Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.


If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.


Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk


If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
What Was Biz Thinking?!: Convenient Relational Operators
Topic Started: Dec 5 2011, 02:59 PM (1,059 Views)
Kruegs Outlandish Dec 5 2011, 02:59 PM Post #1
Default Avatar


What Was Biz Thinking?! :huh:
Convenient Relational Operators


Biz's Mind in a Nutshell...

symbolnamepredicatealiases
=strict equalequals
[a, ...]group negligible less or equaleach with negligible difference in non-decreasing order[< a, ...]
|<negligible less or equalis negligibly less or equal to|<|
<X>>>reach-over less than, overpowers × Xis less, or worse, but, times X, overpowers<×X>>>
<X>>reach-over less than, is advantaged, or better, × Xis less, or worse, but, times X, is advantaged, or better, than<×X>>
<X>reach-over less than, more, or better, × Xis less, or worse, but, times X, is, more, or better, than<×X>
<technical less thanis less, or worse, than<

Non-decreasing negligible difference operators

These operators guarantee that there is, at least, little to no difference at all between quantities, and that the quantity on the left is comparably less or equal to subsequent quantities. Use of these operators are technical at most, thus they would be underused. Both = and |< state that there is little to no difference at all.

An inconvenience of these operators is that overuse and chaining may contradict defined disadvantage and underwhelm relations.

[< a, ...] is preferred over chained |< only when, for each member in the group, there is no negligible difference from any other group member; naturally, members are listed in non-decreasing order.

Notably, and ironically, < states the reverse; it can only state technically less than relations regardless of difference. As such, both 0.0001 and 999.9999 are technically less than 1000. < is the most general purpose operator of any in the sets.


symbolnamepredicatealiases
||<strict disadvantageis disadvantaged at|<|<
|<<disadvantage at worstis, at worst, disadvantaged at|<<|
<<X>>>reach-over disadvantage, overpowers × Xis disadvantaged, or worse, but, times X, overpowers<<×X>>>
<<X>>reach-over disadvantage, is advantaged, or better, × Xis disadvantaged, or worse, but, times X, is advantaged, or better, at<<×X>>
<<X>reach-over disadvantage, is more, or better, × Xis disadvantaged, or worse, but, times X, is more, or better, than<<×X>
<<technical disadvantageis disadvantaged, or worse, at

Non-decreasing disadvantage operators

These operators guarantee non-decreasing order. Use of these often entail order fine-tuning, and are convenient in reducing size of the number of relational statements.

These operators share the same inconvenience of relation contradict, and share it more often, in that breaking underwhelm relations may cause information loss (i.e. the relation becomes vaguer).

||< and |<< state that quantity difference merits, at most, a disadvantage; ||< and << declare a certain disadvantage.

As < , << can only generally state that there is a disadvantage; although that disadvantage could very well be an underwhelm.


symbolnamepredicatealiases
|X|>reach-over underwhelm, negligible more or equal × Xunderwhelms, but, times X, is negligibly more than|×X|>
|X|>>reach-over underwhelm, at best, advantaged × Xunderwhelms, but, times X, is, at best, advantaged at|×X|>>
|X||>reach-over underwhelm, advantaged × Xunderwhelms, but, times X, is advantaged at|×X||>
|X>>>reach-over underwhelm, overpowers × Xunderwhelms, but, times X, overpowers|×X>>>
|X>>reach-over underwhelm, advantaged, or better, × Xunderwhelms, but, times X, is advantaged, or better, at|×X>>
|X>reach-over underwhelm, is more, or better, × Xunderwhelms, but, times X, is more, or better, than|×X>
<<<technical underwhelmunderwhelms

Non-decreasing underwhelm overreaching operators

These operators guarantee non-decreasing order, full bounding of right-sided quantities, and that one quantity underwhelms the other. Specifically, these operators attempt to compensate for vagueness of underwhelming quantities by specifying a factor in which, if multiplied by the lesser value, the product excesses the overpowering quantity. Despite the apparent convenience of these operators, they can be, in most case, all but avoided by using underwhelm under-reaching operators.

I'd suggest using whole number factors for Y. I'd suppose reasonably factors would be between 2 and 100.

