The Enlarging Square.

[367kGNh0]

Hello forum,


In order to get Square to size "X" it can be enlarged like so:

Square->setScale(10);

but theoretically, can I not take this approach? (allow me to explain the logic in steps)

//Let's say nothing will happen if scale is 1 
Square->setScale(1);

// Now a slight alteration to the tenths level will have a minor affect considering the value X needs a scale factor of 10
Square->setScale(1.3);

// But as the bounds of decimals are infinite, can't I (logically) eventually reach size x while keeping the unit value as one?
Square->setScale(1.37777777....);

Ofcourse, in reality, nothing would happen of noticeable impact to the square, but logically should my demonstation work, in the ideal world?

[zapshe]

You can't possibly ever reach "X" since it's an infinite number. You can reach a point where you can't even tell the difference, but you'll never "truly" reach it, especially with limitations of computing being a finite.

Even if computing wasn't finite, there's still no way to really reach infinity.

[helios]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

logically should my demonstation work, in the ideal world?

What's the demonstration? What are you stating? That a square of side 1.37777...(370 million digits later)...7 has a different size than a square of side 62/45? That's trivially true. 1.37777...(370 million digits later)...7 is not the same number as 62/45.

[367kGNh0]

@zapshe I should have specified
X is a pair of specific dimensions.
Square, not as in sqrt, is just a png sprite.

@helios

What's the demonstration? What are you stating? That a square of side 1.37777...(370 million digits later)...7 has a different size than a square of side 62/45?

I am stating that a png enlarged by SF, let us say, 4, can equally be enlarged to reach the same result achieved by using any whole number that preceedes it, with a specific amount of decimals

Square->setScale(4); ==  Square->setScale(1.XYZ); 
|| Square->setScale(2.XYZ);
|| Square->setScale(3.XYZ) //... 

[helios]

What's "SF"?

any whole number, with a specific amount of decimals

So, a real number? Surely, 3.141592... is a whole number with a specific amount of decimals (in this case, infinitely many).

a png enlarged by SF, let us say, 4, can equally be enlarged to reach the same result achieved by SF 4 with any whole number, with a specific amount of decimals

Are we talking about transforming a bitmap into another, or about how to draw a bitmap in a graphical environment?

[367kGNh0]

What's "SF"?

British mathematical term for by how many times entity is enlarged by.

Are we talking about transforming a bitmap into another, or about how to draw a bitmap in a graphical environment?

I am just enlarging an image, it's location is irrelevant. But simply, can't we enlarge an image's decimal value so much, that it's size reaches the same as that of the same image enlarged by a larger whole number, so


Square->setScale(4); == Square->setScale(1.355...)

[helios]

But simply, can't we enlarge an image's decimal value so much, that it's size reaches the same as that of the same image enlarged by a larger whole number, so

I must still not be understanding what you want to ask, because what you're actually asking is so obviously false that I have a hard time believing anyone could ask such a question.

If you scale a square by factor f = 1.3 + sum(i -> [0..n], 5*10^(-i - 2)), where n is a natural number or infinity, then you're scaling it up by exactly f. f is a number that's strictly less than 1.36:
1.3555... - 1.36 = -0.00444...
1.36 is strictly less than 4, so for any natural or infinite value of n, f will be less than 4. More specifically, f will not be 4. Therefore, there's no value of n that makes this true:
Square->setScale(4) == Square->setScale(1.3 + sum(i -> [0..n], 5*10^(-i - 2)))

Again, this is so painfully obvious that I don't know how someone could ask such a question, but I really don't know what else you could be asking.

PS: If it's absolutely necessary, I can give a proof by induction that 1.3 + sum(i -> [0..n], 5*10^(-i - 2)) is less than 1.36 for any value of n, but I really hope I don't have to.

EDIT: Fixed some exponents.

[zapshe]

But simply, can't we enlarge an image's decimal value so much, that it's size reaches the same as that of the same image enlarged by a larger whole number, so

Square->setScale(4); == Square->setScale(1.355...)

Can't you run so much that the distance you cover becomes the same amount of distance covered by someone who ran a longer distance than you?

Can't one be so stupid that they are as dumb as someone who is dumber?

Can't I open my eyes so wide that they are as wide as something that's spread wider?


I was looking up facepalms but I couldn't find one exaggerated enough to convey the fail.

[deleted account xyzzy]

Zeno's Paradox.

[367kGNh0]

I was looking up facepalms but I couldn't find one exaggerated enough to convey the fail.

It was just an observation.

Zeno's Paradox.

I had guess my post would resemble one of the older thought experiments

If you scale a square by factor f = 1.3 + sum(i -> [0..n], 5*10^(i - 2)), where n is a natural number or infinity, then you're scaling it up by exactly f. f is a number that's strictly less than 1.36:
1.3555... - 1.36 = -0.00444...
1.36 is strictly less than 4, so for any natural or infinite value of n, f will be less than 4. More specifically, f will not be 4. Therefore, there's no value of n that makes this true:
Square->setScale(4) == Square->setScale(1.3 + sum(i -> [0..n], 5*10^(i - 2)))

But the more, in your case, fives, you add, the more the square will enlarger, it won't just stop, so eventually it has to surpass 1.36, it won't just hault near to that. If the idea is false, which ofcouse it is, such an idea would be insane, we would need to say what indeed would happen to the square, if ALL the SF's decimals were met.

Can't you run so much that the distance you cover becomes the same amount of distance covered by someone who ran a longer distance than you?

Enlarging a shape via equations if not the same of this. I just saw the banac tarski paradox, and thought "The decimals are infinite, however when enlarging a square by any whole number with infinite decimals, all decimals' impacts must be satified, to the very final Xnth.Yes it still imperitavely cannot surpass the post whole number, and yet imperitively cannot just stop at a point."

