Print

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

[Reasonableman]

[spoiler]The learning curve is near vertical

*Cough* Sorry, but....
A steep learning curve can't be vertical.


Steep learning curve.


Shallow learning curve.

Actually...

Code: [Select]

e| |
f| |
f| |
o| |
r| |
t| |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 +/________________
       understanding

Okay, well, it's near vertical.

EDIT: Also, I AM TEH ASCIIMASTER

[shadow_archmagi]

DF's learning curve is so steep it does a loop de loop.

[Doppel]

The second example on the first example would be perfect.
It would start of really steep and at the middle point when you finaly start to feel comfortable in understanding the game it gently begins to curve upwards again. Mhuahahahahaha. Ev1L

[Draco18s]

About that learning curve, isn't it the other way around? The second one seems a lot more daunting to get into learning something.

You didn't read what the bottom axis is, did you?  It's effort.  LOW effort -> HIGH knowledge.  God.  Why don't people understand learning curves?  It's not what it would be like to WALK UP IT.

[Draco18s]

Actually...

Code: [Select]

e| |
f| |
f| |
o| |
r| |
t| |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 +/________________
       understanding

Okay, well, it's near vertical.

EDIT: Also, I AM TEH ASCIIMASTER

Unfortunately....effort is not a function of understanding.  y=f(x), x = effort, y=understanding.

[Reasonableman]

Unfortunately....effort is not a function of understanding.  y=f(x), x = effort, y=understanding.

Except, in DF's case, understanding more about the game leads you to try far more contrived projects, which lead to a painful lack of understanding which can only be defeated by the wiki. Or more knowledgeable players.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

Well since this thread is totally off topic anyway, Did you avatar just get slightly more insane than it was yesterday?  I don't remember the eyes being like that.

[MuonDecay]

Regardless of that, however... vertical lines are, in fact, a definitive example of a graph that is not a function.

[LordZabujca]

Actually...

Code: [Select]

e| |
f| |
f| |
o| |
r| |
t| |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 +/________________
       understanding

Okay, well, it's near vertical.

EDIT: Also, I AM TEH ASCIIMASTER

Unfortunately....effort is not a function of understanding.  y=f(x), x = effort, y=understanding.

Actually, if f is an injective function (and both your graphs and common sense clearly say it is) then g(x) such that g(f(x)) = x is a function from R to R. f(x) is the amount of understanding given the amount of effort necessary, so g(x) is the amount of effort necessary given the amount of understanding - which pretty much makes effort a function of understanding .

Also, a vertical line could very well be a representation of a function, just not one from R to R, but from {a} to P(R) instead .

[Draco18s]

Regardless of that, however... vertical lines are, in fact, a definitive example of a graph that is not a function.

Uh....

You can have nearly vertical functions.  y=x^10000000 looks pretty darn vertical on a 1:1 graph.  I bet it would look something like...

Code: [Select]

| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
+/________________


[SirPenguin]

Regardless of that, however... vertical lines are, in fact, a definitive example of a graph that is not a function.

Uh....

You can have nearly vertical functions.  y=x^10000000 looks pretty darn vertical on a 1:1 graph.  I bet it would look something like...

Code: [Select]

| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
+/________________


And x = 2 IS vertical no matter the scale, and isn't a function. Functions care not about scale.

[Reasonableman]

EGAD! MATH! HOW DARE YOU PEOPLE DO SUCH A THING TO THE INTERNET?!

I hope my random capslock was retribution enough for this transgression.

[MuonDecay]

Uh....

You can have nearly vertical functions.  y=x^10000000 looks pretty darn vertical on a 1:1 graph.  I bet it would look something like...

But I didn't say "nearly vertical" 

[Reasonableman]

I, however, did.

[McDoomhammer]

Yes yes, a vertical line isn't really a function, and a function with a sufficiently exaggerated gradient is indistinguishable from vertical in context.  You both win, rocks fall, everyone dies.  Moving on.