05-02-2016, 08:12 PM | #51 |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Basic] Skill of the week: Mathematics
In my experience the figures are usually drawn by hand...at least for ones drawn during class rather than on handouts...but they don't need to be drawn with much precision.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
05-03-2016, 07:30 AM | #52 | |
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Re: [Basic] Skill of the week: Mathematics
Quote:
__________________
Be helpful, not pedantic Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog Check out the PbP forum! If you don't see a game you'd like, ask me about making one! |
|
01-07-2024, 09:08 AM | #53 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: [Basic] Skill of the week: Mathematics
The sciences are traditionally divided into three main branches: natural sciences (Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Geology, and Physics), social sciences (Anthropology, Archaeology, Psychology, Sociology, and so on), and formal sciences (Cryptology, Logic, Mathematics, Computer Science, and Systems Science). GURPS presents Cryptology and Computer Science among the required specializations of Mathematics; and what's traditionally called Mathematics is treated in GURPS as the Pure specialization of Mathematics; so it seems to me that GURPS may be, in effect, using the Mathematics skill as an umbrella skill that encompasses all of the formal sciences. If that's the case, then I'd add two more options to the list of required specializations: Logic, and Systems Science.
I don't personally know much about Systems Science, so I wouldn't be able to comment on how it might be used in-game, though I suspect that it might be related to Market Analysis in a similar way to how Mathematics (Cryptology) is related to Cryptography. On the other hand, Market Analysis might be a better match for Mathematics (Statistics). But I see Mathematics (Logic) being used for Sherlock Holmes type characters. Possibly relate it to Intelligence Analysis? |
01-07-2024, 09:24 AM | #54 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: [Basic] Skill of the week: Mathematics
Sherlock Holmes understands induction but isn't, by profession, a logician.
|
01-07-2024, 09:46 AM | #56 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: [Basic] Skill of the week: Mathematics
Sherlock Holmes never demonstrates anything about logic, the academic discipline, you couldn't glean from an introductory text. And in fact, by his own admission, he ignores things like astronomy that might clutter up his knowledge and take time away from concentrating on his detection methods.
|
01-07-2024, 10:49 AM | #57 |
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: FL
|
Re: [Basic] Skill of the week: Mathematics
Mostly, what I actually use formal logic for would involve rolls at +4 (or more).
Know the difference between exclusive and inclusive OR, recognize that mostly "all p is q" is taken not to have existential implications, be closely attuned to the difference between not Sing p and Sing not p (e.g., for knowledge), knowing various features of S5 modal logic, and being able to use the square of opposition. Roll with various modifiers to understand such strings as: □((∃!x)((y)(Py ⊃ Qxy)) ≡ ~(∃y)(Ry & ~Rx)) once you know what the predicates P, Q, R mean. Also roll to manipulate such a sentence to derive various claims from it. That one should have a decent positive modifier, but some might have penalties depending on how obscure the symbols are and how complicated the string is. There are some interesting proofs about soundness and completeness, the upward and downward Lowenheim-Skolem theorems, and such, most of which I barely recall from the required graduate logic course I took. They just aren't that useful for the kind of thinking I actually do (and Sherlock, I imagine, would have even less of a use for them: he's never dealing with Beth-2 possible worlds!).
__________________
Formerly known as fighting_gumby. |
01-07-2024, 01:13 PM | #58 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: [Basic] Skill of the week: Mathematics
That that's the one drawback with putting Logic under Mathematics: it's far too easy to assume that this is referring solely to Mathematical Logic. But while what I'm referring to would include that, it would also include things like knowing that arguing from authority is a logical fallacy, or how inductive reasoning works. You know; logic. Worminghall addresses this as Dialectic, or Philosophy (Scholastic), when it describes the seven classical liberal arts.
Though I'm not sold on all of the associations that book makes: the writer puts Arithmetic under Mathematics (Applied) which, based on its default association with Physics and Engineering, probably shouldn't even be a thing multiple centuries before Newton gave us a firm mathematical basis for physics. I'd be more inclined to have it under Mathematics (Pure) or Mathematics (Statistics), the latter because of its connection to Accounting. So: should it be Mathematics (Logic), or Philosophy (Scholastic)? |
01-07-2024, 02:08 PM | #59 | |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: [Basic] Skill of the week: Mathematics
Quote:
|
|
01-07-2024, 02:14 PM | #60 | ||||
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: FL
|
Re: [Basic] Skill of the week: Mathematics
Quote:
I knew circular reasoning was a bad way of reasoning when I was 5 and my Sunday School teacher told me we knew the Bible was true because the Bible said so. Most reasoning is stuff you do without being (explicitly) trained; it's just easy to get confused in some contexts--sometimes that's failing a Will roll against Fast-Talk or similar, sometimes it's a combination of the other guy failing a Writing roll and you failing an IQ roll to understand their complicated sentence, and sometimes it's a failed Speed-Reading roll. Other informal fallacies are difficult to detect without some subject-matter expertise. Most are distortions of proper modes of reasoning. An argument from authority may be totally fine if the authority is actually in a better position to know. What counts as a proper authority, however, can be a vexed question in some contexts. Similarly, there are arguments about whether circular reasoning is always bad and why. All of that complexity I'd fold into skill in the particular domain of reasoning. Other informal fallacies are just lack of pedantry and would be fine in typical conversational contexts--we just forget we aren't in them. For instance, denying the Antecedent and Affirming the Consequent work fine if someone tells you "If I go to the grocery store, I'll buy ice cream" in most circumstances because usually there's a background assumption that this is the most likely way they'd wind up getting ice cream. Quote:
Quote:
I'd treat what we call basic arithmetic as part of learning defaults for Mathematics. The mathematics of levers, pulleys, etc., would all be Mathematics (Applied). Part of being lower TL might be uncorrected errors, e.g., about how gravity and energy transfer work. But Mathematics (Pure) has errors about magnitudes of infinity, too. Quote:
Contemporarily: Mathematics (Logic) for formal deductive and mathematical logic. Statistics for Bayesian logic. Most of the rest fall into IQ or subject-matter-specific skill. Some of this falls into there not being strict borders between skills: if a player has a skill, I'd generally assume they had enough logic to understand the literature. I can read modal logic because I work in areas where it gets used, such as debates about free will, not (I think) because I have skill in Mathematics (Logic).
__________________
Formerly known as fighting_gumby. |
||||
Tags |
basic, mathematics, skill of the week |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|