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.

After glancing through your reply, I would most definitely call it a petty
flame. You just try to hide it with big words and statements phrased
to sound logical when they actually aren't. I never made a "mistake"
while writing my letter and I find that you make up facts to use in your
arguments. I don't appreciate your response, especially since my
arguments have been valid and yours haven't.

>> >> > 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.

I feel I have very little to learn from you, especially in the field of logic.
You might make a good lawyer, arguing about nothing, unimportant
things, or things you have no hope of winning, but that's about it.

> First of all, you argue that it is neither easy, nor pointless because
> of the number of letters written on the subject.

I use the number of letters as support, not as proof. Anyway, who are
you to say what is pointless and what is easy?

> The number of letters
> on a subject have absolutely no impact _on_ the subject.

So, in other words, people are typing 100 line letters about something
they don't care about or want to know anything about. That makes
sense. *sarcasm* I believe that a topic that catches people's interest
will get more attention. I believe there are VERY few exceptions to this.
Anyone here disagree?

> True, had the
> topic been more advanced than putting 6 and rand together, it would be
> interesting.

It happens to be discussing putting rand together with an equation to get
6 ever so slightly more than one. Significantly more difficult. Difficult
enough to warrant about 5 minutes of everyone's thought.

> 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.

HAHA! Since you think something is impossible, pursuing it is pointless.
That sounds real intelligent. *more sarcasm* I PREFER to pursue
the impossible. Anyway, we were discussing one specific means of
making the dice roll more realistic. If you don't think that will improve
the realism, feel free to tell us. But don't try to stop us from discussing
it anyway. The point was making the routine. Not having it fit a purpose.

> Your second mistake was the reference to earlier occurrences. 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.

My points are that, first, it's not pointless and not necessarily easy,
and second, people DON'T talk about things they don't care about
unless they have something to gain. PEOPLE CARE SO LEAVE
THEM ALONE!!

> It might, it might not. You have no way of knowing
> just on account of previous events. I hope you see what I mean.

All previous events I can recall support my conclusion, not yours.
 
>> >> 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?

I may have been trying to be rude, SIR. I find your question extremely
stupid and ignorant. The routine is interesting to programmers because
it poses a problem to solve. it may not be a real complex* one, but it's
still a problem. One of the prerequisites to programming is to enjoy
problem solving. You have to use it so often. That's why this string
has lasted so long. To programmers, this is like the games we write.
It serves no discernible purpose except entertainment. This has been
my argument all along.

* I noticed while proofreading that this was an oxymoron.

> 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
> organization I come from.

Why would I care? Even if you came from TI, that wouldn't change
ANYTHING.

> 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.

I thought it would be helpful to retrieve the original letter:
>> >> >> >> I have created a program in TI-85 BASIC to roll dice for
>> >> >> >> AD&D.  I would like to know how to weight the dice so that
>> >> >> >> the higher numbers have a slightly higher chance to come
>> >> >> >> up than the lower ones (like it is with real D&D dice).  Does
>> >> >> >> anyone know how I would go about doing that?

He did NOT ask how to make the dice roll more realistic. He specifically
asked how to make one integer come up slightly more times than
another. I won't accept any argument about this being "crude".

>> > 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.

Nope. Scroll back up a little.

> 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.

All of that is fine. But you didn't stop there.

> I also pointed out that the resulting
> program was rather easy. And in a forum of programmers, it is.

You are incorrect. You are considering an incorrect routine.
:int (rand*6)+1 is not being discussed here.

>> 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.

Who was looking for ecstatic? A large portion of this list spent 5
minutes of their time considering this. That's a lot of time, and
a lot of interest.

>> 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.

There is only one thread here. It was started by the letter quoted above.
You made a point that the routine did not serve a purpose. You are
entitled to tell us that. You are not entitled to try to stop us, insult
other's intelligence ("This routine is so EASY, why are you having
trouble?"), or flame in any way.

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

Then explain to us the best way to "weight the dice so that the higher
numbers have a slightly higher chance to come up than the lower ones,"
since you're so much more intelligent than us. *sarcasm again*

>> 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. 

Often so. Sometimes not. And the point is, someone brought it here
because he couldn't do it at all. So you insult his intelligence. Lay off.
 
>> > 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.

How about you scroll back up to that original letter and discover that
you are wrong.

>> 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.

Then how about helping instead of flaming?

>> 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.

If anyone on the list would like to speak on this for himself, that's great.
Until then, I'll make accurate assumptions. I didn't ask you to leave, just
change your position to one of ASSISTANCE. And I am involved because
I do care about the topic. I don't care about how purposeful the routine is.
And nobody else does anymore either. Otherwise, they would've spoken
up.

>> We are talking about accurate probability routines,
> 
> In the other thread, yes, not this one.

OTHER THREAD?! You REPLIED to a letter, therefore, it's the same
thread BY DEFINITION.


Follow-Ups: