Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sus]

You also functionally cannot kill all the clowns, since there are populations in the millions of each species of clown, and they come trickling in 2 or so at a time.

Do they reproduce?

Because otherwise, it's just a matter of patience... :3

Edit: I guess it's not doable after all.

Actually, there's an infinite number of them, according to the population export.  I imagine this means it's literally impossible to make them extinct, even with ten-thousand years of killing.  Here's a sample from one of my worlds:

[wierd]

Prior to the df2012 release, I sat down with runesmith and "nuked" demons for several hours to see if they would stop appearing. They don't.

My best guess is that they spawn in the HFS similarly to wild creature populations in cavern layers and surface layers.  The only way to get the hfs to stop would be to get the game confused about the layer designation if that is the case. My guess is that they use a variant of the vermin spawnning code, since vermin ignore the fact that they are spawning inside structures, whereas wild creature pops don't. This would allow clowns to spawn inside the clowncar.

More entertaining would be to create a highly deadly contact poison/disease for all types of clown, and have the clowns catch it from dead clown corpses that pile up in the breach.  The endless torrent of clowns pouring out would expire quickly from say... rotting brains.

I expect the body count for the clowns would be quite high.

Another approach would be "perpetual isolation" of the clowns.

I noticed that only a fixed number of clowns spawn in the hfs at any given time, only being replaced upon termination.  Successful containment of the clowns without termination should halt further generation of clowns inside the clowncar.

[Kogut]

I noticed that only a fixed number of clowns spawn in the hfs at any given time, only being replaced upon termination.  Successful containment of the clowns without termination should halt further generation of clowns inside the clowncar.

What will kill your FPS via bug #1340: Walling off HFS kills FPS ( http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=106481.0 )

[miauw62]

Must be new here. People have colonized HFS numerous times now. I think someone setup a restaurant there a bit ago even.

A strawberry farm, bees, a lakeside resort and the name SWORDTHUNDERS in adamantine, as well as chucking graffiti everywhere. And then flooding it with magma. And then reclaiming it.

I'm pretty sure most of that graffiti was Girlinhat attacking the slade with her "ass" if the original threads disscusion it to trust (most likely it is not).

I would have made a perverted joke on that if girlinhat wasnt a respected member of our insanityville community.

[Loud Whispers]

Wrong, if the theory of infinity are correct then 0.999 will never end and somewhere to make it one, there will need to be added to it that extra 0.0'1` to finish it off, but that is impossible seeing as it is neverending and infinity will keep it that way, no matter what is added to it it will never be exactly 1.

Cut a sausage in half. Round it up, now you have two sausages.

Half-true.

0.5 can be approximated either way, 0 or 1.

So you have no sausage.

[SRD]

rounding is for the weak anyway.

[hjd_uk]

0.5 rounds to 1 ( commonly you round up) 0.49~ rounds down to 0.

0.9~ is approx 1 and 1- 0.9~ is approx 0.

1 / 0 = Infinity.

therfore

infinity x 0 = 1

[SRD]

0.9'- 1
= -0.1'
= infinity
Infinity is a negative. Always will be.

[KodKod]

Maths isn't an exact science, guys.

[Blizzlord]

HFS thread --> Math discussion over if 0.9' = 1 or not.
Bay12 in a nutshell.

[wyldmage]

0.5 rounds to 1 ( commonly you round up) 0.49~ rounds down to 0.

0.9~ is approx 1 and 1- 0.9~ is approx 0.

1 / 0 = Infinity.

therfore

infinity x 0 = 1

1 / 0 is undefined, not infinity.
anything times 0 is 0.

I realize that the 1 / 0 = infinity has been bounced around several times, but it still isn't true.  1 divided by something with a limit approaching zero is infinity.  But the moment the divisor reaches zero, then the solution is undefined.

[slothen]

Lol I remember Kohaku's thread, "the stray puppy kicks the Pterasaur Fiend in the lower body and the severed part sails off in a bloody arc!"

