pacing of plot
Brandon Van Every
Anyone want to share any words of wisdom about the pacing of a plot? I've
come up with a few principles, culled from my last week's research into
RPGs, LARPs, IF, and a particularly bad couple of e-mail games with an
author who shall remain nameless. Oh, except that his web page looks cool,
check it out at http://www.natcom.org/if/Interactive/game.htm . Maybe I
just had a bad experience with him, but either he's really good with a
different kind of player than myself, or else he's inept. I don't usually
trash people but he showed me a really bad boring time as a player in live
e-mail, despite what his web page purported, so I figure he gets what he
deserves.
Some principles:
1) To manipulate a player in a game, you must offer them SOMETHING THEY
WANT. I don't mean an arbitrary goal within the game, I mean the human
being sitting at the computer has to want to keep playing for some reason.
You have to do something that sucks them in, that works off their
psychology. In an e-mail game you can even find out what the player wants
on-the-fly, it's an added advantage.
2) The action has gotta move along. Turns spent moving from room to room,
particularly mostly empty rooms, don't cut it in traditional IF. At least
not IMHO. The longer you bore your players, the more likely they are to put
the game down and find something else to do. Disbelief is no longer
suspended. Every time someone has to put down and pick up the game again,
they have to exit and re-enter that state of suspended disbelief.
Eventually they will no longer make the transition and they'll quit playing.
In the worst case, they'll tell all their friends what a lousy game it was,
and you won't get any money/prestige/whatever.
Ok maybe that's not much in the way of principles. I could be pretty
theoretically explicit about the size of paragraphs in relation to a stream
of e-mail over time, but this is more an issue of online RPG than IF. Many
times though, I've seen the assumption in IF that the player is a seasoned
hardcore IF player, i.e. willing to tromp through many sparsely described
rooms, and willing to wade through micro-incremental lock-and-key puzzles
because they find that "fun" in and of itself.
Personally, I'd like to see a very simple acid test applied to lock-and-key
puzzles. Does it advance the story? Does it *significantly* advance the
story? Does it even *tell* a story? Or is it a gratuitous intellectual
exercise, completely tangential to the story, arbitrarily grafted into an IF
world so that the player would have "something to do?" If more people would
just throw out the puzzles that aren't telling a story, I think our stories
in IF would be greatly improved.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
Weird Beard
>a particularly bad couple of e-mail games with an
>author who shall remain nameless. Oh, except that his web page looks cool,
>check it out at http://www.natcom.org/if/Interactive/game.htm . Maybe I
>just had a bad experience with him, but either he's really good with a
>different kind of player than myself, or else he's inept
LOL Must not have been just you! I got an "object not found" message.
>
>Some principles:
>
>1) To manipulate a player in a game, you must offer them SOMETHING THEY
>WANT
I call this the "call it a day" problem. Namely, if the story was really
happening I'd either have to *want* to continue or be unable to discontinue.
Otherwise my character could just decide to call it a day and go home. The
first 3 Zorks are like this (actually, my taste in Zorks is probably
completely opposite the norm here. Except for Return to Zork. Yecch!!) as is
Adventure.
>2) The action has gotta move along. Turns spent moving from room to room,
>particularly mostly empty rooms, don't cut it in traditional IF.
You mean you don't *like* a maze of twisty passeges, all alike?! (I'm being
sarcastic. EVERYONE hates them. If anyone is stuck in Zork tell me and I'll
show you were to find an on-line map)
>Personally, I'd like to see a very simple acid test applied to lock-and-key
>puzzles. Does it advance the story? Does it *significantly* advance the
>story? Does it even *tell* a story? Or is it a gratuitous intellectual
>exercise, completely tangential to the story, arbitrarily grafted into an
IF
>world so that the player would have "something to do?" If more people
would
>just throw out the puzzles that aren't telling a story, I think our stories
>in IF would be greatly improved.
Well, one valid reason that many people mention for locks and puzzles is to
make sure you get to particular plot element in the right order. I'd say
that you should judge each one on a puzzle by puzzle basis. I think that
Monkey Island 1 & 3 exceed well at this. In fact, *every* MI game has a
section where you can work on multiple puzzles at once so you don't get
completely brick-wall stuck (OK, I *know* that's graphical IF, but I still
thinks it's close to what he wants).
