Fritzy, Flaming Cow Engineer's page

Oh-so-political, but Fritzy hasn't gotten any exercise in a while:

** spoiler omitted **

Does a spit take, gives Myrtle's udder a reassuring jiggle and begins priming the old cannon.

John Napier 698 wrote:

About to go home. Good night, everyone.

Good night, John.

And a pre-emptive "Hello there!"

So, we're going preemptive now!

Stay calm, Fritzy, you can do this!

LOAD EVERY BARREL!!! Yes, even Myrtle!!!

Peers through target scope. Begins firing wildly in every direction.

Tacticslion wrote:

Anyone who maaaaaaaaath: is there a simple repeating pattern in which you arrive at the final value of X-sub-n for an arbitrarily decreasing amount Y-sub-n (described as a flat, consistent percentage z) such that when you reduce the new current value by z percentage of your current X-sub-n, you can do so n times quickly?

I think I'm saying that right. See below for the example, and correct my terrible linguistics using that example instead of whatever nonsense I spewed out up there.

So, for example, let's start with 100 because it's a nice, round number (and also turns into % later). This would be either X-sub-1 or X-sub-0 (I forget proper notation because I don't uuuuuuuuuuuuse it until I do, which is right now, but still forgotten and in the latter case, also a popular fighter in Mortal Combat.)

Reduce the initial value X by 30% and this gets you to 70: simple so far. That's once!

Reduce that 70 by 30% and you get 49 (as shown by 30% of 70 is 21; 70-21=49). That's twice!

Reduce that 49 by 30% and you get 34.3 (as shown by 30% of 49 is 14.7; 49-14.7=34.3). That's thrice!

Now, obviously, we can do this ad infinitum, but what I'm really looking for is a formula to simplify doing that, so I don't have to keep multiplying z=30% by any give X-sub-n then subtracting that Y-sub-n from the X-sub-n and getting the X-sub-n. As it turns out, doing this 43 times in a row gets fairly tiring.

It really feels like this should be a straight plug-and-chug "insert starting value for X, insert starting value for z, insert iteratives n, and enjoy life/winning" but I'm too ill-equipped at 5:10 AM to think.

(Also, while 100 is my starting value, I'm curious about the general formula; that shouldn't really affect anything, but I'm mentioning just in case I weirded it, somehow. My reason for starting with 100 is that it's easy to convert to %, as I'm secretly after a "final amount of <stuff> =

...

Great, they're speaking in tongues again! Time to hook up the fire hose! C'mon, Bessy! You know the drill!!

Freehold DM wrote:

Fritzy, Flaming Bike Artillery wrote:

That's what you call a misdirection.

Or perhaps I should try baiting.

Batman would be a Paladin!

There you are!

Get to blowing things up! This thread has been naughty and needs to be punished! And not in the fun way.

The “fun way” is still on the table, though, right?

You want the "fun" way huh, I'll get Hilda!!

Spits out coffee and hastily puts down the issue of Jugs he'd been reading and starts feverishly applying tar and PPE to every cow in field.

Crap! Where do I even start!

Fellow Matherines.

It's been a hot minute since I did most of my formula-making.
I'm trying to show an asymptote - or at least see if something *is* one.
I found this thing:
https://www.symbolab.com/solver/function-asymptotes-calculator
... but I don't really remember how to do this right now. (My head is filled with much younger math and more typical game math.)

If I have the formula
b=<current value>/[c+X]

... where you start with an arbitrary number, such that

N=arbitrary starting number
b=adjustment value
c=some constant
X=iterative increasing value (+1 each time; start at 1)

and <current value> is always defined as <previous current value+b> and always starts at N

(I should probably call it "N-sub-naught," and "X-sub-naught" or whatever number, but I don't know how to do that with a keyboard, and I forgot how to indicate specific iterative increases anyway.)

... I'm trying to see if b is an asymptote. The main hangup is that b is *always rounded to the nearest whole*, which, you know, is kind of the sticky wicket.

So, for example,

N=82 and c=11 means that according to <current value>/[c+X]...

82/[11+1]=82/6=6.833333...
then... 6.8-->7
82+7->89->our new <current value> and X ticks up by +1, so...

89/[11+2=13]=89/13=6.84615384615...
then... 6.8-->7
89+7->96->our new <current value> and X ticks up by +1, so...

103/14=6.866... then 6.8-->7... 110 is our new <current value> and X ticks up by +1, so...

117/15=6.882blah, ->+7 ->124/16=6.8888...

And so on. I'm guessing b is an asymptote of 7. I've hand-iterated this out to 37, and we're now at 6.9-some-odd, but the rate of change is slowing down, which makes me think it's an asymptote of 7 (meaning it'll always effectively just be 7)... buuuuuu~uuuut I can't be sure and I can't think of an easy way to check off the top of my head. Any takers?

(For the record, I'm not just interested in this one number b - I'm interested in seeing if that formula will function for several different varieties of N and c, and...

Fires off several fresh cow pies toward Florida.

Watch out, boss, he's speaking in tongues!!

Due to a shortage on flammable bikes Fritzy will instead be using cow pies. Also, requests are now only accepted via email or direct message.

painstakingly shaving every cow so a face mask can be applied.

I'm busy!

Pardon sir, would you prefer a beltie in your wicket?

I've got a shot.

Loads Pa's prize steer.

Fires environmentally friendly bikes on California, adds some cheese.

Takes a swig from the udder and throws a cow at the band.

Tacticslion wrote:

And now, from another thread:

Question of the day: if you could *BOOP!* replace a bad guy with yourself, from a video game, a book, a play, an RPG, a computer game, a television series, or a movie (or different ones from each), who would it be, why, and how would that impact the narrative (if any)?

You keep your favorite features of yourself and/or them while retaining the full knowledge, skills, powers, and abilities of you both; for example, you could, if you so desired, seemlessly replace them with yourself and just take over their organization with no one the wiser - or whatever); "you" are the personality in charge, and though you have free access to their memories, "you" (the person answering) are the "real" person. You retain your meta-information about the whatever it is.

... this is late enough that it'll be tomorrow's question, too... XD

Cardinal Richelieu.

Because a) I'd have my own Guards, and b), I'd get to be played by Peter Capaldi on teevee.

This would have interesting results, in that a rather stupid English (Protestant) Atheist would be at once head of the Catholic Church in France and in charge of that country's foreign policy, but more probably cannot be said on FaWtL, even though the flaming bicycle won't be invented for another 300 years or so. Maybe there's a flaming horse instead.

Eh, close enough.

Loads Myrtle into a catapult, readies the oil.

Horse and livestock were too long, alas. Also, it's technically not religious if no one knows who he is/was besides a future or past role of Martin Freeman or Benedict Cumberbatch.