So, can we just ban damage meters already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fynlar

Why does it "matter" if integers greater than 1 can all be products of primes? Sounds to me like that's something that matters only because we've arbitrarily decided it does, much like how it seems rather arbitrary to exclude 1 as a prime simply because "well then you could just say 1x1x1x1x1..."

---

It's not arbitrary. See my previous post for why. But I'm sure that sounding like it's arbitrary to you has more weight than a century of modern math and its fundamental theorems. Don't bother responding, I've ignored your posts from this point on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mhaeric

And to get a bit more abstract, technically this means that all numbers include all primes as part of their product using this definition since p^0 = 1. I.e. the full product of primes for 5 is: 5 = 2^0 * 3^0 * 5^1 * 7^0 * 11^0 * ... etc. This is allowed since it still uniquely defines the number despite having an infinite number of terms. E.g. you will always have 3^0 and 5^0 as factors in 14 and changing those or any other term with power 0 will change the number. The number 1 breaks this, because 1 to any power is still 1 so it doesn't change the result. This means that if p were allowed to be 1 there would be no more unique factorization where n = p1^i * p2^j ... and so on. E.g. 5 = 1^0 * 5^1 = 1^1 * 5^1 = etc.

---

Neat explanation. And they say you can't learn anything on gaming forums. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fynlar

Why does it "matter" if integers greater than 1 can all be products of primes? Sounds to me like that's something that matters only because we've arbitrarily decided it does, much like how it seems rather arbitrary to exclude 1 as a prime simply because "well then you could just say 1x1x1x1x1..."

---

If it was arbitrary, there would be no reason why we decided that. Mathematics is a language, just like the words we type. We have reasons for defining them a certain way when expressing something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fynlar

Why does it "matter" if integers greater than 1 can all be products of primes? Sounds to me like that's something that matters only because we've arbitrarily decided it does, much like how it seems rather arbitrary to exclude 1 as a prime simply because "well then you could just say 1x1x1x1x1..."

---

We can never observe reality as a whole. That's why we need models, which simulate a tiny fraction of what we believe reality to be and to behave like, to make a tiny part of it observable. By your logic you could also say numbers don't exist and we only have them because someone randomly decided we should have them, so by that logic everything is arbitrary and we can all convert to nihilism ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mhaeric

There's a reason it's called the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Unique factorization of primes factors into so many other proofs and theorems that if you break that it breaks a lot of other math.

---

I've seen this claim before and it's just not correct. It would be a minor inconvenience at absolute worst; nothing about the mathematics would change, just a bit of nomenclature. You could call 1 prime then just replace current instances of the word "prime" with "prime larger than one" or "nonunit prime" and that would be that. Nothing would be "broken."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mhaeric

It's not arbitrary. See my previous post for why. But I'm sure that sounding like it's arbitrary to you has more weight than a century of modern math and its fundamental theorems. Don't bother responding, I've ignored your posts from this point on.

---

For the reason above, it is effectively "arbitrary." It's convenient, but not fundamental to the underlying math.

You can have a basically functional factoring system without unique factorization or a meaningful analog to the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.

For example, in Z[√(-5)], 6=2 x 3 = (1+√(-5))(1-√(-5)). We say we have multiplicatively irreducible numbers that are not primes. Proofs by reduction to minimal case in a well-ordered system will probably still find a way, you'll just need to find the ordering when you do your proofs or impose restrictions on magnitude. It's still the same old Aleph 0. And even if they don't, well, at least Z[√(-5)] isn't especially exotic.

I don't know how you guys got on this topic but I love you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PondHollow

I don't know how you guys got on this topic but I love you.

---

Next thing you know, thread gets deleted cuz #mathgate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SenorPatty

Next thing you know, thread gets deleted cuz #mathgate

---

:P its all relevant(ish) as it is trying to help people understand why 1 is not a prime number and thus why having a hp of 1 when Construct-7 asks for prime numbers would mean a fail instead of a pass. I haven't done major mathematics for years so i've had a big grin the past few pages despite it coming from a simple question of why is 1 not considered a prime number XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azbroolah

I've seen this claim before and it's just not correct. It would be a minor inconvenience at absolute worst; nothing about the mathematics would change, just a bit of nomenclature. You could call 1 prime then just replace current instances of the word "prime" with "prime larger than one" or "nonunit prime" and that would be that. Nothing would be "broken."



For the reason above, it is effectively "arbitrary." It's convenient, but not fundamental to the underlying math.

---

The entirety of math is arbitrary if you want to go down that philosophical rabbit hole. But yes, technically, if you want to include 1 as a prime then you can do so... as long as you provide an explicit exception for every single case that it affects. It's far, far simpler, more elegant and to be frank smarter to leave it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PondHollow

at least Z[√(-5)] isn't especially exotic..

---

Heh, this made me chuckle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liam_Harper

Ah, you're talking Savage. Fully agree with that. In fact it might even serve as a barrier to keep the unprepared player from wandering in there without realizing.



This is exactly what I mean. The dummies are perfectly fine, yet rather than admit to any faults even when presented with clear proof like other players beating these dummies, players will claim "overtuned" and refuse to learn to improve.

It varies a little, but SSS is tuned very well this expansion. I'd bet half the players claiming it's overtuned have no idea what weaving or clipping is, miss positionals, don't bother to meld, undervalue the important of DoTs or min-max abilities and so on, yet are convinced "my rotation is perfect!" and turn to excuses like "see someone else said it's too hard!".
EX is minimum 430 ilv, but that assumes you're raid prepared, melded, food, perfect rotation. It's endgame and SSS will test the same. If you can't be bothered to do that, it gets easier with gear. At 445+ you can blast through SSS with 20-30+ sec left on the clock. I have on every class I play and I'm fairly mid-average.

Honestly if you can't beat SSS it's all on you and you have no business in that content.

---

Regarding tuning, I can only speak to RDM's SSS directly, but it's definitely overtuned. For reference, dragoon's dummy asks ~12,800 on the E4S dummy, and RDM's asks ~12,400 from the same dummy. Considering where the jobs sit in relation to each other on rankings, it's a bit overtuned for RDM
Or undertuned for DRG. Up to reader discretion I suppose lol