Talk:Mathamancy Bracer - Revision history

Bcent1234: /* Mathamancy versus Predictamancy */

2011-07-28T21:30:45Z

Mathamancy versus Predictamancy

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:30, 28 July 2011
Line 21:		Line 21:
	=Mathamancy versus Predictamancy=		=Mathamancy versus Predictamancy=
	I argue mathamancy. All confirmed cases of predictamancy have predicted one definitive outcome with no conditionals. Parson's cost/benefit calculation is already within the scope of current, real world, AI (albeit with limited precision).		I argue mathamancy. All confirmed cases of predictamancy have predicted one definitive outcome with no conditionals. Parson's cost/benefit calculation is already within the scope of current, real world, AI (albeit with limited precision).
		+
		+	Well, maybe, a real world AI capable of even rudimentary (to us) predictions would have to incorporate far more than the current [[Erfworld Mechanics]], to be sure, as well as a database which has all the known facts about [[Erfworld]]. Not a simple computer program at all.

No one in particular: /* Speculation that Bracer is an artifact */

2011-04-19T15:35:56Z

Speculation that Bracer is an artifact

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, 19 April 2011
Line 16:		Line 16:
	** thinkamancy interface		** thinkamancy interface
	--[[User:Robinmdh\|Robinmdh]] 11:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:Robinmdh\|Robinmdh]] 11:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	It is worth noting that Wanda experienced a substantial effect when she attuned{{erf\|1\|142}}, with the Arkenpliers glowing and her instantly understanding what had occurred. Parson experienced no similar effects with the Mathamancy Bracer, suggesting he is not Attuned to it. -- Cogidubnus

	=Mathamancy versus Predictamancy=		=Mathamancy versus Predictamancy=
	I argue mathamancy. All confirmed cases of predictamancy have predicted one definitive outcome with no conditionals. Parson's cost/benefit calculation is already within the scope of current, real world, AI (albeit with limited precision).		I argue mathamancy. All confirmed cases of predictamancy have predicted one definitive outcome with no conditionals. Parson's cost/benefit calculation is already within the scope of current, real world, AI (albeit with limited precision).

70.233.166.223 at 03:03, 10 April 2011

2011-04-10T03:03:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:03, 10 April 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	Would the bracer no ~~loner~~ work if the watch ran out of power? Can it run out of power in this universe? --[[User:Jedifreak\|Jedifreak]]	+	Would the bracer no longer work if the watch ran out of power? Can it run out of power in this universe? --[[User:Jedifreak\|Jedifreak]]

	Sorry, not passive voice, I meant ending a sentence in a preposition.--[[User:BarGamer\|BarGamer]] 16:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)		Sorry, not passive voice, I meant ending a sentence in a preposition.--[[User:BarGamer\|BarGamer]] 16:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

70.233.140.157 at 17:33, 24 March 2011

2011-03-24T17:33:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 24 March 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	Would the bracer no loner work if the watch ran out of power? Can it run out of power in this universe?	+	Would the bracer no loner work if the watch ran out of power? Can it run out of power in this universe? --[[User:Jedifreak\|Jedifreak]]

	Sorry, not passive voice, I meant ending a sentence in a preposition.--[[User:BarGamer\|BarGamer]] 16:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)		Sorry, not passive voice, I meant ending a sentence in a preposition.--[[User:BarGamer\|BarGamer]] 16:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

70.233.140.157 at 17:32, 24 March 2011

2011-03-24T17:32:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:32, 24 March 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	Would the bracer no loner work if the watch ran out of power? Can it run out of power in this universe?
		+
	Sorry, not passive voice, I meant ending a sentence in a preposition.--[[User:BarGamer\|BarGamer]] 16:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)		Sorry, not passive voice, I meant ending a sentence in a preposition.--[[User:BarGamer\|BarGamer]] 16:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Paper Golem at 14:32, 4 October 2009

2009-10-04T14:32:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:32, 4 October 2009
Line 14:		Line 14:
	** thinkamancy interface		** thinkamancy interface
	--[[User:Robinmdh\|Robinmdh]] 11:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:Robinmdh\|Robinmdh]] 11:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	=Mathamancy versus Predictamancy=
		+	I argue mathamancy. All confirmed cases of predictamancy have predicted one definitive outcome with no conditionals. Parson's cost/benefit calculation is already within the scope of current, real world, AI (albeit with limited precision).

