On a scale from 1 to 10 how awesome is Worms Armageddon. My vote would have to be the full 10 because of it's gameplay, hardness, and kick-ass weapons.

I think your vote demographic is biased. ;)

On a scale from 1 to 10 how awesome is Worms Armageddon. My vote would have to be the full 10 because of it's gameplay, hardness, and kick-ass weapons.
psh, I would say its overated...
now before you all jump on me and tear me apart, I was just trying to pull a joke. I am sorry if my words above offended anyone, that was not intended in anyway. I do greatly enjoy worms armageddon. My comment earlier was a joke. It was intended to be funny and to use sarcasm for humorous reasons. Please do not sue me :)

psh, I would say its overated...
now before you all jump on me and tear me apart, I was just trying to pull a joke. I am sorry if my words above offended anyone, that was not intended in anyway. I do greatly enjoy worms armageddon. My comment earlier was a joke. It was intended to be funny and to use sarcasm for humorous reasons. Please do not sue me :)

you make kittens cry

I'd have to give it a 9 because it is a game that can be beaten within a month.

I'd have to give it a 9 because it is a game that can be beaten within a month.

I think you'll find most games can be beaten within a month.:rolleyes:

10 out of 10 for me. 1337 baby, 1337!

you make kittens cry

I think I like you.:)

I'd have to give it a 9 because it is a game that can be beaten within a month.

Well it's been 72 months and I'm still waiting

I don't think that Grand Turismo 4 could be beaten in a month :p

I don't think that Grand Turismo 4 could be beaten in a month :p

most games

Ding ding ding.:p

And I've never even heard of Grand Turismo 4. Or any other Grand Turismo for that matter.

6 / 10

Ding ding ding.:p

And I've never even heard of Grand Turismo 4. Or any other Grand Turismo for that matter.

Racing game. Not F1, but normal(ish) cars

6 / 10

Oh don't think I didn't see that. http://www.nanacide.com/images/Emoticons/colbert.gif

Oh don't think I didn't see that. http://www.nanacide.com/images/Emoticons/colbert.gif

I made a typo the first time. Pressed 7 instead of 6.

Racing game. Not F1, but normal(ish) carsYou must be thinking of "Gran Turismo". ;D

I'll be givin it a 10/10. Although I could wish for a little more interest by the developers for it's current state. I think the game has for a while now been at a point where a fan base could support it's continuation if they were given the chance.

You must be thinking of "Gran Turismo". ;D

Yeah, well...I didn't make the typo :p

Worms Armageddon is my 2nd favorite game of all time. Currently worms 2 is my favorite and quake is third ;) But because of how long it lasts I would give it a 9.5, or a 10 if you include all of the new patches from deadcode.

I'd give it a 0 with a 1 in front of it. (that's a 10, evildoer. :p )

11/10 :) boys

Scales of 1-10 give me too many choices. I prefer a scale of 0-1, where I would give WA a 1/1.

Worms Armageddon is my 2nd favorite game of all time. Currently worms 2 is my favorite and quake is third ;) But because of how long it lasts I would give it a 9.5, or a 10 if you include all of the new patches from deadcode.

I'm curious to hear why you prefer Worms 2 over Worms Armageddon.

Scales of 1-10 give me too many choices. I prefer a scale of 0-1, where I would give WA a 1/1.You are brilliant. :)

I'm curious to hear why you prefer Worms 2 over Worms Armageddon.
Well I pefer the soundtrack for worms 2 and I like the frontend alot. Its just alot easier to customize your different options I think with worms 2. I guess its just the whole feel of the game. Worms Armageddon is better single player I would say, but worms 2 I ususally use if I am going to have a quick game with friends.

Scales of 1-10 give me too many choices. I prefer a scale of 0-1, where I would give WA a 1/1.
A statistician would argue that this could be anything from 50% upwards, whereas 10/10 has to be 95% upwards.

I give it infinite/infinite.

10/10 has to be 95% upwards.


You just broke all my math thinking.
I'd have gone for 90%, but now I feel screwed. Did you consider half points as well ?

95% rounds up http://www.nanacide.com/images/Emoticons/ssh.gif

1337/1337

Problem solved.

1337/1337

So... 1 then?

So... 1 then?

...

Ignore that people.

You just broke all my math thinking.
I'd have gone for 90%, but now I feel screwed. Did you consider half points as well ?
Nope, 90% would be 9/10, as would anything in the range 85% to 94.99999% (recurring).

The reason i said infinite/infinite is because that can only be 100% :D.