Also, I like stories that are still interesting if (when <g>) I have to
consult a walkthrough. Either that means it has to be very story intensive
or some smegging good puzzles.
Brandon Van Every
Weird Beard wrote in message
<6meugd$8tqi$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>LOL Must not have been just you! I got an "object not found" message.
Apparently the author has changed the address of the webpage in reaction to
my posting. Whatever....
>I call this the "call it a day" problem. Namely, if the story was really
>happening I'd either have to *want* to continue or be unable to
discontinue.
>Otherwise my character could just decide to call it a day and go home.
I agree, I called it a day twice. That's enough. In fairness, we had very
different perspectives on how time was unfolding. The other players were
using it as a diversion from their (possibly corporate) jobs, i.e. goofing
off to some small degree. I'm self-employed and currently spending all my
time researching story plotting devices. So although I was doing real work
(and some laundry), I think my perspective was more like that of someone
who's off work and wants to have something genuinely entertaining happen.
And apparently other people were genuinely entertained... but in hindsight,
it may have been at my expense.
>You mean you don't *like* a maze of twisty passeges, all alike?! (I'm being
>sarcastic. EVERYONE hates them. If anyone is stuck in Zork tell me and I'll
>show you were to find an on-line map)
I also don't like empty room problems, which interestingly, if you spend
enough time in them, have much the same effect.
>Well, one valid reason that many people mention for locks and puzzles is to
>make sure you get to particular plot element in the right order. I'd say
>that you should judge each one on a puzzle by puzzle basis.
How do you feel about puzzles that say you're supposed to get A, but to get
A you need to get B, and WHOOPS we're not going to let you get B, we're
going to require you to do C, oh and by the way you'll have to do D before
you can even get going with C? Reminds me of the babel fish problem in
Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, only way way worse. At least HGG was
whimsically entertaining, not pedestrian. Aside from such "up front
transitive" puzzles having a very irritating "sorry Bzzzt try again"
quality, it *really* sucks if you've focused the player's attention on A as
the point at which all the action is really supposed to start. If you've
read my transcript, so it went with the door to Anglagard, the big guy
blocking the door, the missing Jack of Spades in the deck of cards, and the
old geezer sending me out for a ham sandwich. Two days to be herded farther
and farther away from the action.
Oh yeah, add bonus points for a barmaid who laughs at you. Reminds me of
that idiot narrator in 11th Hour that derides you for being unable to solve
puzzles, and we all know what a bestseller *that* thing was. I'm still
trying to find someone to pawn that eyesore off on. Actually I'm not that
cruel, I think it's headed for the dumpster even as I write this. I've
destroyed far better games with a quick snap of the CD-ROMs, why should this
one live? [snap, snap, snap, snap] Geez, I'm getting to be a real expert
at the quality of different CD-ROM materials!
>Also, I like stories that are still interesting if (when <g>) I have to
>consult a walkthrough. Either that means it has to be very story intensive
>or some smegging good puzzles.
Yeah pity the walkthrough was being created by someone else's flatulent
mind. My walkthrough would have been: throw red cloth in the air to
distract, give my best kick to the big guy's shin, run like hell, run all
over the bar knocking over everything as he's chasing me so as to get the
guy breathing heavy, run up the stairs, sucker him into ramming himself into
the door to Anglagard, run down the stairs again, run up and down the stairs
ad nauseum, until he keels over and can't run anymore. I may not have had
the martial strength to take him on, but since I was playing *me*, I know
for fact that in terms of aerobic fitness, I could run circles around any
big lumbering guy.
All a tip of the hat to Zork II's dragon puzzle. :-)
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
Weird Beard
Brandon Van Every wrote in message <6mfe0i$4h8$1...@guysmiley.blarg.net>...
