2.5D Game Discussion

The best of the Pfhorums.

Post Nov 12th '08, 18:13

Your notion of the mathematical concept of non-integer dimensions has no meaningful connection to your own definition of 2.5D games. This is why people keep bringing it up. No one doubts (well, I don't doubt anyway) that you know something about math, and probably more than I do, but about video game engines and terminology you continue to show that you believe more than you actually know.

Treellama and W'rkncacnter's queries about various conditions in "2.5D games" have only shown exactly what they were trying to show in the first place -- that the term has no consistent meaning. This latest glacier of text isn't helping your cause in any way.

Your complaint about an argument of semantics is misplaced because the entire argument is about semantics in the first place. What people want is an exact, clear definition of a term that many people here clearly find annoying and misleading. Therefore you need to speak clearly and say what you mean. You aren't talking to idiots, you don't need to oversimplify, especially when your similes and oversimplifications are wrong or contradictory, which is the problem you're having in the first place!

I might even apologize for repeatedly posting page-long responses (I know it's infuriating isn't it)!


It's not infuriating, people just won't read them.
User avatar

RyokoTK
Saint Paul, MN

Post Nov 12th '08, 18:15

Off-topic(?):
[attachment=2202:iTunes001.png]
Attachments
iTunes001.png
iTunes001.png (10.74 KiB) Viewed 4753 times
underworld : simple fun netmaps // prahblum peack : simple rejected netmaps
azure dreams : simple horrible netmaps // v6.0!!!: thomas mann's greatest hits : simple simple netmaps
User avatar

irons
(.Y.)

Post Nov 12th '08, 18:16

There is no topic anymore.
User avatar

RyokoTK
Saint Paul, MN

Post Nov 12th '08, 18:23

sweatervest wrote:Crator

My name is not Crator. Please extend to me the same courtesy I extend to you by spelling my name correctly.

chinkeeyong wrote:Unfortunately, under your description, Space Invaders counts (it attempts a rudimentary effort at simulating a 3D world with sprites, but in an aspect it visually represents 3D). Try this:

A 2.5D game engine utilizes a 2-dimensional map to create a virtual world in which all 3 dimensions, x, y and z, are represented accurately and utilized in gameplay.

Could you give a specific example of how Space Invaders visually or physically represents a third spatial dimension? Granted, the definition I suggested is fairly inclusive. If you want to argue, for instance, that Ferazel's Wand is 2.5D, because it has multiple background layers which move at different speeds to represent parallax, that's a valid assessment using the definition I suggested. Fortunately the definition I suggested doesn't preclude you from calling Ferazel's Wand 2D.

I think a limitation of the definition you suggested is that it relies on other terms like "map" and "virtual world" which would also need to be defined in a way applicable to any game, and "accurately" which is open to interpretation. I sought to construct a set of conditions that was broad enough to be tested on any game, without the need for interpretive words like "significant," "sufficient," "accurately," etc.

Treellama wrote:By this definition, Far Cry is a 2.5D engine.

Okay. I haven't played Far Cry, so I'll have to take your word for it.
User avatar

Crater Creator

Post Nov 12th '08, 18:30

RyokoTK wrote:Your notion of the mathematical concept of non-integer dimensions has no meaningful connection to your own definition of 2.5D games. This is why people keep bringing it up. No one doubts (well, I don't doubt anyway) that you know something about math, and probably more than I do, but about video game engines and terminology you continue to show that you believe more than you actually know.

Treellama and W'rkncacnter's queries about various conditions in "2.5D games" have only shown exactly what they were trying to show in the first place -- that the term has no consistent meaning. This latest glacier of text isn't helping your cause in any way.

Your complaint about an argument of semantics is misplaced because the entire argument is about semantics in the first place. What people want is an exact, clear definition of a term that many people here clearly find annoying and misleading. Therefore you need to speak clearly and say what you mean. You aren't talking to idiots, you don't need to oversimplify, especially when your similes and oversimplifications are wrong or contradictory, which is the problem you're having in the first place!
It's not infuriating, people just won't read them.


