Re: TIB: wieghted dice (discussion sliding off-topic)


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: TIB: wieghted dice (discussion sliding off-topic)




TGaArdvark wrote:
> 
> I think this has degraded to petty flaming.

A matter of opinion, I consider it a mature discussion, and I hope you
do too.

> >>> Using a program to "unbalance" the dice is more likely to
> >>> obscure the probabilities rather than provide a realistic
> >>> image. Easy, but pointless.
> >>
> >> Actually, it's neither easy nor pointless. Otherwise, this
> >> wouldn't have been the 10th letter in the string.
> >
> > Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. It has absolutely _nothing_ to do with the number
> > of letters written.
> 
> Why would people talk about easy pointless things on a list? I don't recall
> that ever happening (except for petty flames like this one).

I'm afraid I have to teach you a bit about logic (don't consider this a
flame, it isn't) as you have just made a couple of (sad as it is) rather
common mistakes.
First of all, you argue that it is neither easy, nor pointless because
of the number of letters written on the subject. The number of letters
on a subject have absolutely no impact _on_ the subject. True, had the
topic been more advanced than putting 6 and rand together, it would be
interesting. However, only today (after these posts) has that begun to
happen, and it has nothing to do with the original purpose (that purpose
being how to weight the dice to make the rolls realistic). As I pointed
out, it is impossible to make the rolls more realistic, and the
discussion (about that topic) is therefore pointless.
Your second mistake was the reference to earlier occurences. People
often think that because something has a habit of working in a
particular, it always will. Hence your question "Why would people talk
about easy pointless things on a list?" and your reasoning "I don't
recall that ever happening". Well, it just happened, and it can very
easily happen again. It might, it might not. You have no way of knowing
just on account of previous events. I hope you see what I mean.

> >> The point
> >> is that it's an interesting basic routine to work on and
> >> contemplate.
> >
> > Pray tell, why is that so?
> 
> Do you like programming? If not, never mind.

You still haven't answered me (and it is also rather rude of you to
answer a question with a question), what makes the routine interesting?
All it does is put two numbers together and round down.
Also, in answer to your question, you might want to take a look at what
organisation I come from.

I agree that the posts I have received _today_ (about ln() and such) are
of high mathematical interest to me, but these have nothing to do with
the first (very simple and crude) program, nor with real dice rolls
which was what the original question was about.

> > It is _very_ pointless to modify a program to simulate a reality when
> > the twist is really insignificant. It's like making a wargame with
> > millions of tank units and include a routine that occasionally blows up
> > a tank, to emulate faulty construction. If that isn't pointless then you
> > must have a busy life thinking about every little detail in everything
> > you do... :-/
> 
> Nobody was saying that's what we we're trying to do.

Oh yes, someone were, you are confusing the threads.
To start with, I asked if the so-called D&D dice were loaded (and nobody
answered me directly :-/ ). If not then why do it? Someone then pointed
out that there is a minute difference in weight because there are more
holes on the six end than on the one end. What I then pointed out was
that it would be pointless to try and emulate that difference, and that
one was more likely to obscure it. I also pointed out that the resulting
program was rather easy. And in a forum of programmers, it is.

> The point (and
> fun) is writing the routine.

I understand your point, but I really don't think anybody were even
close to ecstatic over the discussed routine.

> Not making war games with millions of tanks.
> You are so hung up on the most efficient way of doing it, you didn't
> realize that we are discussing it for the programming experience.

The discussion (started by me) was in fact about efficiency. The other
thread isn't.

> >> And just because you or I could whip it out
> >> in 5 mins doesn't make it necessarily easy.
> >
> > Actually that _is_ the definition of easy, something that can be whipped
> > out in five minutes.
> 
> Actually it's _NOT_. Ease is based on skill and chages per person.

This is a forum of programmers. I hardly think anyone had any problems
overseeing the program.

> Also,
> the amount of time it takes you to do something has nothing to do with
> it's hardness. There are many things that, if they took me 5 minutes to
> do, I would consider them VERY hard.

Leave everything else out of it, this is about programming, and when it
comes to making a program, five minutes is easy. 

> > The routine is:
> > Roll a die.
> > Add a number.
> > If the result is greater than the number of sides on the die, use the
> > max as result.
> >
> > How hard can it be?
> >
> > It's not my fault that whoever posted the original routine made it more
> > complicated than necessary. It was out of ignorance, not really a sin,
> > and it certainly does _not_ make the job any harder. It's really all a
> > matter of knowing what the function you use actually does.
> 
> Um, that wasn't even the routine in question.

In fact it was. I know, because I was the one to hit "reply" when it
came.

> If you have something
> better, feel free to show us.

I don't. As said, the particular problem is not solvable.
And when it comes to the other thing in question (generally loading
dice) I could make all the programs you want, each one different from
the other, and the best one? A matter of preference really. There is no
royal way to computer science.

> But if we don't care (like now), then drop
> it.

If you don't care then why did you get involved in the first place? I
entered the discussion first, and I am not leaving because of you. Also,
try not to speak for everyone on the list. Thank you.

> We are talking about accurate probablility routines,

In the other thread, yes, not this one.

> not the best
> way of rolling a dice in basic.

-above-

Sincerely,

-- 
          Rene Kragh Pedersen
------------------------------------------------------------------
man: Why did you get a divorce?
man:: Too many arguments.


References: