Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic: No blog posts, no updates for ~6 months?  (Read 13384 times)

Midnight Kitsune

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Your Friendly Forum Friend
    • View Profile
Re: No blog posts, no updates for ~6 months?
« Reply #30 on: October 27, 2019, 02:13:25 PM »

Well as I remember, Alex said he's planning to do a 0.9.5 release before 1.0.

Aw man, I was pumped that it would be feature-complete for the next update...

Oh well. I'm along for the ride either way.
INB4 a 0.10.0 after 0.9.5
Logged
Help out MesoTroniK, a modder in need

2021 is 2020 won
2022 is 2020 too

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
Re: No blog posts, no updates for ~6 months?
« Reply #31 on: October 27, 2019, 02:27:07 PM »

INB4 a 0.10.0 after 0.9.5
You're probably joking but I see every other person make this mistake. Adding more zeroes after the decimal point doesn't change the number. So for example 1.5 and 1.5000000 is the same thing. Sorry if I seem nitpicky but I've had teachers who thought wrong and spread false information.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

majorfreak

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: No blog posts, no updates for ~6 months?
« Reply #32 on: October 27, 2019, 02:40:34 PM »

*checks twitter* 
Logged

AgentFransis

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: No blog posts, no updates for ~6 months?
« Reply #33 on: October 27, 2019, 02:43:04 PM »

You're probably joking but I see every other person make this mistake. Adding more zeroes after the decimal point doesn't change the number. So for example 1.5 and 1.5000000 is the same thing. Sorry if I seem nitpicky but I've had teachers who thought wrong and spread false information.
A software version isn't a decimal number, it's a tuple of 3 integers (https://semver.org/). You increment your major version when it makes sense not because you "ran out" of minor version numbers. Though sometimes the minor version is used as a decimal fraction to indicate progress towards completion.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2019, 02:44:39 PM by AgentFransis »
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
Re: No blog posts, no updates for ~6 months?
« Reply #34 on: October 27, 2019, 02:49:24 PM »

You're probably joking but I see every other person make this mistake. Adding more zeroes after the decimal point doesn't change the number. So for example 1.5 and 1.5000000 is the same thing. Sorry if I seem nitpicky but I've had teachers who thought wrong and spread false information.
A software version isn't a decimal number, it's a tuple of 3 integers (https://semver.org/). You increment your major version when it makes sense not because you "ran out" of minor version numbers. Though sometimes the minor version is used as a decimal fraction to indicate progress towards completion.
Huh, didn't know that. Well if I ever witness something going to 0.10.0 after 0.9.something, now I'll understand the weirdness.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Yunru

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1560
    • View Profile
Re: No blog posts, no updates for ~6 months?
« Reply #35 on: October 27, 2019, 03:29:53 PM »

INB4 a 0.10.0 after 0.9.5
You're probably joking but I see every other person make this mistake. Adding more zeroes after the decimal point doesn't change the number. So for example 1.5 and 1.5000000 is the same thing. Sorry if I seem nitpicky but I've had teachers who thought wrong and spread false information.
To further nitpick, those two numbers are different.
1.5 can be anywhere from 1.45 to 1.55.
1.5000000 can only be from 1.49999995 to 1.50000005.

AgentFransis

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: No blog posts, no updates for ~6 months?
« Reply #36 on: October 27, 2019, 04:10:15 PM »

INB4 a 0.10.0 after 0.9.5
You're probably joking but I see every other person make this mistake. Adding more zeroes after the decimal point doesn't change the number. So for example 1.5 and 1.5000000 is the same thing. Sorry if I seem nitpicky but I've had teachers who thought wrong and spread false information.
To further nitpick, those two numbers are different.
1.5 can be anywhere from 1.45 to 1.55.
1.5000000 can only be from 1.49999995 to 1.50000005.
I don't get the joke.
Logged

Yunru

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1560
    • View Profile
Re: No blog posts, no updates for ~6 months?
« Reply #37 on: October 27, 2019, 04:15:49 PM »

INB4 a 0.10.0 after 0.9.5
You're probably joking but I see every other person make this mistake. Adding more zeroes after the decimal point doesn't change the number. So for example 1.5 and 1.5000000 is the same thing. Sorry if I seem nitpicky but I've had teachers who thought wrong and spread false information.
To further nitpick, those two numbers are different.
1.5 can be anywhere from 1.45 to 1.55.
1.5000000 can only be from 1.49999995 to 1.50000005.
I don't get the joke.
There isn't one, it's just an important mathematical distinction when talking about margins of error.

