How are you going to calculate your attack?

[Bishop]

is it too late for me to pop in here and say "send 50% of your thieves for intel and send 7.2% over that amount :p"

[Magn]

There is a difference between predictability and randomness Magn. Don't confuse both of them. What is proposed by Quantum Mechanics or any statistical explantion is that things are predicatable, but not in the traditional sense. The new way of thinking is that given all the info we have, we can say that that an event will happen in a particular manner on average, but we cannot be certain it will definitely happen in that particular manner. We can, however, introduce a range in which how an event will occur, and say that within 99% of the time the event will occur in this manner.

A random model by its very nature places some limitations on predictability.

To claim that a model containing a random part is "predictable" without further specification is an erronous statement. It might be predictable in a certain way and to a certain extent, but you have to clearly specify this extent (hence, the whole statistical concept of confidence intervals).

If you want to mention history, it is only in the 17th century did this 'breakthrough' in Physics and Philosophy occur(credited to Newton), and only then did smart people at that time claim that they can predict everything in the universe, given sufficient data (and time). Prior to that, there is no such claim. But after 400 years or so, things became unclear again. So, your claim that based on 'historical trends' is not valid imo.

Those 17th century geniuses were heavily reliant on progress made before their time...

Please, do not forget the Greeks. Contributions like Pythagorus' theorem are gold.

Granted, there were periods in human history that were not conductive to scientific research, but given a fertile ground for development, a steady flow of breakthroughts have been made.

What is proposed by statistics is not that something has no pattern. It has a pattern, but only not in the deterministic sense. Quantum Mechanics allowed us to send satellites into space, create the Internet and created your treasured iPod. Without it, the word electronics would not exist. So, if you think that Quantum Physics is just some new field that cropped up recently, you're right. But if you think that it has not proven itself, even with all of these observable items around us, then I think no amount of words would make you budge from your faith of the deterministic universe).

Ah, I don't know where you got the idea that I treasure the iPod... I'm still stuck on my comparatively low-tech mp3 player :P. I don't have a beef against it, but its pricey and I don't need it.

And classical physics has allowed us to create wonders that were similarly impressive in light of what existed before.

Yet, it was incomplete and was later complemented by Einstein's theory of relativity.

I have little doubt that in time, quantum physics will be similarly complemented by future theories.

I like to keep an open mind about it and acknowledge that we still know very little.

I don't have a very deep knowledge of the physics, but I'll agree with you that given the latest scientific advances, you are right and the universe is non-deterministic.

[Doom Scythe]

Ah, I don't know where you got the idea that I treasure the iPod... I'm still stuck on my comparatively low-tech mp3 player :P. I don't have a beef against it, but its pricey and I don't need it.

And classical physics has allowed us to create wonders that were similarly impressive in light of what existed before.

Yet, it was incomplete and was later complemented by Einstein's theory of relativity.

I have little doubt that in time, quantum physics will be similarly complemented by future theories.

I like to keep an open mind about it and acknowledge that we still know very little.

I don't have a very deep knowledge of the physics, but I'll agree with you that given the latest scientific advances, you are right and the universe is non-deterministic.

Indeed, classical physics allowed us to create many wonders. You seem to have misunderstand the message I'm trying to get across a little. I don't dismiss classical physics and it's usefulness. Many day to day events can be explained by classical physics. To dismiss them would be ridiculous, especially when they form the foundation towards the creation of more exotic and funky discoveries, i.e quantum mechanics, string theories. However, one must not view the new discovery of quantum mechanics and string theories as a replacement for classical physics. They are more of complements.

The new proposed view that everything is random at microscopic level but deterministic (due to law of large numbers) at macroscopic level is a complement to classical physics. They don't imply that classical physics is wrong, but they do point out the inadequacies of classical knowledge.

A random model by its very nature places some limitations on predictability.

To claim that a model containing a random part is "predictable" without further specification is an erronous statement. It might be predictable in a certain way and to a certain extent, but you have to clearly specify this extent (hence, the whole statistical concept of confidence intervals).

I agree. That's the use of confidence interval in stats.

EDIT: Magn, a good display of how many an aggregate of random numbers always end up with the same average is shown by Monte Carlo simulations (using real random numbers, not pseudo ones). Do read about it in Wikipedia or google it up. Also, I'm not a physicist, only a statistician. :) But I do have a great interest in Physics.


And @Bishop, it might be a little late for your statement. :P

[Magn]

Indeed, classical physics allowed us to create many wonders. You seem to have misunderstand the message I'm trying to get across a little. I don't dismiss classical physics and it's usefulness. Many day to day events can be explained by classical physics. To dismiss them would be ridiculous, especially when they form the foundation towards the creation of more exotic and funky discoveries, i.e quantum mechanics, string theories. However, one must not view the new discovery of quantum mechanics and string theories as a replacement for classical physics. They are more of complements.