That is a good point about the semantics. I suppose what I was really referring to is that it is always pretty easy to tear apart people's sentences, no matter what they are actually trying to say. I don't even know if that applies here, so let's just say it doesn't haha. I shouldn't have said that about the semantics.

I don't think I quite follow the first paragraph. The mathematical concept of non-integer dimensions is, like you said, not at all connected with game engines (it has something to do with fractals I think) so I'm with you there. Discussions of 2D and 3D spaces comes from linear algebra, but any discussion of 2.5D (excluding of course the fractal stuff) is, from what I gathered from the wiki, inherently a discussion of computer science (if not specifically computer graphics). You know I wonder if the references on the wiki would have any useful information.

In saying that people won't read my long posts, I hope you still read the "glacier of text" you are referring to. What do you think W'rk, did that shed any light on your question?
sweatervest

Post Nov 12th '08, 18:49

[quote="irons"]P.S.�â?
Last edited by $lave on Nov 12th '08, 18:57, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

$lave

Post Nov 12th '08, 19:17

sweatervest wrote:Well if A1 can now fully render models then that part of the engine has 3D capabilities (because it can read and manipulate the three dimensional vertex data) and, honestly I don't know how 2.5D would fit into the description of that engine because it sounds like a 3D engine has been added to a 2D engine, and as I apparently have not done a good job showing, I don't think that I am some infallible expert on the subject

Marathon has always required at least three dimensions (four, actually, thus so-called 5D space) to represent points in the world. I assume that's your definition of a 3D engine. So, a 3D engine has been added to a 3D engine :)

(don't get me wrong... I would love if we were going back and forth about what 2.5D could or could not mean without having to drag everything about me personally into it).
Well, I'm not sure how it is possible to point out flaws in your reasoning without that being considered personal. I assume most of the sentences in your posts are meant to support your points, which means when they don't make sense for one reason or another, they should be pointed out. "Tear[ing] apart people's sentences" adds a connotation I don't intend: I merely want to acknowledge strong points and bring light to weaker points. If I agree with the general sentiment of your posts (hypothetically), but disagree with some sections of it, should I simply say "I agree," and then have it pointed out later by someone else that I agreed to one of the sections I don't really agree to?

That's what I mean when I say you always word things to be as damning and insulting towards people as you can possibly imagine.

I like to think I could be a lot more damning and insulting if I were trying. Picture Wrkncacnter, but with my post count. I try not to, but out of the dozen or so posts I've had in this thread, you focused on the two where I made jokes at your expense. Considering the emotional impact of what I type and say is, I admit, something I am not good at (particularly because it seems to vary based on the listener and circumstances)--ask Mrs. Treellama.

But I also think it might help you to be a little more thick-skinned when discussing things on the Pfhorums--I am by far not the worst person here, and I have a little defense in that any instances of what I might consider harmless ribbing (come on, we all know 2.5 isn't an integer, that's why it's funny!), that get misinterpreted, weren't done with the sole purpose of damning or insulting people on an Internet forum.

so maybe what this all comes down to is that 2.5D used to be a good term to describe games but now that it's all come together it's really not useful anymore


I think we can agree that this discussion probably would have gone as the poster intended, had he used one of these terms to describe other games he had in mind:
  • extruded polygon first person shooters
  • first person shooters using sprites and/or limited up/down view movement
  • games based on the Marathon 2 engine like ZPC or Prime Target
I include all of those only because I'm still not sure what he meant.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Nov 12th '08, 20:16

About the Marathon engine, I don't really know any of the details (like the 5D space thing) about the engine so I really can't say. Maybe you can help me with this though. Are all four of those dimensions independent? Can you vary freely in any one of them without having to change any of the other three? I would imagine at least some of those are restricted because doing 4D vector arithmetic on a processor that isn't designed principally for SIMD instructions (like GPUs) would be terribly taxing, but that is just guesswork on my part and I'm sure you can shed much more light on this yourself.