I was looking up facepalms but I couldn't find one exaggerated enough to convey the fail.

I could not be asked, why do that, when IN THE SAME Xseconds I could learn Deutshe is german in german.

but I really don't know what else you could be asking.

Well, perhaps hope will be found in the oncoming theorem. If I still am breathing, and moving that is.

Incredibly useful how soon these posts will die, and all the fine kettles of fish, never spoken of again

[zapshe]

But the more, in your case, fives, you add, the more the square will enlarger, it won't just stop, so eventually it has to surpass 1.36, it won't just hault near to that. If the idea is false, which ofcouse it is, such an idea would be insane, we would need to say what indeed would happen to the square

....?

Clearly you're not understanding. The more numbers you add in the decimal position, the bigger the number gets, but not by a lot. Law of diminishing returns. Going from 1 to 1.5 is a lot. Going from 1.5 to 1.55 is a bit more. Going from 1.5555 to 1.5555555 is so insignificant it barely matters in 90% of cases. Lets say I multiply using these numbers:

1*3 = 3
1.5 * 3 = 4.5
1.55 * 3 = 4.65
1.5555 * 3 = 4.6665
1.5555555 * 3 = 4.6666665

Notice how smaller the differences become. The more decimal places we add, the bigger the outcome becomes, but only on the right side of the decimal place. We could go infinitely large on the right side of the decimal place, and it'll NEVER affect the actual whole number.

The rate of change decreases exponentially as the number becomes bigger by these smaller values (like .000005).


I recall having a similar question like this in elementary school tbh. I realized the exponential decay of outcome before I even had the vocabulary to explain it. I'm dumbfounded that this needed an explanation.

I could not be asked, why do that, when IN THE SAME Xseconds I could learn Deutshe is german in german.

Because in X amount of seconds I'd learn about 0.005% of German.

You keep doing you Raskcake, because I don't think there's anyone else out there who could.

[367kGNh0]

because I don't think there's anyone else out there who could.

But those neurons would be satisfied, by a tad. It wasn't anything insulting.

I'm dumbfounded that this needed an explanation.

I noticed the error. I very well know this is false now because, you can say there is a syntax error. I failed to recall the difference between

setScale

and ScaleBy (actually I knew this from the start, I was just lazy as to enforce a ScaleBy command with the frame, one must use more code that the former option.)

But regardless, if this were possible, which it isn't, it would be inconvenient. This was suggested in https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0486266397/ref=nosim/ericstreasuretro
and deemed illogical. but without much of an explaination but

according to zeeman

You keep doing you Raskcake, because I don't think there's anyone else out there who could.

i think i enforced this anti-fun attitued when I was admonished with the very phrase
"What good will cartoons do for you"
I have to ask this, replacing "cartoon" ofcourse, whenever faced with fun intention. I used to always play games after school, now with the habit GONE I can become a t shaped developer. You cannot really say this is not possible for me, you've no idea my own ability with other coding languages, would it really be fair to judge me for my contributions in this forum only?

[zapshe]

would it really be fair to judge me for my contributions in this forum only?

Yes.

This isn't about your skills in programming languages, but rather your intellect and competence. If I suck at math and logical thinking, I likely wont be a competent programmer. Universities know this and shove high level math courses into computer science degrees to "weed out" the weak. So here's a question, have you gotten a degree in this field? Your question here you could have answered yourself if you knew how to take the limit of your function (or used some common sense).

If your skills fail in some areas, it shows the limitations of your skills in general. And great that you got out of the habit of playing games. God knows you almost wasted your life playing games when you could have been learning German.

[367kGNh0]

Yes.

As a whole person?

Your question here you could have answered yourself

I did show awareness of the answer at the very beginning:

Ofcourse, in reality, nothing would happen of noticeable impact to the square

If your skills fail in some areas, it shows the limitations of your skills in general

I think I've just scratched the surface of c++, because the framework I use, has no presense of OOP, and you don't even really need arrays, yet can make games of great power and innovation

[zapshe]

As a whole person?

You only asked in terms of programming skills which was how I answered. But yes, also as a whole person. Obviously I wont get in-depth insight, but I know enough.



Rascake's existence has convinced me that there is a God and that he hired unpaid interns using JavaScript to program the general public.

[closed account DLw0Djzh]

I think all frameworks need extended c++ knowledge, above that for sure, perhaps it's because you've only made basic games with that framework.

Also, haven't you others realised rascake probably went

"Oh, wow they're right, time to act as if I knew it from the start"
Haha, almost like you all faltered in this wreckage of a topic

[zapshe]

Also, haven't you others realised rascake probably went

"Oh, wow they're right, time to act as if I knew it from the start"
Haha, almost like you all faltered in this wreckage of a topic

I was going to point it out but this isn't the first time he's done that, not surprising.

[closed account DLw0Djzh]

It's just harsh of you though, we very much know his age, funny enough revealed when he attempted this trick.
Atleast use some words of encouragement, your acting like he is permanently in this ability lacking state. When in reality any a person can change.

[zapshe]

your acting like he is permanently in this ability lacking state. When in reality any a person can change.

I doubt there would be a difference between waiting for Rascake to change and a horse waiting for water in a desert.

Rascake takes the path of self-preservation all the time. He simply ignores logic, then when it comes back to bite him he uses some mediocre cop out like, "Well I knew it was just..." or "Well this actually isn't my argument but an argument I think someone else would have made..."

It's a mindset of someone lacking introspect. If carried into adulthood it's likely never going to change.

[closed account DLw0Djzh]

What if he tried to sound respectable?