion altogether. It is quite easy to make a religion which satisfies most if not all of scientific findings, or perhaps take scripture in a way that satisfies them (not taken literally, studied as moral stories). Changing an idea does not immediately mean its wrong. Thats like saying the sciences are wrong because they change with new findings only. There's more to it than that.
#2: Religion in itself is not bad. Pick up a Bible and skim through Proverbs. Several lines of text probably agree with your personal morals etc. Here's one: "Better is the poor that walketh in his integrity, than he that is perverse in his lips, and is a fool." Proverbs 19:1. However, for this case the Bible, does have certain passages that are not very moral in our time, like say stoning women who cheat on their husbands. Most of these were dismissed with the coming of Jesus Christ anyways, based on the scriptures. Most complaints seem to be regarding fundamental Christians and that does not accurately measure anything about the religion itself.
#3: Evolution is a "theory" in the sense that it has been tested constantly and has been held to be quite true with much scientific backing. The only way to dismiss Evolution is to have proof that there is fault in it (And anybody who believes in the sciences possibly would LOVE for this to happen; it makes their knowledge of the universe stronger). Religious people mention the bible, but well, see #1, they aren't incompatible with each other, there's no point in discussing the matter with the book, and in order to make any sense they have to have scientific proof and evidence of the contrary. The problem with people and the word theory isn't that its actually "fact", its that it IS a theory, but its a very strongly proven theory with evidence, and we cannot seriously make a universal axiom of it. It would be very unwise to make it an axiom of the universe when all we know is information about our planet. It still, however, does not immediately mean its flimsy. Hell no. Thats like saying that the Golbach Conjecture is flimsy. Not proven to this day, but try a crack at it, have fun.
#4: Logically, reference to something bad in relation to an action does not itself make the action bad. Here's a pretty extreme example: A politician advocates protection children. He is caught molesting children. Does that mean that we shouldn't protect children because he molested children? Of course not. So the concept of Hitler being religious or not has NO importance in the analogy, its worthless. Not exactly a proof but I think it makes a pretty strong point.
#5: Openmindedness =/= Right. In fact, even mentioning this is surprising. By definition of openmindedness you would just listen to what they had to say and consider it. But you're not, you outright dismiss it. Are you wrong because you dismissed it? Well no, you're not. You could be in a given situation, but at the same time you're practicing self confidence. You should consider concepts you have doubts over to strengthen your viewpoint. If you find it hard to discuss concepts with religious people, then study what they know. If you know that, based on many proofs etc that a concept is true, why are you questioning it?
Then again, even the concept of Evolution up to this point is hard to question, it has strong scientific backing, but perhaps questioning it again and again will finally solidify its truthfulness to the point that no man can dismiss it. Even in the field of mathematics, a proof can be given by assuming the concept is absolutely false/true (proof by contradiction, see more common proofs that the square root of 2 is irrational and that there are infinitely many primes). What i'm saying here is that you shouldn't deny it blindly like some people imply people do (this idea of closemindedness that people mention and say people should be more openminded), but instead question it intellectually, find out more, make studies etc.
Many intellectual minds such as scientists and mathematicians had many difficulties in finding the information we know now offhandedly. All I can say is don't jump to bashing people because they don't get something or they've been told to memorize something with no scientific backing and they're young. They should, however, be told to seriously prove their statements if they believe so heavily in them, and present them. I'm pretty sure they won't get very far against heavily tested theories that still hold ground to this day. Perhaps it would be a good time to show how much you know too. And if they are serious about what they believe, they will have the same experience, and either change or try to strengthen their argument.
But still, on the side, why are there a billion threads on this crap here? Usually there's 2+ threads on the front about someone bitching about someone religious or something like that. Sounds odd after I typed a tl;dr text but seriously.
There have been several mathematical concepts that seem very simple to us now, but used to be hot and serious debate. For one, the concept of zero was very hard to accept, because math in its earliest form was about counting (hence the name counting numbers), so how can you count nothing? With the rise of zero we were finally able to move towards solving equations and the like. Negative numbers were even harder to understand, how can something be less than nothing? The world mocked it, even discussing the idea that "If the negatives are a legal mathematical procedure, then there is a number that equals the square root of a negative". The most surprising one was De Morgan's dismissal of negative numbers, especially when it comes to De Morgan's laws of logical negation; the same concept works with numbers too. Another one would be 0^0, which we consider to be 1. But literally 0^0 is indeterminate, but its limit approaches 1, and we merely mention that it should be one, because if it wasn't several theorems, like the binomial theorem, would stop working. Kind of like why 0!=1 when it doesn't seem to make sense; 0! equaling 1 makes more sense in formulas than it does if it was 0.
