Maybe you think that all math is extremely accurate because it was all created in a laboratory by white coat-wearing scientists? But what if the math came from some guy performing calculations inside a van in the middle of a desert? What if I ran the numbers in my mom’s basement through improper proofs and theorems that I don’t even fully understand? That math might end up being like 70% or even just only 50% accurate, and then what? You can’t just assume that all math is the same and trust it equally. Someone might’ve forgotten to carry over a zero or something, and if you put math like that inside your head you’re gonna have a really bad time.
That hasn’t been true for years. CCP makes “adjustments” as they see fit.
“He who holds the code…”
1 Like
Not just small adjustments, CCP are the ones who built the entire game in which the player driven economy exists!
It’s almost as if you could have a player driven economy in a game programmed by someone else, even if they keep adjusting the rules to improve the game.
After all, the ‘player-driven’ part of the economy does not refer to the programmers, but to the players who participate in the economy, as opposed to NPC buy and sell orders to supply the main goods which you see in games where the economy is not player-driven.
1 Like
The irony for me is that while I’d love a 100% player-driven economy, that would mean that EVE would have to be a subscription-option only game (Alphas would probably be ok still). If that were the case, my little solo empire would instantly cease to exist as there is no way I could afford the RW$ to pay for all the accounts.
Pandora is a B_T_H !
1 Like
This is where statistics come in. To test your maths to get a sense of how accurate and precise the results of your maths end up being.
There are these things called:
Type 1 error, and
Type 2 error.
Math can absolutely be wrong, especially if the data testing and/or collection process has error, or mistake in it.
No, math cannot be wrong however, the inputs and/or processes can be. 1 + potato ≠ 2
Someone needs to take some math classes, statistical analysis and classes in proof of concept.
Maybe. As you are the expert, how about you give an example or at the very least link to something to prove your position. Thanks in advance.
Zeno’s paradox comes to mind. Something that is introduced in level 1 calculus courses. Here is a little excerpt of it. But interestingly, math itself gives you an erroneous answer. It was solved when other variables were taken into account. Took mathematicians over 2000 years to crack this one.
Feel free to dig into this deeper. It really is fascinating.
1 Like
Sure. If you are a philosophy student or a drunk math prof hitting on one of your students.
1 Like
Your #1 example is not of something that is “wrong” but rather a paradox that straddles disciplines such as philosophy and metaphysics…and as you say, was cracked.
Not sure what metaphysics has to do with dividing a number an infinite number of times, and deriving a “limit” of,
As in as lim X-> 0 of (tan x)/x
Zeno’s paradox was essential in the understanding of what a mathematical limit is.
Approximations made in mathematical values (edit: replaced processes with values) can result in erroneous outputs, as you said. Garbage in, garbage out. Which I agree with.
I am also saying the the process itself can have error in it. Especially with complex processes, as in quantum mechanics, thats why scientists are constantly refining their equations.
1 Like
I took Calc 1 in school and never heard of this. Granted, that was 15 years ago, but still.
I had mine more than 20 years ago.
I’m getting old.
Zeno’s paradox was introduced almost on day one. It was to get us thinking about what happens when some function approaches some given defined value in increasingly small intervals. To the point of infinitely dividing those intervals, will the function ever output some given value?
And the answer is yes, and that is what the Lim is for, and the power of a limit.
Be it if the function approaches some number, or infinity.
For example, lim x-> 0 cos(x)/x
If you directly plug in 0 for x, the function blows up because any number divided by 0 is undefined. But if you graph the function and continually input smaller and smaller values for x, as in:
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001 (Zeno’s paradox working here) you get individual outputs. But is there a value that can be prescribed for x=0?)
And the answer is yes. It would theoretically be 1.
Note the word, theoretically. The lim x->0 of (cosx)/x = 1
Safety is with us all for our own protection.
Is it just me? Or did they actually remove it because they weren’t getting good feedback after some of these:
Or did they remove it because the event is over? Anyone have a screencap of the thing to see the dates?
Mr Epeen 
If I recall correctly, the splash ad in the launcher mentioned that it would be available until March 31.
It’s a little vague based on the description above (it references the two other packs for the March 31 deadline), but I can almost swear it said March 31 in the launcher add for this pack as well.
My email begs to differ.
Mr Epeen
That doesn’t reference the Retriever pack specifically, though; just the event. The other packs are available until March 31.
Also, the Retriever pack is still available on other storefronts (Steam and Epic Games).