The reason i said infinite/infinite is because that can only be 100% :D.

Well...

http://thecybershadow.net/dump/c5b63b9e9bf5f0582670fb986c2dd0cd/000002BB.png

Nope, 90% would be 9/10, as would anything in the range 85% to 94.99999% (recurring).


Then why does 9/10 have a range size that's the double of the one for 10/10 ?

10/10 = 95% to 104.99999999999% (recurring)

Well...

http://thecybershadow.net/dump/c5b63b9e9bf5f0582670fb986c2dd0cd/000002BB.png

Where did M3ntal's quote come from?

Infinite / Infinite

n / n = 1

n / infinite = something infinitly small (n X 10 ^ -infinity ?)

So erm... where does this leave us?


And what about 0 / 0 ?

Nope, 90% would be 9/10, as would anything in the range 85% to 94.99999% (recurring).

You mean, {x: 85% <= x < 95%}. 94.9 recurring evaluates to 95. (Please don't argue this point.)

Meanwhile, both infinite/infinite and zero/zero are undefined. They have no result, and can only be evaluated as limits. Which aren't relevant here.

Well...

http://thecybershadow.net/dump/c5b63b9e9bf5f0582670fb986c2dd0cd/000002BB.png
Huh? I have no idea what that image is, but it appears to be some kind of computer program. Can you link me to it please? I mistrust the output of any computer program that accepts infinity as an input ;).
Then why does 9/10 have a range size that's the double of the one for 10/10 ?
It doesn't, 10/10 has a range of (using AT's better method of expressing) 95% <= x < 105%
10/10 = 95% to 114.99999999999% (recurring)
114.99999999999% (recurring) would be on the upper range limit of 11/10 ;).
Where did M3ntal's quote come from?

Infinite / Infinite

n / n = 1

n / infinite = something infinitly small (n X 10 ^ -infinity ?)

So erm... where does this leave us?


And what about 0 / 0 ?
You've missed the point completely. n / n = 1, yes. We are talking about n / m, as we don't know that n hasn't been rounded to start with whereas we know that m is precice.
You mean, {x: 85% <= x < 95%}. 94.9 recurring evaluates to 95. (Please don't argue this point.)
Bananas are red. (Please don't argue this point.)
Can you at least explain *why* your statement is true before commanding people to accept it? This is maths, not religion ;).

I appear to have offended some people by my suggestion that infinite out of infinite = 100% without possibility of rounding error. I don't know if i have just broken the laws of physics by suggesting this, but here's my reasoning:

10/10 = 1 +/- 0.05 (that's "plus or minus", don't jump down my throat for trying to divide + by -)

100/100 = 1 +/- 0.005

1000/1000 = 1 +/- 0.0005

Basically, for n/m, the higher the value for m, the more accurate the answer. Surely it follows that n/infinite has perfect accuracy, regardless of whether the result exists or not?

Maybe my view of mathematics is too simplified, as Andrew, whom i trust to know more than i do about it, is telling me that infinity/infinity != 1. I thought that n/n was always 1, regardless of whether n is complex/imaginary/irrational or whatever.

Pending an explanation of why infinite/infinite != 1 (which i'm sure there must be), i'll change my earlier rating of W:A:

I give W:A pi/pi.

Debunk that, f***ers :P.

Where did M3ntal's quote come from?

The post right above mine.

Huh? I have no idea what that image is, but it appears to be some kind of computer program. Can you link me to it please? I mistrust the output of any computer program that accepts infinity as an input ;).
It's Wolfram Research (http://www.wolfram.com/)'s Mathematica (http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/). Got a student's license at an olympiad some time ago.

Maybe my view of mathematics is too simplified, as Andrew, whom i trust to know more than i do about it, is telling me that infinity/infinity != 1. I thought that n/n was always 1, regardless of whether n is complex/imaginary/irrational or whatever.
Here's what Mathematica thinks on the matter:
http://thecybershadow.net/dump/ca8ee3b4e811e8954e55042bffca37ef/000002BE.png

Basically, it's the properties of infinities. What do you get when you add an infinity to an infinity? Two infinities? A bigger infinity? You still get an infinity. Now, if ∞+∞=∞, then you have the expression: ∞+∞-∞=? If you were to assume that since ∞=∞, ∞-∞=0, then that expression depends on the order you evaluate the operands in. (∞+∞)-∞ would be ∞-∞=0, but ∞+(∞-∞) would be ∞+0=∞. It's like that - same goes with multiplication and division.