Robinmdh at 11:00, 4 October 2009

2009-10-04T11:00:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:00, 4 October 2009
Line 6:		Line 6:
	:That would limit the term to only include Arkentools, making the term entirely redundant. Sizemore is a better judge of what an artifact is than we are at the moment. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)		:That would limit the term to only include Arkentools, making the term entirely redundant. Sizemore is a better judge of what an artifact is than we are at the moment. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
	:I'll allow that he has some reason to speak authoritatively about the bracer, but the calculator watch is something entirely beyond his experience.		:I'll allow that he has some reason to speak authoritatively about the bracer, but the calculator watch is something entirely beyond his experience.
		+
		+	Couldn't we declare parson's watch an artifact, and the bracer just a handy thinkamancy interface wit knowledge of troops etc. but a magic item for sure?
		+	* the watch:
		+	**macic from our world makes lots of calculations per second possible (normally impossible without mathamancer if even then)
		+	* the bracer:
		+	** information on erfworld troops and possibilities statistics etc.
		+	** thinkamancy interface
		+	--[[User:Robinmdh\|Robinmdh]] 11:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

DevilDan: /* Speculation that Bracer is an artifact */

2009-07-27T21:04:25Z

Speculation that Bracer is an artifact

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:04, 27 July 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	That would lower the bar for what an artifact is, seeing as the bracer was apparently created as the ''effect'' of a spell created by mortals, unless we speculate that the summoning spell "fetched" the bracer rather than creating it.		That would lower the bar for what an artifact is, seeing as the bracer was apparently created as the ''effect'' of a spell created by mortals, unless we speculate that the summoning spell "fetched" the bracer rather than creating it.
	:That would limit the term to only include Arkentools, making the term entirely redundant. Sizemore is a better judge of what an artifact is than we are at the moment. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)		:That would limit the term to only include Arkentools, making the term entirely redundant. Sizemore is a better judge of what an artifact is than we are at the moment. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
		+	:I'll allow that he has some reason to speak authoritatively about the bracer, but the calculator watch is something entirely beyond his experience.

Kreistor: /* Speculation that Bracer is an artifact */

2009-07-17T18:33:26Z

Speculation that Bracer is an artifact

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:33, 17 July 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:

	That would lower the bar for what an artifact is, seeing as the bracer was apparently created as the ''effect'' of a spell created by mortals, unless we speculate that the summoning spell "fetched" the bracer rather than creating it.		That would lower the bar for what an artifact is, seeing as the bracer was apparently created as the ''effect'' of a spell created by mortals, unless we speculate that the summoning spell "fetched" the bracer rather than creating it.
-	:That would limit the term to only include Arkentools, ~~asking~~ the term entirely redundant. Sizemore is a better judge of what an artifact is than we are at the moment. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)	+	:That would limit the term to only include Arkentools, making the term entirely redundant. Sizemore is a better judge of what an artifact is than we are at the moment. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Kreistor at 18:33, 17 July 2009

2009-07-17T18:33:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:33, 17 July 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:

	That would lower the bar for what an artifact is, seeing as the bracer was apparently created as the ''effect'' of a spell created by mortals, unless we speculate that the summoning spell "fetched" the bracer rather than creating it.		That would lower the bar for what an artifact is, seeing as the bracer was apparently created as the ''effect'' of a spell created by mortals, unless we speculate that the summoning spell "fetched" the bracer rather than creating it.
		+	:That would limit the term to only include Arkentools, asking the term entirely redundant. Sizemore is a better judge of what an artifact is than we are at the moment. --[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)