dolphin rider is a natural born winner
Upvote
Upvoted
1
Downvote
Downvoted
IM vs Invite
posted in
TF2 General Discussion
syntactically correct, semantically vacuous would've been succinct
but hey, you won the showboating competition here.
syntactically correct, semantically vacuous would've been succinct
but hey, you won the showboating competition here.
but hey, you won the showboating competition here.
joshuawnsyntactically correct, semantically vacuous would've been succinct
but hey, you won the showboating competition here.
[quote=joshuawn]syntactically correct, semantically vacuous would've been succinct
but hey, you won the showboating competition here.[/quote]
[img]http://lolheaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2372.jpg[/img]
but hey, you won the showboating competition here.[/quote]
[img]http://lolheaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2372.jpg[/img]
As someone who played around this level i would say the top of IM/Div 1 is just as good or better than the bottom of Invite/Prem depending on the season. However the TOP of Invite and Prem are on another level altogether.
As someone who played around this level i would say the top of IM/Div 1 is just as good or better than the bottom of Invite/Prem depending on the season. However the TOP of Invite and Prem are on another level altogether.
Simjoshuawnbasically, given f is a function that represents dm potential, f : (IM) -> (Invite) isn't injective or surjective even when |IM| <= |Invite|
Okay what even is this fucking mess.
given f is a function that represents dm potential
This sounds like you want a function that maps players to some real number - or maybe some tuple of reals. Or maybe you want pairs of players mapped to some indicator of who would win. This bad definition is irrelevant anyway, since then you say
f : (IM) -> (Invite)Okay so now you've defined your domain and codomain (after trying to define the map on individual elements - lolwtf) but we could charitably say that you're considering the restriction of the function to these new sets. But IM and Invite are sets of players (or maybe they're skill ranges... WHO KNOWS, still doesn't work anyway).
So the map is from players to players? Okay, perhaps it maps a player to the player in the codomain with the closest skill? WHO KNOWS. Let's move on.
...isn't injective or surjective even when |IM| <= |Invite|
So I guess IM and Invite are sets of players (or at least there exist bijections to the relevant sets of players)! If |IM| < |Invite| the map isn't surjective anyway (and if |IM| = |Invite| then not injective is the same as not surjective).
What about not being surjective for |IM| > |Invite|? Well then there exists a player in invite that is not mapped to by our mystery function f. Woohoo, this tells us a lot.
Also the map not being injective doesn't really tell us anything about the relative skill levels - every player in IM could be exactly as skilled as the top player in invite, or there could be a pair of players that have the same skill as any particular invite player then all the others have different skills. Not that I've worked out what f is even supposed to do yet.
But wait! Maybe I've interpreted you wrong! Maybe you're saying that for all functions that represent DM potential, your conclusion holds!
Great, except I don't know what it means for a function to represent DM potential, and the conclusions still miss the point of the thread.
Moral of the story: don't try to use maths to sound smart, and if you do get it right.
damn bro go outside
[quote=Sim][quote=joshuawn]basically, given f is a function that represents dm potential, f : (IM) -> (Invite) isn't injective or surjective even when |IM| <= |Invite|[/quote]
Okay what even is this fucking mess.
[quote]given f is a function that represents dm potential[/quote]
This sounds like you want a function that maps players to some real number - or maybe some tuple of reals. Or maybe you want pairs of players mapped to some indicator of who would win. This bad definition is irrelevant anyway, since then you say
[quote]f : (IM) -> (Invite)[/quote]
Okay so now you've defined your domain and codomain (after trying to define the map on individual elements - lolwtf) but we could charitably say that you're considering the restriction of the function to these new sets. But IM and Invite are sets of players (or maybe they're skill ranges... WHO KNOWS, still doesn't work anyway).
So the map is from players to players? Okay, perhaps it maps a player to the player in the codomain with the closest skill? WHO KNOWS. Let's move on.
[quote]...isn't injective or surjective even when |IM| <= |Invite|[/quote]
So I guess IM and Invite are sets of players (or at least there exist bijections to the relevant sets of players)! If |IM| < |Invite| the map isn't surjective anyway (and if |IM| = |Invite| then not injective is the same as not surjective).
What about not being surjective for |IM| > |Invite|? Well then there exists a player in invite that is not mapped to by our mystery function f. Woohoo, this tells us a lot.
Also the map not being injective doesn't really tell us anything about the relative skill levels - every player in IM could be exactly as skilled as the top player in invite, or there could be a pair of players that have the same skill as any particular invite player then all the others have different skills. Not that I've worked out what f is even supposed to do yet.
But wait! Maybe I've interpreted you wrong! Maybe you're saying that for all functions that represent DM potential, your conclusion holds!
Great, except I don't know what it means for a function to represent DM potential, and the conclusions still miss the point of the thread.
Moral of the story: don't try to use maths to sound smart, and if you do get it right.[/quote]
damn bro go outside
Okay what even is this fucking mess.
[quote]given f is a function that represents dm potential[/quote]
This sounds like you want a function that maps players to some real number - or maybe some tuple of reals. Or maybe you want pairs of players mapped to some indicator of who would win. This bad definition is irrelevant anyway, since then you say
[quote]f : (IM) -> (Invite)[/quote]
Okay so now you've defined your domain and codomain (after trying to define the map on individual elements - lolwtf) but we could charitably say that you're considering the restriction of the function to these new sets. But IM and Invite are sets of players (or maybe they're skill ranges... WHO KNOWS, still doesn't work anyway).
So the map is from players to players? Okay, perhaps it maps a player to the player in the codomain with the closest skill? WHO KNOWS. Let's move on.
[quote]...isn't injective or surjective even when |IM| <= |Invite|[/quote]
So I guess IM and Invite are sets of players (or at least there exist bijections to the relevant sets of players)! If |IM| < |Invite| the map isn't surjective anyway (and if |IM| = |Invite| then not injective is the same as not surjective).
What about not being surjective for |IM| > |Invite|? Well then there exists a player in invite that is not mapped to by our mystery function f. Woohoo, this tells us a lot.
Also the map not being injective doesn't really tell us anything about the relative skill levels - every player in IM could be exactly as skilled as the top player in invite, or there could be a pair of players that have the same skill as any particular invite player then all the others have different skills. Not that I've worked out what f is even supposed to do yet.
But wait! Maybe I've interpreted you wrong! Maybe you're saying that for all functions that represent DM potential, your conclusion holds!
Great, except I don't know what it means for a function to represent DM potential, and the conclusions still miss the point of the thread.
Moral of the story: don't try to use maths to sound smart, and if you do get it right.[/quote]
damn bro go outside
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.