I think it is possible to criticize a person's argument without criticizing the person. Usually your posts take the form of criticizing the argument and then wrapping it up with a swipe at the poster. For example, you said that one of my statements in incorrect because A implies B doesn't mean B implies A. Alright. Then the little comment on how my major must not be concerned with logic (which we both know isn't true, in one of my algebra classes the book always outlines very rigorous logical proofs of all the theorems, which often emphasize that to prove a two-way statement you generally have to prove each direction on its own) and you're right. That could either have been a self-glorifying statement or it could have just been a joke. I guess the problem here is that I've never been a fan of sadistic humor (that doesn't mean I'm a fascist, I'll joke on people and they'll joke on me, but here the line between a joke and a deliberate attack seems intentionally grayed out).

When I say tear people's sentences apart I really mean when people purposefully take advantage of the fact that ANY statement can be interpretted in more than one way, by choosing the interpretation that is most controversial and damning. I don't think that has really happened in this thread so it's a non-issue (I shouldn't have said it) and you're right... to contest an argument is to pick apart its structure.

The thing you said about the impact being based on the listener/circumstances is paramount. I can only speak for myself but I will come clean with you and say a lot of times your posts evoke a visceral response of anger or frustration out of me because I feel like you are just smacking down my intellect repeatedly. It frustrated me to think that you thought you were discussing game terminology with someone that might not be sure about what integers are, because I feel it misrepresents me. I know there are plently of people out there who talk about stuff they know absolutely nothing about like they are experts in it (for example the War on Drugs has apparently made everyone in America a professional pharmacist) and frankly they piss me off a lot and I just don't want you to lump me in with those people (this was especially relevant when you appeared to group me with people that throw out buzz words like "ooh bump-mapping and specular shading etc. etc. we should add those to A1 cause they're cool"). It's because you have (at least in my mind) made me out to be exactly what I hate... some dude that overhears big fancy words and starts throwing them around to pretend he is smart. I think the fact of the matter is that two intellectual people will disagree about a lot of things... in a way that is what makes them intellectuals (by questioning what they hear and trying to figure it out for themselves), so it is not only inevitable but quite constructive that intellectuals clash on things like this... if that didn't happen then we would all be learning about Jesus and the 6000 year old history of Earth in social studies because no one took the time to say, "Wait a minute. What if you all are completely wrong about this?" I mean that's how relativity was discovered by Einstein. He did something no one else at the time was willing to do... to suggest that maybe Newtonian physics was wrong and needed to be adjusted. So I think in general we should be open and even encouraging to disagreements... instead of reacting to someone saying something you don't think is right with "Oh he's stupid he doesn't know what he's talking about" let it be a chance to test what you think you know. If you really are right it will stand up to any counter-arguments, and (I think this is key) probably the most important characteristic of an inherently good argument is that nowhere does it need to assert its own validity... that follows from the argument itself. So don't use it as an opportunity to just say that you are right or someone else is wrong, use it as a chance to SHOW everyone here that you DO know what you're talking about, you CAN make good arguments, and you ARE confident enough in your arguments that you don't even need to say "That's wrong" or "This is right".

Sorry about the long post again [MGrin] . Oh yeah and I extend my apologies to Crater, if there is anything I literally know nothing about it's spelling.

EDIT - ^^ Misspelled Crater again haha.
Last edited by sweatervest on Nov 12th '08, 20:18, edited 1 time in total.
sweatervest

Post Nov 12th '08, 20:52

sweatervest wrote:About the Marathon engine, I don't really know any of the details (like the 5D space thing) about the engine so I really can't say. Maybe you can help me with this though. Are all four of those dimensions independent? Can you vary freely in any one of them without having to change any of the other three? I would imagine at least some of those are restricted because doing 4D vector arithmetic on a processor that isn't designed principally for SIMD instructions (like GPUs) would be terribly taxing, but that is just guesswork on my part and I'm sure you can shed much more light on this yourself.

Only the three dimensions that you would expect to be independent are independent; the fourth (which polygon the point is in) is not. No calculations actually use 4D vector arithmetic.