>How do you feel about puzzles that say you're supposed to get A, but to get
>A you need to get B, and WHOOPS we're not going to let you get B, we're
>going to require you to do C, oh and by the way you'll have to do D before
>you can even get going with C? Reminds me of the babel fish problem in
>Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, only way way worse. At least HGG was
>whimsically entertaining, not pedestrian
Well, actually all the collector's editions had online hints, and I can
never resist. In fairness, though I'd like to point out two things:
1. The game points out *exactly* why you got stuck instead of some vague
"That doesn't work" comment.
2. You have the ability to bring every takeable object with you, unlike say,
uhhh...Trinity (see the "Was Trinity Unfair" thread in rec.games.int-fiction
if you don't understand this) so there's no excuse for not having the right
objects.
My *personal* choice for most annoying puzzle would have to be anything from
Spellbreaker, particularily the fake cubes. If *anyone* can tell me how to
solve that without using the InvisiClues I'll be amazed and name my first
game after you.
Adam Cadre
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> Apparently the author has changed the address of the webpage in reaction to
> my posting. Whatever....
Yes, and apparently the sun rose this morning in reaction to you waking up.
Having been there when Mike Berlyn found out that cascademountain.com was
taken, I can attest that the change had absolutely nothing to do with
you. On the other hand, you can probably snag egocentric.com if you act
fast.
-----
Adam Cadre, Anaheim, CA
http://www.retina.net/~grignr
Weird Beard
Adam Cadre wrote in message ...
>On the other hand, you can probably snag egocentric.com if you act fast.
1. The universe is infinate.
2. Any point in an infinate area is equally distant from the outer
boundaries
3. I live in this universe
4. I am equally distant from the outer boundries
5. CENTER n. A point or place that is equally distant from the sides or
outer boundaries of something; the middle
6. I am the center of the universe
Weird Beard
weird...@prodigy.net
Jeff Hatch
Weird Beard wrote:
> My *personal* choice for most annoying puzzle would have to be anything from
> Spellbreaker, particularily the fake cubes. If *anyone* can tell me how to
> solve that without using the InvisiClues I'll be amazed and name my first
> game after you.
[Possible spoilers]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\/
It wasn't _that_ hard. If you'd solved the puzzle before, you would eventually
recognize another pitiful attempt to cram a standard puzzle into the plot of a
story where it won't logically fit.
Yes, Piers Anthony used this puzzle. _With a Tangled Skein_ in the
_Incarnations_ series. It was an incredibly illogical and ill-fitting scene,
even worse than Piers Anthony's standard fare. I enjoyed the puzzle, though --
I put down the book and spent a half-hour solving all possible permutations of
the weighings. Actually, while driving to school a few months later, I
calculated and proved the correct formula for the maximum number of objects
which can be distinguished in "n" weighings.
I liked Spellbreaker, but I'm a fanatical mathematician. Don't name your game
after me. :-)
-Rúmil
Stu042
In article <6mfe0i$4h8$1...@guysmiley.blarg.net>, "Brandon Van Every"
<vane...@blarg.net> writes:
>Oh yeah, add bonus points for a barmaid who laughs at you. Reminds me of
>that idiot narrator in 11th Hour that derides you for being unable to solve
>puzzles, and we all know what a bestseller *that* thing was. I'm still
>trying to find someone to pawn that eyesore off on. Actually I'm not that
>cruel, I think it's headed for the dumpster even as I write this.
No, no, send it this way; I need some coasters and I'm out of AOL CDs...
~~stu
Stephen Robert Norris
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.98062...@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu>,
Adam Cadre <ad...@acpub.duke.edu> intoned:
> Brandon Van Every wrote:
>> Apparently the author has changed the address of the webpage in reaction to
>> my posting. Whatever....
>
> Yes, and apparently the sun rose this morning in reaction to you waking up.
>
> Having been there when Mike Berlyn found out that cascademountain.com was
> taken, I can attest that the change had absolutely nothing to do with
> fast.
Isn't Brandon talking about the natcom.org page? I can't see any
connection to cascademountain.com at all in the posts that are at my
server, anyway. Have I missed something vital?
Stephen
Bryant Berggren (Vox Ludator)
On Sat, 20 Jun 1998 18:14:08 -0000, "Weird Beard"
<WEIRD...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Adam Cadre wrote in message ...