The new proposed view that everything is random at microscopic level but deterministic (due to law of large numbers) at macroscopic level is a complement to classical physics. They don't imply that classical physics is wrong, but they do point out the inadequacies of classical knowledge.

The point I was trying to drive is that if the classical-relativistic story is any indication, we'll get to a point where we discover that quantum physics is not the end of the story...

My experience with the usage of stastics&probabilities in other areas is that its used to account for incomplete knowledge of the underlying model (often because the population is too large to monitor, the underlying model causing the data is too complex, etc) generating the data.

To get told suddenly that the statistical model is the lowest level of reality with nothing further happening "under the hood" is a lot for me to swallow.

I agree. That's the use of confidence interval in stats.

EDIT: Magn, a good display of how many an aggregate of random numbers always end up with the same average is shown by Monte Carlo simulations (using real random numbers, not pseudo ones). Do read about it in Wikipedia or google it up. Also, I'm not a physicist, only a statistician. :) But I do have a great interest in Physics.


And @Bishop, it might be a little late for your statement. :P

Yes, I took the Monte Carlo Simulation class. The results we got with the pseudo-random numbers generated by R (which behave similarly enough to the uniform distribution if you don't micro-manage the details) were what you expected from the theory (ex: you toss a perfectly balanced coin an increasing number of times and the head result ratio will converge to 1/2 as the sample grows larger and larger).

However, the accuracy of the predictions based on Monte Carlo simulations are often contigent on very large samples (how large is needed is contingent on the underlying model).

Sometimes, you cannot operate under the assumption that what you will work with will be the product of such large samples.

There are limitations.

PS: I found the usage of Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the result of indefinite integrals kinda cool. Grossly inefficient, but cool.

[Doom Scythe]

My experience with the usage of stastics&probabilities in other areas is that its used to account for incomplete knowledge of the underlying model (often because the population is too large to monitor, the underlying model causing the data is too complex, etc) generating the data.

To get told suddenly that the statistical model is the lowest level of reality with nothing further happening "under the hood" is a lot for me to swallow.

It's true that most of the usage of statistics are to account for incomplete knowledge. However, there are also some instances where only a statistical explation would be able to provide an insight into events. The most obvious case are those in Economics (and other social studies subejcts). Humans are inherently fickle in making their decisions, hence predicting what someone would do in the next instant is virtually impossible. But with large samples, there is a general pattern on how humans behave. So, to say that we do not have enough understanding into how humans make decisions is inaccurate, since humans have a tendency to defy anything they are told or how they are predicted to act. In this case, it is not a lack of understanding of the underlying model, but the underlying model itself is random.

As for the story of Quantum Mechanics, what I've said above is but a generalisation. There is a lot more depth to it. It is just as simple as "nothing under the hood". To explain it here would take me lots of time, and also, I don't have the expertise to explain it succinctly.

At the end of it, all I'm saying is that it is not as simple as deterministic vs stochastic. There are a lot more that's happening, and to draw a conclusion that everything is deterministic or stochastic is a folly. At least this is where my limited knowledge has get me to. :)

[Darius]

Just listen to bishop. Simple & Eaasy:

send 50% thieves and then attack using 7.2% more def than is reported.

7.12 to be exact so I would personally send only 7.1% but If you want to guarantee success, send like 7.13 or more or in a rounded figure, 7.2

It is so much easier to get SoT than CB so you don't even need to be a thieve to get SoTs. You can be a 1000 acres orc with 500 thieves. Just send 250 will do(just e.g.).

[raviy]

7.12 to be exact so I would personally send only 7.1% but If you want to guarantee success, send like 7.13 or more or in a rounded figure, 7.2

It is so much easier to get SoT than CB so you don't even need to be a thieve to get SoTs. You can be a 1000 acres orc with 500 thieves. Just send 250 will do(just e.g.).

I'm guessing you didn't read most of the thread. That's okay.
But to be exact, to guarantee a success, you need a 7.25389% oversend. Ethan's calculation on the 4th page of this thread is correct.

[raviy]

At the end of it, all I'm saying is that it is as simple as deterministic vs stochastic. There are a lot more that's happening, and to draw a conclusion that everything is deterministic or stochastic is a folly. At least this is where my limited knowledge has get me to. :)

I'm going to have to side with Magn on this one. While it's impossible to prove that anything is not deterministic, it is possible to prove that things are not stochastic. Obviously it's impossible for me to claim that we can definitively calculate an electron's exact trajectory etc, but nonetheless I have an irrational inkling that the world is deterministic.