I'll show a quick example:
     a |50|>> b

is the same as:
     a <<< b << 50x a

or:
     a <<< b
     50x a >> b

A notable problem concerns these operators, particularly |X|>>>; with too large of a factor, the statement becomes moot because the factor has overreached; Relations like, 5 |10000|>>> 100 and 2 |1.001|> 2 are obvious.


symbolnamepredicatealias
|X|reach-under, equal ×Xtimes X equals|×X|
|X|<reach-under, negligible less or equal ×Xtimes X, is negligibly less or equal to|×X|<
|X|<<reach-under, disadvantage at worst ×Xtimes X, is, at worst, disadvantaged at|×X|<<
|X||<reach-under, strictly disadvantage ×Xtimes X, is disadvantaged at|×X||<
|X Y|reach-under, bound by X Ytimes X is less; times Y is more than|×X < Y|
|X<<<reach-under, underwhelm ×Xtimes X, underwhelms|×X<<<
|X<<reach-under, technical disadvantage ×Xtimes X, is disadvantaged, or worse, at|×X<<
|X<reach-under, technical less than ×Xtimes X, is less, or worse, than|×X<

Non-decreasing reach-under operators

These operators guarantee non-decreasing order, and an underwhelmed quantity. These operator also compensate for vagueness by specifying a positive number factor; the product of the factor and smaller quantity is less or equal to the overpowering
one, but the underwhelm statement becomes less vague because the product is obviously greater than the smaller quantity.

Use of this set is preferred over the overreaching set; under-reaching statements cannot become moot. I'd suggest not using factors smaller than 1.5 or 2 (or what ever factor you use to signify underwhelming values).

Again, there is a technical, generic operator, <<< ; this operator is the catch-all underwhelm operator, as every underwhelm, despite magnitude of difference, is classed together. Notably, of all underwhelm operators, this one is the only half-closed one.


symbolnamepredicatealiases
[~ a, ...]group negligible differenceall within negligible difference
~negligible differenceis negligibly different from~
[? a, ...]group comparableall within comparability
?comparableis comparable to

Convenient vague operators

These operators show difference, but not order; thus, their use breaks non-decreasing order, and serves best underused.

Group operators are similar to [< a, b, ...] ; [< a, b, ...] and ||< or |<< combinations are recommended over using either grouping statements.

~ owns you, and ? because 'derp' I dunno :3 ... but yeah, chaining either is not recommended. It sucks.


symbolnamepredicatealiases
[> a, b, ...]group negligible more or equalall within negligible difference and in non-increasing order
|>negligible more or equalis negligibly more or equal to|>|
>technical more thanis more, or better, than>
||>strict advantageis advantaged at|>|>
|>>advantage at bestis, at best, advantaged at|>>|
>>technical advantageis advantaged, or better, at
<<<|Y|specified overpower, underwhelm with Yoverpowers, but, over Y, underwhelms
|<<|Y|specified overpower, disadvantage at worst with Yoverpowers, but, over Y, is, at worst, disadvantaged at
|||Y|specified overpower, disadvantage with Yoverpowers, but, over Y, is disadvantaged at
|<|Y|specified overpower, negligible less or equal with Yoverpowers, but, over Y, is negligibly less or equal to
|>|X|specified overpower, negligible more or equal with Xover X, is negligibly more or equal to
|>>|X|specified overpower, advantage at best with Xover X, is, at best, advantaged at
|||X|specified overpower, strict advantage with Xover X, is advantaged at|>||X|
|X > Y|specified overpower, bound by X Yover X is less; over Y is more than
>>>|X|specified overpower, overpower with Xover X, overpowers
>>>technical overpoweroverpowers

Respective decreasing operators

These operators are defined for completeness; each is the inverse of one of the nondecreasing. Barring  [> a, ...] , these enforce strict decreasing order; with all of these, along with  =  and  |X| , nonincreasing order is guaranteed. These should not be used at all with increasing-order operators ( < ,  << ,  |<  etc.)


Any Hints on How to Create an Order Chain?

Choose a fighter to start with.
I would recommend committing to this fighter throughout the entire sequence

Cui, because he's so frekkin' awesome!


Order all stomps first; stomps are most obvious.
When finding fighters that stomp try to find the weakest fighter(s) that would stomp.

Cui <<< Ginyuobvious.
Cui <<< Goku (At Recoome)better, try more.
Cui <<< Recoomemuch better.
Cui <<< Vegeta (At Cui)good!
Cui <<< Ginyu (In Goku)wow... I didn't think of that!