Your first postulate is wrong. The universe is finite; it's just damn
big. :] IIRC, It also curves, so that if you travel in a fixed
direction for an indefinite period of time, you'll eventually return
to your starting point.
--
Weird Beard
Bryant Berggren (Vox Ludator) wrote in message
<358cc710...@news.theramp.net>...
What's on the other side then? ;)
Weird Beard
Weird Beard wrote in message
<6mjtqt$2odc$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>Bryant Berggren (Vox Ludator) wrote in message
><358cc710...@news.theramp.net>...
>
>What's on the other side then? ;)
>
Also, why should I accept the *theory* of relativity? What's the point in
saying that if you travel long/fast enough you end up at the same place when
nothing ever *can*?
Adam Cadre
Stephen Norris wrote:
> Isn't Brandon talking about the natcom.org page? I can't see any
> connection to cascademountain.com at all in the posts that are at my
> server, anyway. Have I missed something vital?
Eeeagh! Got my threads confused. See, this is what happens when you post
late at night in a foul mood, and are an idiot. I do sincerely apologize
to Brandon. Sorry about that.
Weird Beard
Adam Cadre wrote in message ...
>Eeeagh! Got my threads confused. See, this is what happens when you post
>late at night in a foul mood, and are an idiot. I do sincerely apologize
>to Brandon. Sorry about that.
Yeah, for a while I was thinking you were just planting flame bait.
So, uhh, you mean I proved that I am the center of the universe for nothing?
:(
Weird Beard
weird...@prodigy.net
Jonadab
Bryant Berggren
> Weird Beard wrote
> >1. The universe is infinate.
>
> Your first postulate is wrong. The universe is finite; it's just damn
> big. :] IIRC, It also curves, so that if you travel in a fixed
> direction for an indefinite period of time, you'll eventually return
> to your starting point.
(Everything I write is my opinion, or I wouldn't write it.)
----------------
One of the many uses for peanut butter:
88. Knock on it for good luck if there is no wood around.
(Need more uses? see http://members.kconline.com/kerr/pb.htm)
Send replies to username@service, where username is jonadab
and service is zerospam.com
Visit Jonadab's Domain: http://www.bright.net/~jonadab/
Brandon Van Every
Stephen Robert Norris wrote in message <6mhkmc$79g$1...@crux.cs.usyd.edu.au>...
>In article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.98062...@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu>,
> Adam Cadre <ad...@acpub.duke.edu> intoned:
>
>Isn't Brandon talking about the natcom.org page? I can't see any
>connection to cascademountain.com at all in the posts that are at my
>server, anyway. Have I missed something vital?
Whatever you've missed, I have too. I think the other poster was confused.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
Den of Iniquity
On Sat, 20 Jun 1998, Weird Beard wrote:
>1. The universe is infinate.
>2. Any point in an infinate area is equally distant from the outer
>boundaries
>3. I live in this universe
>4. I am equally distant from the outer boundries
>5. CENTER n. A point or place that is equally distant from the sides or
>outer boundaries of something; the middle
>6. I am the center of the universe
Even if point 1 holds (spelling mistake notwithstanding), point 2 falls
down because an infinite space has no outer boundaries and even if it did,
your definition of 'CENTER' (point 5; North American spelling
notwithstanding) is highly dubious, ideally referencing only
homogenous hyperspherical (and therefore finite) 'somethings'.
Nice try, all the same. :L)
Hey, is that a piece of fairy cake?
--
Den
Weird Beard
Den of Iniquity wrote in message ...
Since there aren't any outer boundaries, every spot in the universe *is* the
same distance to them (IE zero)
Also, I got my definition for center verbatim from the American Heritage
College Dictionary, 3rd ed.
>
>Nice try, all the same. :L)
>
>Hey, is that a piece of fairy cake?
Close, but my main idea was from a book which attempted to debunk common
theories (in this case, that the Earth isn't the center of the Universe)
OFDown
>Since there aren't any outer boundaries, every spot in the universe *is* the
>same distance to them (IE zero)
Actually, saying that the distance is zero implies that boundries on the
universe do exist. Since they don't you might as well say every point in the
universe is infinately distant from the boundries, and since infinity does not
nescesarily equal infinity, there is not a center to the universe.