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: No blog posts, no updates for ~6 months?
« Reply #38 on: October 27, 2019, 04:30:21 PM »

That's only true if there's uncertainty. Sometimes decimal places are used to represent the uncertainty in a measurement (i.e. the smallest value that's distinguishable by the measurement technique). However, if the number is deterministic then 1.5=1.5000 and there is no reason to have the zeros in the first place.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: No blog posts, no updates for ~6 months?
« Reply #39 on: October 27, 2019, 09:00:49 PM »

I despise significant figures and that style of error reporting. If an experiment gives a value of 1.673 [unit] with a gaussian error of .439 [unit], then that is what you report! Rounding to the nearest (usually decimal rounded!) multiple of the error is introducing a random bias to the mean on the order of the error. Rounding the error itself is introducing a random bias to the variance! And then what happens when you collect the results of those experiments to produce aggregate data? The statistics on the mean and variance are off.

Pretty much the only time I'll accept the decimal style error reporting is if its a direct readout from a digital measurement device. Even then, the device usually has a rated error which is larger than its minimum readout resolution, and that should be used instead of the readout decimal place.

/rant
Logged

Yunru

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1560
    • View Profile
Re: No blog posts, no updates for ~6 months?
« Reply #40 on: October 28, 2019, 03:18:33 AM »

Yes well, Maths has some stupid rules. For instance 0/0!=1, even though if you graph anything that requires it (Y=X/X, or Y=X^2 for example) it clearly does.

lethargie

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
    • View Profile
Re: No blog posts, no updates for ~6 months?
« Reply #41 on: October 28, 2019, 09:09:30 AM »

Usualy in report i would accept error rounded to the higher decimal, not the nearest. Slightly higher error bar are usually safer.

And this is not math, this is more the field of experimental science.
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: No blog posts, no updates for ~6 months?
« Reply #42 on: October 28, 2019, 10:21:09 AM »

Yes well, Maths has some stupid rules. For instance 0/0!=1, even though if you graph anything that requires it (Y=X/X, or Y=X^2 for example) it clearly does.

I think you're mixing some things up. 0! = 1 so 0/0! is 0/1 = 0 but that has nothing to do with the functions you wrote as far as I can tell.

Perhaps you were referring to 0/0 (no factorial) which is indeterminate. In the context of the function y = x/x, the limit as x-->0 is 1, but that's only true for that specific function.
Logged

Yunru

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1560
    • View Profile
Re: No blog posts, no updates for ~6 months?
« Reply #43 on: October 28, 2019, 11:01:46 AM »

Yes well, Maths has some stupid rules. For instance 0/0!=1, even though if you graph anything that requires it (Y=X/X, or Y=X^2 for example) it clearly does.

I think you're mixing some things up. 0! = 1 so 0/0! is 0/1 = 0 but that has nothing to do with the functions you wrote as far as I can tell.

Perhaps you were referring to 0/0 (no factorial) which is indeterminate. In the context of the function y = x/x, the limit as x-->0 is 1, but that's only true for that specific function.
Apologies, autocorrect messing up the spacing. 0/0 != 1 is what I was trying to write.
Which completely destroys the whole basis of an equation: that an equal change on both sides doesn't alter the equation.
It's a stupid exception not for why it's needed, but for which part of the problem was chosen to be the exception.

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: No blog posts, no updates for ~6 months?
« Reply #44 on: October 28, 2019, 11:29:03 AM »

Yes well, Maths has some stupid rules. For instance 0/0!=1, even though if you graph anything that requires it (Y=X/X, or Y=X^2 for example) it clearly does.

I think you're mixing some things up. 0! = 1 so 0/0! is 0/1 = 0 but that has nothing to do with the functions you wrote as far as I can tell.

Perhaps you were referring to 0/0 (no factorial) which is indeterminate. In the context of the function y = x/x, the limit as x-->0 is 1, but that's only true for that specific function.
Apologies, autocorrect messing up the spacing. 0/0 != 1 is what I was trying to write.
Which completely destroys the whole basis of an equation: that an equal change on both sides doesn't alter the equation.
It's a stupid exception not for why it's needed, but for which part of the problem was chosen to be the exception.

lim x-->0 (x/x) = 1 is still true. The equation isn't violated as x-->0.

Where does doing the same thing to both sides of an equation cause the equation to be false? Also, where is an exception being chosen? The reason 0/0 is indeterminate is because you are dividing by 0, that's not a choice.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4