We could observe how apples fall from a tree to determine the probability spread of the distance away from the trunk that the apples would fall. I would go further to suggest that by analyzing the DNA and RNA of the tree, modeling its environment, making exact calculations as to growth towards light, the Earth's orbit around the sun, air pressure, wind speed, surrounding flora and fauna factors etc, it would be possible to determine the exact spot at which the apples in question would fall. I don't believe that there is anything random about the factors in that model. We simply don't have the technological capability to create such models. Yet.

[Doom Scythe]

raviy, did you read through my posts for the last 2 pages? I have answered all of the queries you just posted.

[raviy]

raviy, did you read through my posts for the last 2 pages? I have answered all of the queries you just posted.

Yep, but you stated that human decision making is inherently unpredictable. I was stating how I don't believe that's true, that the model we use to predict human behaviour is simply insufficient.
I acknowledged the fact that it's impossible to conclude that randomness does not exist, but I raised the point that something that is deterministic cannot be proven to be otherwise.

To say that Quantum Mechanics has proven itself goes only so far as to say it has been sufficient in the capacity that we have utilized it. That is to say that it's likely that the barrier to the next step in technology will be in calculating that which is currently incalculable.

So yeah I was basically restating stuff =/

[Darius]

I'm guessing you didn't read most of the thread. That's okay.
But to be exact, to guarantee a success, you need a 7.25389% oversend. Ethan's calculation on the 4th page of this thread is correct.

Thanks! I'll try to remember 7.25389% I took the previous figure from a random post. There were so may @_@

[Ethan]

For the quantum/philosophy discussion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

It's rather technical, but it can be summarized as follows. Einstein (and others, mostly more important but less well known) tried to explain quantum mechanics via "hidden variables". They theorized that, even if you can never actually observe the electrons position exactly, it still has an exact position. Same with other values, like mass, momentum, energy, and others I don't even know of.

Bell's theorem takes two key assumptions from the hidden variables theorem - one is "locality", that events at a great distance can't impact local events. (Except after a time lag) In short - causality works, light speed is respected.
The other assumption, "counterfactual definiteness", is a weaker form of saying "the election had a 'real' location, even if I measured it's momentum." Which is perfectly sensical and required for a hidden variables theory.

The finial result is an inequality that must be respected if both the assumptions are true. The big catch? Said inequality is not true. Multiple experiments show one of the two assumptions must be false. Thus, we have either "spooky action at a distance", or "I measured it's momentum - therefor it *did not have* a defined location." We have no good explanation for the implications of this - but we are fairly confidint it is true... and therefore the universe is far weirder than we ever imagined.


To the more basic question about the accuracy of quantum mechanics itself (all the above assumed a theory that produces the same results as quantum), I point out the following.
I had run across a quote (sadly unsubstantiated atm - this is memory only) stating quantum chromodynamics, a subset of quantum theory, was far and away the most precisely measured and verified theory in the history of science. In many cases it's fundamental constants are accurate to 33 significant figures!

I, at least, tend not to argue with anything that has 33 decimal places backing it up without some really strong ground to stand on. As strange and counter-intuitive as the quantum world is, I'd recommend you do the same. It is unlikely a new theory will render quantum "wrong" any more than quantum rendered classical mechanics "wrong". I wouldn't even say quantum "modified" classical - I'd say it kept the outside almost identical, but replaced everything under the hood with something totally unrecognizable. The old theory is written in language that just isn't meaningful in the new theory, so it can't even have a wrong meaning.

A good example - earlier today I was reading something suggesting the next big breakthough in physics might hinge on realizing space and time as derived properties. As in not real properties, but merely artifacts of the calculations and conveniences of interpretation. Gonna be hard to accept that ever observation I've ever made about the nature of reality is misleading - but 20 years from now, that might be where we're at!

[soundscream]

is it too late for me to pop in here and say "send 50% of your thieves for intel and send 7.2% over that amount :p"

Well, this is the most helpful for me :)

But I have some more questions.

1) what if he was a monarch? 17.832% oversend?

2) how can I apply army out from SOM? (I think the army out values are still accurate)

plz KISS (no more quantum XD)

[Luc]

Well, this is the most helpful for me :)

But I have some more questions.

1) what if he was a monarch? 17.832% oversend?

2) how can I apply army out from SOM? (I think the army out values are still accurate)

plz KISS (no more quantum XD)

1. ~18% if you're in hostile or war
2. It's not of much use other than for ambushes, since you depend on a SoT to remove the troops from, and it's random. Can just as well use the net def at home instead, but of course you can get more values to try to narrow the range with if you combine with SoT and remove troops out. Though imo there's too much random in the SoT to bother.