Trig
--
"This may look like a slab of liver, but really, it's an external brain pack!"
Den of Iniquity
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Weird Beard wrote:
>Den of Iniquity wrote in message ...
>Since there aren't any outer boundaries, every spot in the universe *is* the
>same distance to them (IE zero)
Er... Um... Hang on while I check that with my one-ended ruler...
>Also, I got my definition for center verbatim from the American Heritage
>College Dictionary, 3rd ed.
How peculiar. The number of shapes whose centres can be defined in terms
of points which lie equidistant from all edges is rather limited. It's
very unmathematical. Each to *** own, I suppose. I've just checked the
Scribner-Bantam and another concise English dictionary and both state
something similar but specify that this is only for circles and spheres.
(*** is a genderless genitive singular pronoun of your choice.)
>Close, but my main idea was from a book which attempted to debunk common
>theories (in this case, that the Earth isn't the center of the Universe)
In an infinite space, centre is a totally subjective concept. In a
toroidal finite wrap-around universe that someone else brought up (another
popular universe theory), centre is also a totally subjective concept. So
I actually agree with you, though not for entirely the same reasons.
--
Den
Gunther Schmidl
[...]
>Each to *** own, I suppose.
>(*** is a genderless genitive singular pronoun of your choice.)
Howsabout "Their"?
--
+------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Gunther Schmidl | "I couldn't help it. I can resist everything |
| Ferd.-Markl-Str. 39/16 | except temptation" -- Oscar Wilde |
| A-4040 LINZ +----------------------------------------------+
| Tel: 0732 25 28 57 | http://gschmidl.home.ml.org - new & improved |
+------------------------+---+------------------------------------------+
| sothoth (at) usa (dot) net | please remove the "xxx." before replying |
+----------------------------+------------------------------------------+
Alan Trewartha
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95L.98062...@ebor.york.ac.uk>,
Den of Iniquity <URL:mailto:dms...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
> In an infinite space, centre is a totally subjective concept. In a
> toroidal finite wrap-around universe that someone else brought up (another
> popular universe theory), centre is also a totally subjective concept. So
> I actually agree with you, though not for entirely the same reasons.
Yeah you do. Anyway, plot pacing is >klang<
help
caught
in
a
zero
-
dimensioanl
thread
.
can't
move
must
reach
lever
.
.
.
Jonadab
Weird Beard wrote
>
> Close, but my main idea was from a book which attempted to debunk common
> theories (in this case, that the Earth isn't the center of the Universe)
Ah. It is mathematically *simpler* to view Sol as the center of the solar
system, for example, but since space itself has no placement markers the
only criteria for determining motion are other (moving) objects. So the
earth is actually as close to being the center of the universe as any other
cellestial body, in terms of physics.
Not that it matters.
Someone once claimed that the Bible claimed the Earth was the physical
center of the universe, but I can't seem to find it (and I have no shortage
of Bible-study tools), so I'm pretty sure it was a contrived argument.
----------------
One of the many uses for peanut butter:
76. Donate massive amounts of it the the American Diabetes Association.
Matthew T. Russotto
In article <358fc...@alijku02.edvz.uni-linz.ac.at>,
Gunther Schmidl <sot...@xxx.usa.net> wrote:
}[...]
}>Each to *** own, I suppose.
}[...]
}>(*** is a genderless genitive singular pronoun of your choice.)
}
}Howsabout "Their"?
"Their" is not singular.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Kjetil Aavik
The Universe - some information to help you live in it.
<snip>
4 POPULATION: None.
It is known that there are an infinite number of
worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount
of space for them to be in. However, not every one
of them is inhabitated. Therefore, there must be a
finite number of inhabitated worlds. Any finite number
divided by infinity is as close to nothing as makes
no odds, so the average population of the whole
Universe can be said to be zero. From this it
follows that the population of the whole Universe
is alos zero, and that any people you may meet
from time to time are merely the products of a deranged
imagination.
-from "the restaurant at the end of the Universe",
Douglas Noel Adams
Now that I think about it, it may not be a good idea to quote
a regular, non-interactive book in this group, but then,
DNA wrote IFs too.
