Print

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

[lcy03406]

And it would be perfect if the bronze colossus Zurko Crazestand the Inferno of Stabbing is stabbing with Pastmen the naked mole dog bone battle axe.

[Pvt. Pirate]

the image objects are determined the very moment you look at them, so they can of course contain images of events that happened after the finishing of the creation of the object.

[Quietust]

the image objects are determined the very moment you look at them, so they can of course contain images of events that happened after the finishing of the creation of the object.

That's nothing special - it's been possible to have self-referential artifacts for a very long time (at least since 0.28.181.40d - see Planepacked) because the artifact's art images were presumably generated immediately after recording the historical event of the artifact's creation.

What's really special is when you have one artifact that bears of an image of an artifact that was created after it, which you can only do by deliberately not looking at the first artifact until after the second one is created (and hoping you get lucky).

[Mort Stroodle]

the image objects are determined the very moment you look at them, so they can of course contain images of events that happened after the finishing of the creation of the object.

What about engravings, which show a Sprite before you closely examine them?

[Starver]

The image of the item upon the item is going to be a given proportion smaller than the item itself. Upon that image, the image of the image upon the image of the item is thus proportionally smaller (and, by area, a square of the fraction smaller, or even less if it isn't a head on view of the item w.r.t. the image placed upon it). The image of the image of the image upon the image of the image of the item is further less extensive.

As proven by the Elven Unphilosopher, Seno, this paradox seems to produce an infinite job, but yet does actually finish in finite time.

[Grand Sage]

So, much like the turtle from "the fault in our stars"?

[Grand Sage]

Damn it Starver, I finally realised what the problem with your comment was!

Your assuming that the time it takes to create an image is an asymptote to 0. That is, that the time it takes to make an image approaches 0 as the amount of pictures infinite.

Now, if that was true, you would be right, and there would be a finite, calculatable amount of time to complete an infinite amount of images. However, since it is probably not an asymtote to 0, but something larger than 0, you could calculate the amount of time to "infinite", thus reaching the (unimpressive) conclusion that it takes an infinte amount of time to make an infinite amount of images.

In addition to the nerdiness of this post, please disregard the fact that this took me 1 and 1/2 months and that i just spend half an hour looking for this thread...

[askovdk]

   But the quality of each sub-image do decrease, so it's (of cause) not a infinite amount of 1-1 reproductions.