You should definitely give the game a try, it doesn't feel 2D at all.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Nov 12th '08, 21:29

sweatervest wrote:purposefully take advantage of the fact that ANY statement can be interpretted in more than one way, by choosing the interpretation that is most controversial and damning.

we would all be learning about Jesus and the 6000 year old history of Earth in social studies because no one took the time to say, "Wait a minute. What if you all are completely wrong about this?" I mean that's how relativity was discovered by Einstein.


what
~if I had a rocket launcher, I'd make someone~
User avatar

epstein
North Carolina

Post Nov 12th '08, 21:31

Treellama wrote:I think we can agree that this discussion probably would have gone as the poster intended, had he used one of these terms to describe other games he had in mind:
  • extruded polygon first person shooters
  • first person shooters using sprites and/or limited up/down view movement
  • games based on the Marathon 2 engine like ZPC or Prime Target
I include all of those only because I'm still not sure what he meant.

It strikes me as cumbersome and limiting to list specific criteria such as those. While they are precise ways of narrowing the list of applicable games, they are not at all concise. I believe the original poster intended readers to use their judgment in assessing whether the games they might mention are reasonably close to the one he mentioned, Marathon. In my interpretation, he likely was open to discussion of games fitting any of those criteria, and more. Rather than ask, "What are some other extruded polygon first person shooter, first person shooter sprite-using, first person shooter up/down view movement-limited, or Marathon 2 engine-based games you have played besides Marathon?" he said "2.5D."

By doing so, he should have been prepared for different interpretations of that term, but that's a fair price to pay for using a 4 character term instead of a 20 word description. A spiteful poster could just as easily have responded "Chinese Checkers," with the goal of prompting a lengthy discussion on what is meant by the word "game." There is little remedy for such posts. Meanwhile, those that believe they have some concept of what the original poster meant may attempt to carry on the discussion using their best judgment and interpretation of what the original poster was getting at, while at the same time recognizing that other people's judgments and interpretations may differ, and that doesn't invalidate their ideas so long as they are making a good faith effort to understand each other. To wit:

I've played Doom II.

There, that wasn't so hard.
User avatar

Crater Creator


Post Nov 12th '08, 22:10

W'rkncacnter isn't merely spiteful, he's actually made of spite.

Anyway, I think it's pretty clear to discern what the original poster actually meant by 2.5D; I think most of us (including Treellama, who's probably denying it to prove his point) know what the term means informally. The problem arises when you try to actually make a meaningful term out of the phrase, since what qualifies as what is apparently quite unclear and subjective.

For the record I also quite enjoy Doom II.
Last edited by RyokoTK on Nov 12th '08, 22:12, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

RyokoTK
Saint Paul, MN

Post Nov 12th '08, 22:25

RyokoTK wrote:Anyway, I think it's pretty clear to discern what the original poster actually meant by 2.5D; I think most of us (including Treellama, who's probably denying it to prove his point) know what the term means informally. The problem arises when you try to actually make a meaningful term out of the phrase, since what qualifies as what is apparently quite unclear and subjective.

Well, yes, it's clear (only from his follow up post) that he meant "games similar to Marathon" which isn't any of the definitions we've discussed in the last 5 pages or on wikipedia. A meaning that would never have occurred to me just from the topic post.

Unreal would be a good choice, since it's dark, has one man versus a ton of hostile aliens with some friendlies along the way, and the story is presented in short bits of text. I certainly wouldn't have thought to list it in a "2.5D game discussion" though!

Formally or informally, each time it is used, I do not know 2.5D means without context. I originally thought it meant extruded polygons, but I've seen it used since in the various ways I mentioned in the linked post (most commonly referring to the lack of view foreshortening, but also to sprites vs models). I'm not saying that for the sake of argument or to prove a point--I really can not tell (and I challenge any of you to) what it means when someone says something is or is not 2.5D, without additional (cumbersome? limiting?) context.
Last edited by treellama on Nov 12th '08, 22:25, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Nov 12th '08, 23:06

Treellama wrote:Only the three dimensions that you would expect to be independent are independent; the fourth (which polygon the point is in) is not.