Pending an explanation of why infinite/infinite != 1 (which i'm sure there must be), i'll change my earlier rating of W:A:

I give W:A pi/pi.

Debunk that, f***ers :P.

Well if the 1st part of that fraction would get warped in some warped space where π happens to crawl closer to 2.....
Yeah, I got that from a crazy sci-fi novel. :P

Edit: regarding the .999(9) thing:

Let n = 0.999999.... (an infinity of 9's follow, anything less than an infinity will leave space between n and 1)
Let m = 1-n
So, now m = 0.00000(an infinity of 0's follow)001 - which is basically 10^(-∞) - which is basically, 1/(10^∞)=1/∞ - which is 0 (see above).
http://thecybershadow.net/dump/7c80bfa126f590b2959f90b597570f7b/000002BF.png
Thus, m=0 => n=1 => 0.999999....=1
QED :P

Basically, I guess that using the n + 0.999999.... ( n ∈ Z ) notation is an incorrect way to specify an open interval ( x < n+1 ) or a limit.

Thanks for the explanations, Cyber. The infinity+infinity thing makes sense to me and does disprove my original assumption.

I see also how 0.000(infinity of 0's)001 evaluates to 1 / infinity, but i still don't understand why that is 0. It appears to me to be the closest you can get to 0 without being 0.

If 1 / infinity = 0, then infinity * 0 = 1. How can anything muliplied by 0 not equal 0? Cyber, could you run something like 7 / infinity in that program of yours please? I reckon it'll come out as 0, meaning that a subsequent rearrangement to infinity * 0 will equal 7. This is also why i think 1 / infinity != 0.

P.S - not being argumentative, just seeking knowledge ;).

::Edit::
I just asked my little sister about it (she's currently going through Oxford's interview process to study maths there) and she explained why 0.99 recurring = 1:

x = 0.99 recurring
10x = 9.99 recurring
10x - x = 9.99 recurring - 0.99 recurring = 9
so 9x = 9
Therefore, x = 1

I see also how 0.000(infinity of 0's)001 evaluates to 1 / infinity, but i still don't understand why that is 0. It appears to me to be the closest you can get to 0 without being 0.

If 1 / infinity = 0, then infinity * 0 = 1. How can anything muliplied by 0 not equal 0? Cyber, could you run something like 7 / infinity in that program of yours please? I reckon it'll come out as 0, meaning that a subsequent rearrangement to infinity * 0 will equal 7. This is also why i think 1 / infinity != 0.

The standard rules of math don't really apply with infinities:
http://thecybershadow.net/dump/dbb265d7061e0f08773533dfe934f14f/000002C0.png
0×∞ is indeterminate because any number (except another infinity or "indeterminate") divided by infinity is zero. It sort of works out :)

(edit) Also, to answer your question... Think of infinity as the direct opposite of 0. If 0 is nothing, then ∞ is everything. 1/∞ is 0, however 1/x where x→∞ (but is still <∞) is as close to 0 as you'll get (which is mathematically expressed by limits).

::Edit::
I just asked my little sister about it (she's currently going through Oxford's interview process to study maths there) and she explained why 0.99 recurring = 1:

x = 0.99 recurring
10x = 9.99 recurring
10x - x = 9.99 recurring - 0.99 recurring = 9
so 9x = 9
Therefore, x = 1

Nice explanation.

Bananas are red. (Please don't argue this point.)
Can you at least explain *why* your statement is true before commanding people to accept it? This is maths, not religion ;)

It's the sum of an infinite geometric series. Look at one third: That's 0.3 recurring. Three threes are nine, so three thirds is 0.9 recurring, and we all know three thirds are one. So 0.9 recurring is one. There are hundreds of other proofs out there, if you care to look, as well as about a terabyte of inane bickering on Wikipedia and Something Awful about it. But the bottom line is that it is because that is what mathematicians define it as.

Oh, and you've approached infinite/infinite by using the limit of n/n as n approaches infinity. If you take the limit of n/infinity as n approaches infinity then you get the following:

0/inf. = 0
10/inf. = 0
10000/inf=0
therefore inf./inf=0

In this case the limit is 0. And infinity/infinity can appear to be whatever you like if you pick the right limit.

Lastly, the reason naught-point-naught-recurring-one is causing you a problem is because it isn't actually a number. It's just something we can write down, like zero point deckchair or twelve-ty-eleven.

Cheers people, i understand pretty much all of that now :).

114.99999999999% (recurring) would be on the upper range limit of 11/10 .
Oops, yeah, I meant to put 104.9999999999% (recurring), I've edited it now