mirror of
https://github.com/wassname/scrape_r_rational.git
synced 2026-09-12 12:50:30 +08:00
53 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
53 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
## Erogamer: 4.1.1 - Distracted
|
|
|
|
* Author: u/xamueljones *My arch-enemy is entropy**
|
|
* URL: https://forum.questionablequesting.com/threads/the-erogamer-original.5465/page-43#post-1381763
|
|
* Score: 13
|
|
|
|
* Created: 2017-08-04T18:52:27
|
|
|
|
### Post:
|
|
|
|
[Link to content](https://forum.questionablequesting.com/threads/the-erogamer-original.5465/page-43#post-1381763)
|
|
|
|
### Comments:
|
|
|
|
> **u/xamueljones** [+8] *My arch-enemy is entropy* (12 minutes later)
|
|
>
|
|
> There's a math equation that was put into part 4.1.2 as a puzzle meant for the members of /r/rational.
|
|
>
|
|
> We must solve it!
|
|
>
|
|
> Here's a [link](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=graph+1+-+(1%2F(1%2B+(e%5E(ln(X%2F(1-X\)\)+%2B+((2Y\)%2F(pi%2Be\)\)+\)\)\)\)) to where I made a 3D graph of the equation in Wolfram Alpha for anyone who wants to see it.
|
|
>
|
|
> [My Guess and Musings: ](#s "The only thing I can think of is that Cinderella is in danger of breaking reality/erogame by a divide by zero error with the wrong X and Y values.")
|
|
>
|
|
> [](#s "Since the equation has ln(X/(1 - X)) I believe the issue is when X = 1 resulting in a divide by zero error or when X = 0 resulting in ln(0) which equals negative infinity (which is silly since infinity is an abstraction not a number).")
|
|
>
|
|
> [](#s "X is the base probability of Cinderella being targeted for sex.....that means if anyone is 100% guaranteed to want to have sex with Cinderella or 0% guaranteed to not want sex with Cinderella and she uses the Dressed Like a Slut skill on this hypothetical individual, reality breaks.")
|
|
>
|
|
> [](#s "Let's hope the game functions via Bayesian math where 0% or 100% probability of anything is impossible!")
|
|
>
|
|
> [EDIT: ](#s "After playing with the graph some more by setting the values of Y to 0, 5, and 10, I noticed that no matter the value of Y aka the level of the skill Dress Like a Slut, people who are not interested at all in Cindy or are already very interested (near 0% and 100% interest) will be barely affected by the skill. The skill is most effective on the indecisive aka individuals closer to having 50% interest in Cinderella.")
|
|
|
|
> **u/EliezerYudkowsky** [+7] *Godric Gryffindor* (9 hours later)
|
|
>
|
|
> Having Eliezer solve this may count as cheating, but as anyone in stats or ML would recognize:
|
|
>
|
|
> - Hint 1: ["Logistic function"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function)
|
|
> - Hint 2: ["Log odds"](https://arbital.com/p/bayes_log_odds)
|
|
> - [Hint 3: ](#s " 2 skill levels ~ 1 bit")
|
|
|
|
>> **u/PM_ME_OS_DESIGN** [+4] (2 days later)
|
|
>>
|
|
>> > Having Eliezer solve this may count as cheating
|
|
>>
|
|
>> Is there any particular reason why you're talking about yourself in third-person, Eliezer?
|
|
|
|
>>> **u/EliezerYudkowsky** [+4] *Godric Gryffindor* (2 days later)
|
|
>>>
|
|
>>> It indicates that I'm referring to Eliezer as a kind of object or role in the larger world rather than as my agent-that-is-this-agent. In this case, the perhaps-problem is that something that sounds like it was meant for typical wandering readers of /r/rational is being solved by someone with a special role relative to /r/rational. Like, okay the founder knows stats and already knows how to interpret a logistic function, but perhaps that is not what was to be tested.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|