I was going to quip something about how preserving continuity requires something more complex than taking the fourth coordinate to be what polygon the point is in, but then I remembered playing TK's unmemorable maps and their mile after mile of bouncy walls. Movement in Marathon isn't continuous after all, so nevermind.
dude, seriously. dude.
User avatar

thermoplyae

Post Nov 12th '08, 23:07

Treellama wrote:Only the three dimensions that you would expect to be independent are independent; the fourth (which polygon the point is in) is not. No calculations actually use 4D vector arithmetic.

You should definitely give the game a try, it doesn't feel 2D at all.


Hmm... so does this mean that an arbitrary number of rooms or objects can be stacked over each other? Also could you exist in the level somewhere between the rooms that have already been placed in the level? Maybe Marathon is like half 2.5D and half 3D, so we should call it 2.75D [MTongue] .

I don't know really anything about the Marathon engine but if I had to guess I would say it is probably similar to the Build engine (Duke Nukem 3D) due to similar release dates. I at least have a basis of how that works (and if I remember correctly it deserves the title of a 2D engine) and it has many advanced capabilities similar to Marathon (in addition to being able to render slopes and even voxels in its later forms) but I seem to remember reading something where Ken Silverman was explaining how he was able to reduce those to two dimensional problems (I don't know what that would mean for voxels). This seems like a different issue though. Here we seem to have a difficult time defining Marathon's engine as 2D or 3D (the gameplay is clearly the latter) so until we can do that we have no hope of classifying the game as 2.5D or 3D. So this seems to have raised ANOTHER question: what does it mean to say an engine is 2D/3D? I imagine this is a complicated issue because what would count as a "dimension"? We would clearly want to include any "spatial" dimensions the engine can deal with but could we also say that time is a dimension? Could we even say that other variables like the player's health or other attributes count as "dimensions" (after all they all just refer to some parameter the game uses)? I don't know, maybe CS grad students are wringing each other's necks over that issue!

Did you read the thing I posted about F-Zero? That was the best example of a game I could think of that is definitely not 3D but definitely doesn't feel 2D. The same would go for Super Mario Kart.

Allow me to try and make some sense out of the many uses of the term you've seen. The way I see it all of those things are consequences of lacking fully 3D capabilities in an engine so they are not rigorously correct uses of the term but kind of similar to how people often refer to trancendental numbers as those that cannot be geometrically constructed. Though this is not the definition of those numbers, it is a direct consequence of their definition. The big difference is that the 2.5D stuff doesn't go both ways. You can say "If an engine is 2D then it uses sprites/doesn't foreshorten" but you can't say that "If an engine uses sprites/doesn't foreshorten then it is 2D". So all of those would be bad definitions of the term because there could easily be a 3D game that chooses to use all sprites, but it makes sense that people would informally describe it like that or focus on one of the results of being a 2.5D game, while the definition itself is more fundamental to the game's functionality. This is starting to remind me of the issue of what vectors are in physics verses what they are in math. At its core the two are the same but in their respective contexts physical vectors are often considered to be much less general than mathematical vectors and can even be thought of as "different" concepts (I'm pretty sure there are separate wikis for each discipline), mostly because of how they were historically developed.
sweatervest

Post Nov 12th '08, 23:20

sweatervest wrote:So this seems to have raised ANOTHER question: what does it mean to say an engine is 2D/3D? I imagine this is a complicated issue because what would count as a "dimension"? We would clearly want to include any "spatial" dimensions the engine can deal with but could we also say that time is a dimension? Could we even say that other variables like the player's health or other attributes count as "dimensions" (after all they all just refer to some parameter the game uses)? I don't know, maybe CS grad students are wringing each other's necks over that issue!


this is a ridiculous question, not because it's entirely invalid but because it is both completely off topic and meant to divert attention away from how ridiculous you were being earlier.

as an aside, i assure you that cs grad students have much better things to do with their time.

sweatervest wrote:people often refer to trancendental numbers as those that cannot be geometrically constructed. Though this is not the definition of those numbers, it is a direct consequence of their definition. The big difference is that the 2.5D stuff doesn't go both ways.


this doesn't go both ways with transcendentals either; no irrational cube root can be constructed with ruler and compass.
dude, seriously. dude.
User avatar

thermoplyae

Post Nov 12th '08, 23:25

thermoplyae wrote:this is a ridiculous question, not because it's entirely invalid but because it is both completely off topic and meant to divert attention away from how ridiculous you were being earlier.

as an aside, i assure you that cs grad students have much better things to do with their time.
this doesn't go both ways with transcendentals either; no irrational cube root can be constructed with ruler and compass.