Humans are biased towards integers. If a computer was told to choose a number between 1 and 10 which including the reals, the chances of it choosing an integer are zero.
Consider two situations. Let a and b be any numbers in the reals that do not equal zero. We know that a*0=0. Dividing both sides by zero results in a=0/0. But we just mentioned that a can be ANY number, so 0/0's value cannot be determined. This is why we say it is indeterminate. Consider another situation, such that a=b/0. But then a*0=b, and we know that there exist NO values such that a*0 equals a number that does not equal zero. Therefore no such value can exist which is why we say that b/0 is undefined. Studying calculus, we also can study the limits of these values. For example, the limit of 1/x as x goes to zero does not exist, because as it approaches 0 from the left, it becomes negative infinity, but as it approaches from the right, it becomes positive infinity, and by definition of limits if the two sides to not approach the same value, the limit does not exist.
This is also why such methods are not legitimate moves in mathematics, we gain no information from them and they create errors. Its fine to be confused at first looking at these concepts; it took us a very long time to accept the idea of zero. And lets not get into negatives, people even thought that say 21/0 was infinity so 21/-3 was larger than infinity.
People gain immortality by being remembered throughout history. Sounds corny but thats how we've been doing it. Sometimes being remembered just by people you care about is more than enough.
Literal immortality, like living for a long time? It might be possible, just not right now. If it does come, I'm sure a lot of social problems would arise, because obviously not everybody could get it. I leave that sort of discussion for someone else though, I'd rather wait and see.
Memorize in groups. Memorizing the digits alone won't get you very far. Instead memorize using sequences of grouped digits that are very clear and easy to memorize, like say, years or something similar Like instead of 3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 9 it could be 3, 1415, 9.
Aside from that memorization for longer and longer digit values would be pretty eh, considering its all an approximation because pi is irrational and cannot be formed using a ratio of integers.
0
Where are you from?: United States, Arkansas
Your age?: 23
Have you read and agreed to the rules in the post below? Yes
Did you vote for us? No
Extra notes?: -----
How did you hear of Super-Earth?: Forums
0
Steam
MAPLE
Geogebra
MiKTeX
Winamp
AIM
CCleaner
Spybot Search and Destroy
Super Anti Spyware
Though i'm not sure if antivirus etc stuff really counts, but I guess so.
0
If any sort of "rain destroys torch" concept comes in I say that:
#1: Mob spawns should be fixed, enemy and friendly alike. Yes, peaceful mobs spawn where light is, but they should huddle around light sources at night, its damn annoying. Turn them off at night. They're asleep. Night monsters shouldn't be so finnicky about the light source either and make it depend more on the blocks. Planks don't spawn naturally. I make a plank home with no light but it is completely sealed. How do zombies get in there realistically?
#2: We need lanterns and we need to make glowstone slightly more plentiful. If torches go out at some point and are even destroyed by rain, torches are absolute garbage. You can make them en masse but they're terrible. So you need a more permanent light source. So eventually you'll have to get glowstone/lanterns. But if its so hard to get lanterns like it is to get diamonds or something, whats the point of even having a lantern? Glowstone is hard to get because its always in a small cluster with ghasts chasing you. There's barely any in a single bunch. The only "cheap" source of light then is a friggen fire, and thats put out by the rain too.
Seriously though, stop trying to make this game like Dwarf Fortress difficulty. Before you know it you'll request that TNT can prematurely explode in your inventory or some bullcrap. Or add tarrasques. Or make it so you get diabetes and die two seconds later and the map deletes.
0
0
Age: 22
0
You DO realize that logic is terrible, right? Right?
0
0
#2: Religion in itself is not bad. Pick up a Bible and skim through Proverbs. Several lines of text probably agree with your personal morals etc. Here's one: "Better is the poor that walketh in his integrity, than he that is perverse in his lips, and is a fool." Proverbs 19:1. However, for this case the Bible, does have certain passages that are not very moral in our time, like say stoning women who cheat on their husbands. Most of these were dismissed with the coming of Jesus Christ anyways, based on the scriptures. Most complaints seem to be regarding fundamental Christians and that does not accurately measure anything about the religion itself.