Maths isn't an exact science, guys.

elementary stuff like this is.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

x= 0.99'
so 10x = 9.99'
subtract the top equation from the bottom
10x - x = 9.99' - 0.99'
9x = 9.00' = 9
x = 1

therefore .99' = 1, and there is no such number as "zero point infinity zeros and then a 1 at the end"

Pfft, the idea of 'infinity' is flawed anyway.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Think about it, divide 1 by 3
you get 0.33'
times that by 3 (reversing the last process)
you get 0.99'
Although instead if you use fractions
you get 1/3 and then 1 again.

So, would you rather use fractions? An old and wise thing, or the idea of Infinity, something that is clearly flawed.

They're two forms of the same number, a rational number.  Calling a repeating decimal "infinity" is kind of silly, as any repeating decimal is a rational number and therefore a fraction.  Don't even get me started on rounding and dividing by zero.

[Blizzlord]

Lol I remember Kohaku's thread, "the stray puppy kicks the Pterasaur Fiend in the lower body and the severed part sails off in a bloody arc!"

Maths isn't an exact science, guys.

elementary stuff like this is.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

x= 0.99'
so 10x = 9.99'
subtract the top equation from the bottom
10x - x = 9.99' - 0.99'
9x = 9.00' = 9
x = 1

therefore .99' = 1, and there is no such number as "zero point infinity zeros and then a 1 at the end"

Pfft, the idea of 'infinity' is flawed anyway.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Think about it, divide 1 by 3
you get 0.33'
times that by 3 (reversing the last process)
you get 0.99'
Although instead if you use fractions
you get 1/3 and then 1 again.

So, would you rather use fractions? An old and wise thing, or the idea of Infinity, something that is clearly flawed.

They're two forms of the same number, a rational number.  Calling a repeating decimal "infinity" is kind of silly, as any repeating decimal is a rational number and therefore a fraction.  Don't even get me started on rounding and dividing by zero.

It warms my heart to see that we have so many great mathematicians on this forum.

[Kamamura]

0.9999.... (Q further in the text) is equal to 1 - we can prove it by proving that negation leads to contradiction.

Let's assume that Q != 1. That means a real number P must exist that falls between Q and 1, i.e. Q < P < 1 [1].

We know that P > Q. We will try to construct it's decimal representation, because any real number has a decimal representation (though transcendent real numbers have infinite non-periodic ones). The first digit must be 0 followed by decimal point - 1 and greater would mean P > 1 and -1 and smaller would mean P < Q, which would contradict the original assumption [1]. Lets find the second number.  Clearly, it must be 9 - any other value would mean that P<Q (example - 0.7 < 0.999... ). This will be our first induction step [I1].

Then we will show that for n-th (n is a natural number) digit in decimal representation of Q, that if this number is 9, the following number must be 9 also, formally:

( d[n] = 9 ) => ( d[n+1] = 9 ) [I2]

Let's have a number S that equals 0.9999....9, and the number of nines past the decimal point is equal to n+1. Clearly, S < P. If our sought number Q have anything else on n+1 th position than 9, it's clear that immediately Q < S, and for every possible combination of the remaining digits in Q's decimal representation, Q will be always smaller than P, which is once again, contradiction, because for any digit on m-th position, where m>n, m-th digit in the representation of Q can never be higher than P's 9.

Now we use mathematical induction using [I1] (first number after decimal point must be 9) and [I2] (the next number must be always 9 too) to prove that our sought number Q must be expressed only by 0.9999...., and therefore is in fact equal to P.

P = Q, but that contradicts P < Q < 1, that means that we have proven by contradiction that no such real number Q that would fall between P and 1 exists. If no such real Q exists, then P must be equal to 1, i.e. 0.9999.... = 1

QED

Note - I don't know if this is entirely correct, I am out of school for some time.

[Kamamura]

I realize that the 1 / 0 = infinity has been bounced around several times, but it still isn't true.  1 divided by something with a limit approaching zero is infinity.  But the moment the divisor reaches zero, then the solution is undefined.

Actually, what you tell is not true either, because only only 1 / x approaching 0 from the right ( x > 0 ) is infinity, because lim( x < 0 ) 1/x is negative infinity.