The best candidates were Vegeta (At Cui) and Ginyu (In Goku). Be careful
not to choose a fighter in which a stomp is uncertain or based from opinion.

Cui <<< Dodoria(hm... is this in the manga? It's plausible, but not certain)
Cui <<< Krillin (Initial Potential Unlock)(heh, Krillin fan much?)


Add advantages, then little less-thans.
Only add relations that don't break existing relations.

Cui <<< Vegeta (At Cui)our existing order!
Cui << Zarbon << Vegeta (At Cui)this is bad practice. in some cases, we'd no longer be able to tell that Vegeta would stomp Cui.
Cui < Dodoria <<< Vegeta (At Cui)good! Both were stomped by Vegeta.


Expand or Reduce Chained Specified Underwhelm Operators

Up to you. It depends on whether the quantity is important to you. All of the statements below say the same thing.

Goku |10| Goku (Kaioken x10) |2| Goku (Kaioken x20) |< Frieza 4 (50%) |2| Frieza 4 (100%)

We retain all "Kaioken" info. It may seem superfluous that the operators basically tell you that Goku (Kaioken x10) is 10x Goku, but the redundancy is more from knowing Kaioken's mechanics.

Goku |20| Goku (Kaioken x20) |2|< Frieza 4 (100%)

We lose the Frieza (50%) and Kaioken x10 info and some of the redundancy; Kaioken was plot-relevant, but Kaioken (x20) is, at least, still mentioned.

Goku |40|< Frieza 4 (100%)

No Kaioken info is mentioned at all. You'd have to know about Dragon Ball Z to deduce that Goku even had some type of fighting chance against someone 40+ times stronger than him, or that the relation is even relevant.
Edited by Kruegs Outlandish, Jan 13 2012, 12:33 PM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Selsiuss Dec 5 2011, 05:46 PM Post #2
Default Avatar


Why does this matter?
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kruegs Outlandish Dec 5 2011, 05:59 PM Post #3
Default Avatar


Selsiuss
Dec 5 2011, 05:46 PM
Why does this matter?
nondecreasing order:
Why do you matter? <<< Why does this matter?

I just used knowledge from this topic.

@question:
Posted Image
in the post, i state that I was trying to order powers of fighters in significant fights. i came up with a few tricks that made it a bit more convenient and thought i'd share.
Edited by Kruegs Outlandish, Dec 5 2011, 06:44 PM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TrunksinSwimmingTrunks Dec 5 2011, 06:32 PM Post #4
Member Avatar
Formerly known as daman

 omg all I can think about is phone operators http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Luffy-King_of_the_Heroic_BSOD.gif

edit: if says referral denied press enter in address bar......
Edited by TrunksinSwimmingTrunks, Dec 6 2011, 04:03 AM.
kamizake pyro is a girl? olsiw

Make the old spam section viewable plz



Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Selsiuss Dec 5 2011, 07:30 PM Post #5
Default Avatar


I don't understand what all of this is supposed to mean. I'm sure it makes a lot of sense to someone who already knows about it, but I'm lost.

Explain it to me like I'm 5 years old.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kruegs Outlandish Dec 5 2011, 07:54 PM Post #6
Default Avatar


Selsiuss
Dec 5 2011, 07:30 PM
I don't understand what all of this is supposed to mean. I'm sure it makes a lot of sense to someone who already knows about it, but I'm lost.

Explain it to me like I'm 5 years old.
I'll be honest.

not a place for 5 year olds.

It (this topic) may be a lot of words.

Even still, it's not hard to understand.

it requires reading the topic instead of glancing.

i'm guessing that you know what the greater than, less than, and equal to signs are.

imho, if you do not, then learning those > (greater than) being on forum.

I'm giving new signs and explaining what they mean.

The new signs can give people a way to say that someone is weaker then someone else, but still not incredibly weak.

its like saying Goku < Frieza (50%). it's true, but how much weaker was he?

you could say something like:

saying that Goku <<< Frieza (50%) is better, because <<< says that Goku is much weaker than Frieza. <<< can actually mean something a little more relevant.

and for people that don't know what order is or how to order things, i tell them.

that's it.