How is it off-topic?

How do you know what I "meant" to do?

How is it invalid?
Last edited by sweatervest on Nov 12th '08, 23:26, edited 1 time in total.
sweatervest

Post Nov 12th '08, 23:49

sweatervest wrote:How is it off-topic?


it has nothing to do with a game being 2d or 3d in the common meanings of the words, nor 2.5d in any sense, common or uncommon.

How do you know what I "meant" to do?
whatever you claim to have intended is irrelevant, that was its effect and it may as well have been purposeful.

How is it invalid?


it's concerning that we're eliding over so many details in what purports to be a discussion geared toward a rigorous dissection and description of ideas like 2.5D; we keep using words like "vector space" but even the geometry of marathon maps doesn't really form a linear subspace of something. and, as of now, are we even talking about marathon maps? after all, they have no concept of time. i mean, these are all questions that can be addressed -- i personally don't even think you need us to address them, just your brain and a few minutes of time -- but if we're to do so, we shouldn't start off so halfheartedly, and we certainly shouldn't incorrectly apply math to come up with a description.

i posit that the sort of "total game space" can be represented and topologized as a sum of copies of R^n for some finite n, and the "possible game space" forms a closed submanifold with boundary. the tricky part is encoding discrete states into the topology, and i don't think that the above description is entirely accurate because of this, but it's close.

i'm glad you dropped the transcendental thing, that was embarrassing.

-- edit --

specifically, i would imagine a useful topology to encode "nearness" in the sense of temporality. this really suggests whatever we end up with ought to be metrizable, and while manifold is far stronger than that i think we can even pull that off.

-- edit #2 --

i still don't think that this is anything but off topic. what the state space of a game is has little to do with whether we call it 2d or 3d.
Last edited by thermoplyae on Nov 12th '08, 23:59, edited 1 time in total.
dude, seriously. dude.
User avatar

thermoplyae

Post Nov 13th '08, 00:09

Well, thermo, its effect on you is not its effect on everybody else. That seems more like your problem, not mine.

I don't understand how asking how to define an engine as 2D or 3D has nothing to do with a game being 2D or 3D.

That stuff about manifolds sounds very useful. I'm kind of confused why you didn't just answer my question with that to begin with. It seemed like a pretty solid attempt to address the issue of whether an engine is 2D or 3D. So we could have easily forgone all of that unnecessary hostility. You probably didn't read anything I posted earlier about how a good argument is one that does not need to assert its own validity, which is all you did to begin with (it's invalid, off-topic, and what-not. I mean, as long as you say so, but WHY?) At least you followed it up with a real argument.

With that in mind I don't think you addressed why that question is invalid, all you did was say that the answer is way above what's been discussed here. In fact what you said about the manifold existing within a greater space is pretty much what I had in mind, so we are at least kind of on the same page here. It sounds to me like you are pointing out that we are not really talking about dimensionality but rather degrees of freedom. So I have to ask again, what was with the whole "This is a rediculous question" deal?

I am amused that you expect me to get embarassed about not knowing that some algebraic numbers cannot be constructed (thanks for informing me of it). I mean, durrrrrr!!
sweatervest

Post Nov 13th '08, 00:09

thermoplyae wrote:what the state space of a game is has little to do with whether we call it 2d or 3d.

