quirks

kshinji · Post by **kshinji** » April 28th, 2006, 9:56 am

I dont know code of BfW, but isnt srand invoked only once for each game and stored in savegame? Cause if one does:

1. save
2. do acion and sees results
3. loads
4. does the same action

results will be the same. Thats my expierience.

Dacyn · Post by **Dacyn** » April 28th, 2006, 12:38 pm

UDD wrote:Even the result of throwing dice could theoretically be calculated thanks to the magic of physics (it will probably take insane calculatory power and uber-sensitive sensors though).

Not really; according to quantum physics then "uber-sensitive sensors" are theoretically impossible.

As turin was saying, in Wesnoth the random seed is never stored. I think the reason most people are confused about this is that most games other than Wesnoth do store the random seed...

kshinji · Post by **kshinji** » April 28th, 2006, 1:17 pm

I think he meant Heisenberg's Law - you cant know exact speed and position of object at the same moment, the better you know one vale, the worse you know the other. This way the smaller molecule is, the more you need to know at least one of values to predict its movement. For smallest molecules predicting movement can give you large variety of possiblities with small probablitlity for each. Right?

UDD · Post by **UDD** » April 28th, 2006, 1:19 pm

Dacyn wrote:Not really; according to quantum physics then "uber-sensitive sensors" are theoretically impossible.

How so?

Tomsik · Post by **Tomsik** » April 28th, 2006, 2:06 pm

UDD wrote:
Dacyn wrote:Not really; according to quantum physics then "uber-sensitive sensors" are theoretically impossible.
How so?

Look here

Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that one cannot assign values (with full precision) to certain pairs of observable variables of a single elementary particle at the same time even with infinitely precise instruments (...) the principle furthermore precisely quantifies the imprecision by providing a lower bound (greater than zero) for the product of the standard deviations of the measurements.

Post by **turin** » April 28th, 2006, 2:08 pm

UDD wrote:
Dacyn wrote:Not really; according to quantum physics then "uber-sensitive sensors" are theoretically impossible.
How so?

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: the better you know the position of an object, the worse you know the velocity and direction, and vice versa. It is actually stated

kjinshi wrote:I dont know code of BfW, but isnt srand invoked only once for each game and stored in savegame? Cause if one does:

1. save
2. do acion and sees results
3. loads
4. does the same action

results will be the same. Thats my expierience.

STEP 4 IS FALSE.

It will, of course, occasionally do the same thing. Especially if the chance of it doing that was high - for example, if you are trying to saveload so that your guy with 30% defence doesn't take a single hit. And even if it is unlikely, it will still occasionally happen the same way. But Wesnoth does not store the seed.[/code]

kshinji · Post by **kshinji** » April 28th, 2006, 2:34 pm

I meant exact action. For example my 30% CtbH guy take 1st 2nd and 4th blow. And it repeats 5 times, until i move the other troop. Then it turned into 2 blows - 1st and 3rd. Strange..

Post by **turin** » April 28th, 2006, 2:46 pm

kshinji wrote:I meant exact action. For example my 30% CtbH guy take 1st 2nd and 4th blow. And it repeats 5 times, until i move the other troop. Then it turned into 2 blows - 1st and 3rd. Strange..

That's not how it works for me. (I just tested it several times, just to be sure - the random numbers are definitely different after I reload the save.) It's possible that this is a windows-specific bug.

UDD · Post by **UDD** » April 28th, 2006, 3:57 pm

turin wrote:
kshinji wrote:I meant exact action. For example my 30% CtbH guy take 1st 2nd and 4th blow. And it repeats 5 times, until i move the other troop. Then it turned into 2 blows - 1st and 3rd. Strange..
That's not how it works for me. (I just tested it several times, just to be sure - the random numbers are definitely different after I reload the save.) It's possible that this is a windows-specific bug.

Doesn't happen on my windows.

And... Well... Maybe after I learn quantom physics I'll be able to make a decent comeback.

(Though, and I'm asking just because I know, isn't quantom physics currently a theory rather than a proven [atleast empirically] science?)

Post by **turin** » April 28th, 2006, 4:15 pm

UDD wrote:(Though, and I'm asking just because I know, isn't quantom physics currently a theory rather than a proven [atleast empirically] science?)

Well, IIRC, it depends on what you mean by that - quantum physics is compatible with all known data, but it cannot make predictions that can be empirically tested.

Post by **Soliton** » April 28th, 2006, 4:27 pm

UDD wrote: (Though, and I'm asking just because I know, isn't quantom physics currently a theory rather than a proven [atleast empirically] science?)

What is not 'only a theory'? How do you prove how 'reality works'?

kshinji · Post by **kshinji** » April 28th, 2006, 4:45 pm

Soliton, thats rather philosophical question, to physical. Lets state that theory becomes proven, if that works for, what we sense as reality. ( reality 0, often called )

reality 1 - we off our senses, everything starts to be numbers
reality 2 - we off physical laws, treat reality philosophically

There are more, realities - n, but they start to be stupid for me. Those 2 enough for my age and ambition. Whole idea came from Ancient Greece, if i remember correctly.

Post by **Soliton** » April 28th, 2006, 4:50 pm

kshinji wrote:Soliton, thats rather philosophical question, to physical. Lets state that theory becomes proven, if that works for, what we sense as reality.

So how do you prove a theory (about reality)?

Post by **turin** » April 28th, 2006, 5:40 pm

You can't; you can just provide overwhelming evidence for its veracity. Right now, there is pretty good evidence for quantum mechanics' veracity, and none for its falseness. However, there's another critera of falsifiability - if an experiment cannot be proposed that, with a certain outcome, would prove quantum mechanics false, it doesn't make sense to say it is true... I don't know if there is such a theory.

(BTW, this can be used as an argument against ID, and has been on these forums.)

Post by **Soliton** » April 28th, 2006, 7:07 pm

turin wrote:However, there's another critera of falsifiability - if an experiment cannot be proposed that, with a certain outcome, would prove quantum mechanics (the theory) false, it doesn't make sense to say it is true... I don't know if there is such a theory.

String theory. (so far)