Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! (*rubbing hands in glee*) I see my insidious plot to spark an ENOURMOUS discussion has succeeded far beyond my wildest expectations. MWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA! But please: continue, by all means continue. James Griffin Still Another Vlad faN >From: Maximilian Wilson <wilson.max at gmail.com> >To: Davdi Silverrock <davdisil at gmail.com> >CC: Dragaera List <dragaera at dragaera.info> >Subject: Re: Soul destroying - Issola Spoiler >Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 23:24:20 -0700 > >On 11/11/05, Davdi Silverrock <davdisil at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/11/05, Jon Lincicum <lincicum at comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > However, I would posit that Dragaeran aging is not simply a > > > mathematicial formula away from human aging--they just mature at > > > different rates and times than we do. > > > > But that is exactly what a proper mathematical formula decribes! > > > > It might be a somewhat complicated mathematical formula (so that > > perhaps different formulas would be used between different life > > stages), or mathematical formulas with some factor that ranges between > > certain values, but it should still all come down to math. > >Kind of, I guess. But describing interacting physical systems is going >to involve inventing a lot of new operators and terminology and >definitions; you can describe a falling ball's motion with a simple >equation, but once it hits a floor and bounces you have to >mathematically describe the bouncing and *then* re-run the free-fall >equation. To describe it in a single equation you'd need a notation >that expresses discontinuities in a function and its several >derivatives. Maybe such notations exist, but I don't know them. People >seem to be okay with breaking systems up into separate parts, where >separate equations apply. Anyway, Dragaeran aging will obviously not >really conform to a simplistic formula like my original proposal; >which doesn't mean it can't be a decent approximation for *expressing* >equivalent ages. > > > When you have one set of values that goes between 0-100, and another > > set of values that goes between 0-3000, and are told that there is a > > certain relationship between those values (in this case, age), then a > > mathematical formula, with certain accepted limitations, describes > > that relationship. > >A fair point. I might argue that we're less interested in fitting the >actual function than in minimizing both error and formula complexity, >in a sort of MDL- (Minimum Description Length) ish fashion. > >Max Wilson > >-- >Be pretty if you are, >Be witty if you can, >But be cheerful if it kills you.