Hear hear--let's keep our heads and be reasonable here. Points are essentially three dimensional in Aleph One; it uses a perspective projection to represent that on a 2D plane for viewing on your monitor. It is 3D. "5D space" is a cute term I don't have a problem with, because it has no other uses and so can not be confused with anything else.
Last edited by treellama on Nov 13th '08, 00:12, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Nov 13th '08, 00:20

Treellama wrote:Hear hear--let's keep our heads and be reasonable here. Points are essentially three dimensional in Aleph One; it uses a perspective projection to represent that on a 2D plane for viewing on your monitor. It is 3D. "5D space" is a cute term I don't have a problem with, because it has no other uses and so can not be confused with anything else.


Right so any useful definition of an engine's dimensionality should probably exclude parts of the game space that don't correspond to spatial variables. I was just trying to point out that it seems to be less of an open and shut thing than one might suspect.

Is Doom 3D?
sweatervest

Post Nov 13th '08, 00:39

sweatervest wrote:I don't understand how asking how to define an engine as 2D or 3D has nothing to do with a game being 2D or 3D.

...


I'm kind of confused why you didn't just answer my question with that to begin with.


therein lies my point, i guess. they are basically the same statement, "alephone is a 3D engine" and "marathon 2: durandal (played on alephone) is a 3D game" don't differ at their core. we know what it means for a game to be 2D or 3D in the canonical usages of the words, and so this nonsense about state spaces has absolutely nothing to do with determining if an engine/game is 2D or 3D.

i didn't want to answer your question and instead berated you because i didn't think -- and i still don't think -- that it has any bearing on the actual topic at hand. i'm not sure i can argue this point, since it's not something that needs a defense beyond what i've provided. if you want to have a conversation about state spaces, ok, but we shouldn't do it in this thread. i do at least concede that it's interesting :)

(food for thought: nevermind what the space 'looks' like, since it's going to turn out to be incredibly complicated. but the metric induced by time should give us enough information to make an argument about its fundamental group, which could be interesting. i would suspect that it's trivial, but saying something formal is not entirely obvious to me)

we could have easily forgone all of that unnecessary hostility
welcome to the pfhorums, i believe we have a Welcome board where you can introduce yourself and get to know some of the regulars

You probably didn't read anything I posted earlier about how a good argument is one that does not need to assert its own validity, which is all you did to begin with (it's invalid, off-topic, and what-not. I mean, as long as you say so, but WHY?) At least you followed it up with a real argument.

...

I am amused that you expect me to get embarassed about not knowing that some algebraic numbers cannot be constructed (thanks for informing me of it). I mean, durrrrrr!!


you're right, i've been staying out of this thread, and i only came in now because you said something about transcendentals. basically the only reason i enter any thread is to coax someone into telling me how right i am and how wrong they are, and now i feel i've accomplished my goal.

Treellama wrote:let's keep our heads and be reasonable here.


if i were reasonable, i wouldn't be here. walk the middle path.
dude, seriously. dude.
User avatar

thermoplyae

Post Nov 13th '08, 00:40

sweatervest wrote:I was just trying to point out that it seems to be less of an open and shut thing than one might suspect.


no, it /is/ open and shut. or if it isn't, it's not because of anything we've outlined above
dude, seriously. dude.
User avatar

thermoplyae

Post Nov 13th '08, 00:52

Well I'm glad you stayed out of this topic as long as you did because your prescence here is just making it go to shit again. By the way, how much does your life have to suck for you to post things just so people will tell you that you are right. Perhaps this doesn't happen enough in your actual life so you compensate here. I'm really sorry about that.

Your course of action when people post things you think are off-topic is to berate them. How mature...

I love when the things you believe are so obvious that you don't even need to support them. It's strange cause I heard about this guy that took that approach in his final in Writing and somehow he completely failed. The professor apparently said something about how any argument has to be contestable and needs evidence to support it. Dumb professors. If only they had you to set them straight.

And then you post yet another claim that is so obvious it doesn't even NEED evidence!

I am well aware that a lot of people act like cocks around here, but I don't see how that excuses it. Your hostility was still unnecessary.

Allow me to jack you off one more time. You are so right about everything thermo! You should feel good about yourself because you are CLEARLY supperior to the phforums community!

God dammit see now you've got me acting like a cock.
sweatervest

PreviousNext

Return to Legends



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users