OFDown wrote:
>
> >Since there aren't any outer boundaries, every spot in the universe *is* the
> >same distance to them (IE zero)
>
> Actually, saying that the distance is zero implies that boundries on the
> universe do exist. Since they don't you might as well say every point in the
> universe is infinately distant from the boundries, and since infinity does not
> nescesarily equal infinity, there is not a center to the universe.
>
> Trig
>
> --
> "This may look like a slab of liver, but really, it's an external brain pack!"
--
-Kjetil
Kjetil Aavik
>
> In article <358fc...@alijku02.edvz.uni-linz.ac.at>,
> Gunther Schmidl <sot...@xxx.usa.net> wrote:
> }[...]
> }>Each to *** own, I suppose.
> }[...]
> }>(*** is a genderless genitive singular pronoun of your choice.)
> }
> }Howsabout "Their"?
>
> "Their" is not singular.
And it doesn't fit within three spaces.
--
-Kjetil
Brandon Van Every
Kjetil Aavik wrote in message <35A8EB24...@online.no>...
>
>And it doesn't fit within three spaces.
Aw c'mon keep it in the pronoun threads!!!! You had my hopes up.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
OFDown
I have no idea why I feel like being so anal about this, but if I don't bitch
about something, I would probably have work on a game or something.
>It is known that there are an infinite number of
>worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount
>of space for them to be in.
This makes absolutely no sense. I mean, you could fit a zillion (this is an
unqualified estimate) ping pong balls in the ocean but that doesn't mean that
there are a zillion ping pong balls out there.
>Any finite number
>divided by infinity is as close to nothing as makes
>no odds
Division by infinity is undefined in mathematics.
I realize that this whole idea is a joke, but it claims, regardless of intent,
made on faulty logic have always bothered me.
I was once given this problem by someone:
Three guys go to a hotel and ask for a room. The owner of the hotel says that
there is only one room left in the building but that they can share it if they
like. The three men agree and each one pays $10 for his share of the room for
a total of $30.
Well, later that day, the hotel owner feels a little guilty about charging so
much for the room since these guys were forced to share. The owner calls over
a bellhop, takes $5 from the cash drawer, and gives it to the bellhop telling
him to refund this money to the three guests.
On his way over, the bellboy realizes that he cannot evenly divide $5 among 3
people so he pockets $2 and refunds $1 to each of the hotel patrons. Now, in
effect, each man paid $9 for the room for a total of $27. The bellhop kept $2
dollars which comes out to $29 dollars.
What happened to the extra dollar?
It's things like this that make me hate logic problems (and love them).
Erik Max Francis
> You probably know this, but what the hey, for new viewers and all
> that..
...
> Now that I think about it, it may not be a good idea to quote
> a regular, non-interactive book in this group, but then,
> DNA wrote IFs too.
Problem is, he didn't get his maths right. It's a _comedy_, after all.
--
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE / mailto:m...@alcyone.com
Alcyone Systems / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, California, United States / icbm:+37.20.07/-121.53.38
\
I put away my nine, fool / 'cause I'm colorblind.
/ Ice Cube
Brandon Van Every
OFDown wrote in message <199807132046...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>
>>Any finite number
>>divided by infinity is as close to nothing as makes
>>no odds
>
>Division by infinity is undefined in mathematics.
But the limit of a number as it approaches infinity clearly is. Basic
calculus.
>On his way over, the bellboy realizes that he cannot evenly divide $5 among
3
>people so he pockets $2 and refunds $1 to each of the hotel patrons. Now,
in
>effect, each man paid $9 for the room for a total of $27. The bellhop kept
$2
>dollars which comes out to $29 dollars.
>
>What happened to the extra dollar?
The statement that it was "effectively $29 dollars" is flawed. The
difference is subtractive, not additive. $27 - $2 = $25, the actual cost of
the room from the proprietor's standpoint. $9 * 3 = $27, what the three men
paid for. $2 is the profit made by the bellboy.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
GLYPH
> I have no idea why I feel like being so anal about this, but if I don't bitch
> about something, I would probably have work on a game or something.