A 5 year old likes this
Edited by Kruegs Outlandish, Dec 5 2011, 09:53 PM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Selsiuss Dec 5 2011, 10:32 PM Post #7
Default Avatar


Just to be clear, I'm not 5 years old.

So basically all you are saying is "I like to use many greater than and less than symbols instead of just one, even though using only one says exactly the same thing."
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kruegs Outlandish Dec 6 2011, 03:37 AM Post #8
Default Avatar


Selsiuss
Dec 5 2011, 10:32 PM
Just to be clear, I'm not 5 years old.

So basically all you are saying is "I like to use many greater than and less than symbols instead of just one, even though using only one says exactly the same thing."
troll.

no. either actually read the topic or go back to rosat. i'd hate to use "report" for the 1st time.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ KingOfAllSaiyans Dec 6 2011, 03:44 AM Post #9
Member Avatar


 I don't think it's a bad idea, but I'm not sure how many would use it.


I enjoy reading your threads though, always good thought!
Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Pyrus Dec 6 2011, 03:57 AM Post #10
Member Avatar


 This does seem a bit more thorough than simply saying "X < Y". You addressed good points like, "How much weaker is X than Y?", so +1 for that. The only thing I'd have trouble using is the "..., ..." Still not sure on that one.
Spoiler: click to toggle
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kruegs Outlandish Dec 6 2011, 04:05 AM Post #11
Default Avatar


The Frekkin King of The Saiyans!
 
I don't think it's a bad idea, but I'm not sure how many would use it.


I enjoy reading your threads though, always good thought!
I'm glad you like my posts :) .

Kamikaze Pyro
Dec 6 2011, 03:57 AM
This does seem a bit more thorough than simply saying "X < Y". You addressed good points like, "How much weaker is X than Y?", so +1 for that. The only thing I'd have trouble using is the "..., ..." Still not sure on that one.
ex.

if you think that Recoome, Burter, Jeice are all roughly the same, then

  • Vegeta < Recoome ~ Burter < Goku
    Recoome ~ Jeice
    Burter ~ Jeice

    here, you have to use three different statements to say this.

    Vegeta < Recoome ~ Burter ~ Jeice < Goku

    would be wrong; this could possibly almost say Recoome |<|< Burter |<|< Jeice, which would say that Recoome << Jeice at least. That's not what you want to say.

  • Vegeta < [Recoome, Burter, Jeice] < Goku

    This says that, for everyone in that group, no one has an advantage. You want to say that.

    Vegeta < Recoome, Burter, Jeice < Goku

    is an alternative form.
Edited by Kruegs Outlandish, Dec 6 2011, 04:20 AM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Pyrus Dec 6 2011, 04:08 AM Post #12
Member Avatar
bizness86
Dec 6 2011, 04:05 AM
Kamikaze Pyro
Dec 6 2011, 03:57 AM
This does seem a bit more thorough than simply saying "X < Y". You addressed good points like, "How much weaker is X than Y?", so +1 for that. The only thing I'd have trouble using is the "..., ..." Still not sure on that one.
ex.

if you think that Recoome, Burter, Jeice are all roughly the same, then

  • Recoome ~ Burter
    Recoome ~ Jeice
    Burter ~ Jeice

    here, you have to use three different statements to say this.

    Recoome ~ Burter ~ Jeice would be wrong; this could possibly almost say Recoome |<|< Burter |<|< Jeice, which would say that Recoome << Jeice at least. That's not what you want to say.

  • [Recoome, Burter, Jeice]

    This says that, for everyone in that group, no one has an advantage. You want to say that
Okay, that's what I wanted to see. I've just never used brackets in a chain unless I'm specifying which part of the series a character is from, so that's why I was a bit confused.
Spoiler: click to toggle
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Doggo Champion 2k17 Dec 6 2011, 04:43 AM Post #13
Default Avatar


This is actually an interesting idea. I may end up using some of these signs from time to time. ^_^
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kruegs Outlandish Dec 6 2011, 05:40 AM Post #14
Default Avatar


added examples; should have done it earlier :) .
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Pyrus Dec 6 2011, 05:44 AM Post #15
Member Avatar


 Some people might mistake "<<<" to mean 3x. Always a possibility.
Spoiler: click to toggle
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
0 users reading this topic
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dragon Ball/Z Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1

Theme Designed by McKee91