#3: Evolution is a "theory" in the sense that it has been tested constantly and has been held to be quite true with much scientific backing. The only way to dismiss Evolution is to have proof that there is fault in it (And anybody who believes in the sciences possibly would LOVE for this to happen; it makes their knowledge of the universe stronger). Religious people mention the bible, but well, see #1, they aren't incompatible with each other, there's no point in discussing the matter with the book, and in order to make any sense they have to have scientific proof and evidence of the contrary. The problem with people and the word theory isn't that its actually "fact", its that it IS a theory, but its a very strongly proven theory with evidence, and we cannot seriously make a universal axiom of it. It would be very unwise to make it an axiom of the universe when all we know is information about our planet. It still, however, does not immediately mean its flimsy. Hell no. Thats like saying that the Golbach Conjecture is flimsy. Not proven to this day, but try a crack at it, have fun.
#4: Logically, reference to something bad in relation to an action does not itself make the action bad. Here's a pretty extreme example: A politician advocates protection children. He is caught molesting children. Does that mean that we shouldn't protect children because he molested children? Of course not. So the concept of Hitler being religious or not has NO importance in the analogy, its worthless. Not exactly a proof but I think it makes a pretty strong point.
#5: Openmindedness =/= Right. In fact, even mentioning this is surprising. By definition of openmindedness you would just listen to what they had to say and consider it. But you're not, you outright dismiss it. Are you wrong because you dismissed it? Well no, you're not. You could be in a given situation, but at the same time you're practicing self confidence. You should consider concepts you have doubts over to strengthen your viewpoint. If you find it hard to discuss concepts with religious people, then study what they know. If you know that, based on many proofs etc that a concept is true, why are you questioning it?
Then again, even the concept of Evolution up to this point is hard to question, it has strong scientific backing, but perhaps questioning it again and again will finally solidify its truthfulness to the point that no man can dismiss it. Even in the field of mathematics, a proof can be given by assuming the concept is absolutely false/true (proof by contradiction, see more common proofs that the square root of 2 is irrational and that there are infinitely many primes). What i'm saying here is that you shouldn't deny it blindly like some people imply people do (this idea of closemindedness that people mention and say people should be more openminded), but instead question it intellectually, find out more, make studies etc.
Many intellectual minds such as scientists and mathematicians had many difficulties in finding the information we know now offhandedly. All I can say is don't jump to bashing people because they don't get something or they've been told to memorize something with no scientific backing and they're young. They should, however, be told to seriously prove their statements if they believe so heavily in them, and present them. I'm pretty sure they won't get very far against heavily tested theories that still hold ground to this day. Perhaps it would be a good time to show how much you know too. And if they are serious about what they believe, they will have the same experience, and either change or try to strengthen their argument.
But still, on the side, why are there a billion threads on this crap here? Usually there's 2+ threads on the front about someone bitching about someone religious or something like that. Sounds odd after I typed a tl;dr text but seriously.
0
There have been several mathematical concepts that seem very simple to us now, but used to be hot and serious debate. For one, the concept of zero was very hard to accept, because math in its earliest form was about counting (hence the name counting numbers), so how can you count nothing? With the rise of zero we were finally able to move towards solving equations and the like. Negative numbers were even harder to understand, how can something be less than nothing? The world mocked it, even discussing the idea that "If the negatives are a legal mathematical procedure, then there is a number that equals the square root of a negative". The most surprising one was De Morgan's dismissal of negative numbers, especially when it comes to De Morgan's laws of logical negation; the same concept works with numbers too. Another one would be 0^0, which we consider to be 1. But literally 0^0 is indeterminate, but its limit approaches 1, and we merely mention that it should be one, because if it wasn't several theorems, like the binomial theorem, would stop working. Kind of like why 0!=1 when it doesn't seem to make sense; 0! equaling 1 makes more sense in formulas than it does if it was 0.
0
0
This is also why such methods are not legitimate moves in mathematics, we gain no information from them and they create errors. Its fine to be confused at first looking at these concepts; it took us a very long time to accept the idea of zero. And lets not get into negatives, people even thought that say 21/0 was infinity so 21/-3 was larger than infinity.
0
0
Literal immortality, like living for a long time? It might be possible, just not right now. If it does come, I'm sure a lot of social problems would arise, because obviously not everybody could get it. I leave that sort of discussion for someone else though, I'd rather wait and see.
0
0
Aside from that memorization for longer and longer digit values would be pretty eh, considering its all an approximation because pi is irrational and cannot be formed using a ratio of integers.