Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > Roleplaying in General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-26-2022, 10:13 AM   #91
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Default Re: Gaming philosophy conundra

Quote:
Originally Posted by malloyd View Post
Surely whoever rolls second always wins. The probability space between the first roll X and infinity is always infinitely larger than the space between 0 and X, right?
I didn't think of that one, but it sounds right, at least if you're rolling a die with countably infinite sides.

I'm not sure what happens if your die has continuous sides. If you give the south pole a value of 0 and the north pole a value of 1, and every point in between has some fractional value, then for example if you land on the point whose fractional value is exactly 0.5, your opponent has a 50% chance of beating you, right? There are no more points between 0.5 and 1 than there are between 0 and 0.5.

Can you treat the interval [0, 1] as isomorphic to the interval from 0 to infinity? I'm not sure you can. "Infinity" here probably means aleph sub null, the infinity of natural numbers, which can be visualized as a line; but I don't think the infinity of the continuum is on that line. So maybe there's a conceptual difference between a sphere and an infinite-sided polyhedron, or an apeirohedron (I just looked on Wiktionary and they say that word already exists, so I'm not the first to make it up)?

It seems as if you have said that when you throw an apeirohedral die, the number of sides with larger numbers must always exceed the number of sides with smaller numbers. Is that the same as saying that it must always land on the "bottom"?
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2022, 11:19 AM   #92
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Gaming philosophy conundra

Quote:
Originally Posted by malloyd View Post
Surely whoever rolls second always wins. The probability space between the first roll X and infinity is always infinitely larger than the space between 0 and X, right?
Unless your d∞ is infinite because it can produce non-integer values, in which case a range from 0 to 1 is still infinite.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2022, 01:10 PM   #93
Lovewyrm
 
Lovewyrm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Default Re: Gaming philosophy conundra

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Colonel View Post
This assumes, does it not, that amongst an infinity of numbers, one of them must be "sword" ... or am I misreading?
No, it's not a sword.
But consider this number
0.034749592304805347502348023489574509683045803570 24803457045382304702357606035739045203485704596804 80345870345830674056

vs
0.555555554

First one's longer because it has more digits.
Second is larger, numerically, but that's boring.

In other words, I was proposing it from the perspective of "The die must be able to accomodate all the digits of ∞ on its surface so the roller can read the results."
A result with sufficient length would possibly be suitable to bonk one another with.
Lovewyrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2022, 02:04 PM   #94
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Default Re: Gaming philosophy conundra

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovewyrm View Post
No, it's not a sword.
But consider this number
0.034749592304805347502348023489574509683045803570 24803457045382304702357606035739045203485704596804 80345870345830674056

vs
0.555555554

First one's longer because it has more digits.
Second is larger, numerically, but that's boring.

In other words, I was proposing it from the perspective of "The die must be able to accomodate all the digits of ∞ on its surface so the roller can read the results."
A result with sufficient length would possibly be suitable to bonk one another with.
The number 1/9, in decimal representation, is 0.11111 ..., with an infinite repetition of the digit one. So it seems it would be infinitely long. That might be a challenge to wield as a sword.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2022, 02:48 PM   #95
zoncxs
 
zoncxs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: earth....I think.
Default Re: Gaming philosophy conundra

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovewyrm View Post
No, it's not a sword.
But consider this number
0.034749592304805347502348023489574509683045803570 24803457045382304702357606035739045203485704596804 80345870345830674056

vs
0.555555554

First one's longer because it has more digits.
Second is larger, numerically, but that's boring.

In other words, I was proposing it from the perspective of "The die must be able to accomodate all the digits of ∞ on its surface so the roller can read the results."
A result with sufficient length would possibly be suitable to bonk one another with.
If it is only whole numbers (1,2,3,4,etc.), then it can, but if it also includes all the real numbers(0.1,0.01,0.001,0.0....001, etc), then it is impossible.

There are more real numbers between 0 and 1 than there are whole numbers from 0 to positive infinity.
zoncxs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2022, 03:07 PM   #96
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Default Re: Gaming philosophy conundra

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoncxs View Post
There are more real numbers between 0 and 1 than there are whole numbers from 0 to positive infinity.
On one hand, there are as many rational numbers between 0 and 1 as there are whole numbers between 0 and infinity. But on the other hand, there are more real numbers between zero and one than there are rational numbers between zero and one. (See Cantor's diagonal proof.)

Long ago, when I was taking real analysis, I asked my instructor why Cantor's argument didn't apply equally to whole numbers. He answered that rational numbers, in decimal representation, could have an infinite number of digits, but whole numbers could not. So using an apeirohedral die would give you many numbers with infinite digits; in fact I think that statistically that would be the expected result, and perhaps getting a number with finite digits might be so unlikely as to have effective probability 0. A sword of infinite length would be unwieldly. But that problem doesn't need real numbers; you can get it already just with rational numbers.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2022, 03:17 PM   #97
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Gaming philosophy conundra

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
Long ago, when I was taking real analysis, I asked my instructor why Cantor's argument didn't apply equally to whole numbers. He answered that rational numbers, in decimal representation, could have an infinite number of digits, but whole numbers could not.
The issue isn't precisely infinite digits, the issue is infinite information content. If you limit yourself to real numbers that can be expressed by a finite equation, you wind up with a set that is no larger than the set of whole numbers.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2022, 03:28 PM   #98
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Default Re: Gaming philosophy conundra

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
The issue isn't precisely infinite digits, the issue is infinite information content. If you limit yourself to real numbers that can be expressed by a finite equation, you wind up with a set that is no larger than the set of whole numbers.
I don't think that's relevant to the diagonal proof. The diagonal proof turns precisely on constructing a real number whose first digit differs from the first digit of the first rational (or algebraic) number in a list, whose second digit differs from the second digit of the second rational number in the list, and so on. That results in a number with infinitely many digits that is not in the (by hypothesis) complete list of rational (or algebraic) numbers, but that IS a real number. If real numbers could not have infinitely many digits, then your proof would be showing only that C was larger than the largest finite number of digits, which wouldn't be very interesting.

But whole numbers cannot possibly have infinitely many digits. The number 0.111 ... is a rational number but the number ... 111. is not a whole number.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2022, 03:42 PM   #99
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Gaming philosophy conundra

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
I don't think that's relevant to the diagonal proof. The diagonal proof turns precisely on constructing a real number whose first digit differs from the first digit of the first rational (or algebraic) number in a list, whose second digit differs from the second digit of the second rational number in the list, and so on. That results in a number with infinitely many digits that is not in the (by hypothesis) complete list of rational (or algebraic) numbers, but that IS a real number.
I am aware of that, but it turns out that the resulting number is not in the set of numbers that can be defined by finite algorithms (with finite inputs), because it's provably possible to map that set of numbers to the integers -- just pick an encoding and the integer map is the encoded form of the algorithm.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2022, 04:03 PM   #100
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Default Re: Gaming philosophy conundra

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
I am aware of that, but it turns out that the resulting number is not in the set of numbers that can be defined by finite algorithms (with finite inputs), because it's provably possible to map that set of numbers to the integers -- just pick an encoding and the integer map is the encoded form of the algorithm.
It seems as if it still must be the case that if you represent every number on the apeirohedron as a decimal (which is how Lovewyrm chose to represent them), there must be many numbers whose representation has infinitely many digits and therefore counts as a "sword" of infinite length.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
philosophy, sisyphus, theseus, trolley problem

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.