Heh. I'd probably work on my library hack documentation.
> >It is known that there are an infinite number of
> >worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount
> >of space for them to be in.
>
> This makes absolutely no sense. I mean, you could fit a zillion (this is an
> unqualified estimate) ping pong balls in the ocean but that doesn't mean that
> there are a zillion ping pong balls out there.
Good point.
> >Any finite number
> >divided by infinity is as close to nothing as makes
> >no odds
>
> Division by infinity is undefined in mathematics.
It's only undefined in the usual academia incomplete crap mathematics.
It's quite easy to construct a meaningful mathematical system in which
infinities are quantifiable, and all functions of them are defined. In
such a system, the word "infinite" refers to a whole class of numbers,
since there is more than one kind of infinity. Differential Calculus gets
close to this idea, but is usually taught by people still thinking
"inside the box".
The visible part of a finite number divided by an infinite number looks
essentially like 0, but it's not 0.
> I realize that this whole idea is a joke, but it claims, regardless of intent,
> made on faulty logic have always bothered me.
>
> I was once given this problem by someone:
[classic logic problem snipped]
The major flaw in Douglas Adams' logic is that it's tricky to take
averages over infinite quantities, and he botched it. But hey, it's a
joke!
- GLYPH
E-Mail <y8...@unb.ca>
or <graham...@hotmail.com>
------------------
Shameless plug for my web page:
<http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/9315>
Giles Boutel
OFDown <ofd...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199807132046...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> I was once given this problem by someone:
> Three guys go to a hotel and ask for a room. The owner of the hotel says
that
> there is only one room left in the building but that they can share it if
they
> like. The three men agree and each one pays $10 for his share of the
room for
> a total of $30.
>
> Well, later that day, the hotel owner feels a little guilty about
charging so
> much for the room since these guys were forced to share. The owner calls
over
> a bellhop, takes $5 from the cash drawer, and gives it to the bellhop
telling
> him to refund this money to the three guests.
>
> On his way over, the bellboy realizes that he cannot evenly divide $5
among 3
> people so he pockets $2 and refunds $1 to each of the hotel patrons.
Now, in
> effect, each man paid $9 for the room for a total of $27. The bellhop
kept $2
> dollars which comes out to $29 dollars.
>
> What happened to the extra dollar?
Nothing. The three men ended up paying $27 ($30 - $3) dollars for the room,
$2 of which ended up in the bellhop's pocket leaving $25 in the till
($27-$2 = $25). You added what the bellhop kept to the $27 instead of
taking it out.
-Giles
Andy Scarfe
<pba...@online.no> writes
> The Universe - some information to help you live in it.
><snip>
> 4 POPULATION: None.
>
> worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount
> of them is inhabitated. Therefore, there must be a
> divided by infinity is as close to nothing as makes
> Universe can be said to be zero. From this it
> follows that the population of the whole Universe
> is alos zero, and that any people you may meet
> from time to time are merely the products of a deranged
> imagination.
>
> -from "the restaurant at the end of the Universe",
> Douglas Noel Adams
A few people have posted about the divide by infinity bit in the
above to, to my mind, the mathematical error is in claiming that
infinity minus a (real) number is finite. In other words, if there are
an infinite number of worlds and not all of them are populated there are
still an infinite number of populated worlds.
Andy
Andy Scarfe E-mail: an...@bridgest.demon.co.uk
"I saw two shooting stars last night, I wished on them but they were only
satellites. It's wrong to wish on space hardware" Billy Bragg
Matthew T. Russotto
There's LOTS of errors, but dividing by infinity isn't one of them.
It's not known that there's an infinite amount of space...
OK, accept for the moment that there's an infinite amount of space --
this does not imply an infinite number of worlds. Most of the space
can be empty.
OK, given an infinite number of worlds, some uninhabited -- the error
you found comes into play here.
OK, assume a finite number of inhabited worlds, each with finite
population. The average population of the universe is then zero -- no
error there. But, this does not imply that the population of the
universe is zero, because we've assumed an infinite number of worlds.
Zero times infinity is indeterminate.