The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Yes, it`s been done before.
No, it won`t be as lond as the FOG version.
Why am I trying it out anyway?
The PS2 forum is a very interesting place to be, but it can also be a little quiet. I though perhaps if we had a topic with several hundred replies lurking at the top, things would look more popular.
Feel free to use the topic to talk about anything. Either the latest PS2 game, latest ideas for including some female star in a game etc... or even just the usual chat that happens all over.
As I expect this to fail, I`ve decided to spend a little while pushing up the replies. No spamming, just lots of nonsense :-)
Any help would be great, it`d be boring to have a whole topic with replies from only me.
No, it won`t be as lond as the FOG version.
Why am I trying it out anyway?
The PS2 forum is a very interesting place to be, but it can also be a little quiet. I though perhaps if we had a topic with several hundred replies lurking at the top, things would look more popular.
Feel free to use the topic to talk about anything. Either the latest PS2 game, latest ideas for including some female star in a game etc... or even just the usual chat that happens all over.
As I expect this to fail, I`ve decided to spend a little while pushing up the replies. No spamming, just lots of nonsense :-)
Any help would be great, it`d be boring to have a whole topic with replies from only me.
Page:
obvouisly not...
Are we at 2000 yet?
Natbuc wrote:
>
> I sincerely hope my boys will beat Germany in the
> play-offs....
Rebrov, Poyet and Schefchenko....germany don't stand a
> chance.Come on Ukrain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ermmmm...Poyet???
>
> I sincerely hope my boys will beat Germany in the
> play-offs....
Rebrov, Poyet and Schefchenko....germany don't stand a
> chance.Come on Ukrain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ermmmm...Poyet???
Pro Evo wrote:
> I aint mocking you, but whats the point in doing maths, well, the kind of maths
> you will rearly use in life, if at all?
Two reasons mainly:
1) Maths is the basis for absolutely everything. Anything you can think of has maths behind it. How do they make games? With computing languages that use a load of maths to work out whats happening on screen.
2) Its ultra clean. Nothing is ignored or left untouched. Every possible eventuality is dealt with. If you take a more english subject - literature or something - then you can have more than one ending, more than one answer, and varying points of view. This slows things down, so its much simpler to go for the straight answer that maths always gives.
Another example question is needed. No detail or figures this time, just the general idea:
A planet orbits the sun, with certain forces, and trajectories. Taking these into account when, if ever, will it collide with planet b which has forces and trajectories x and y etc...?
Without the maths behind this kind of thing, we wouldn`t know if next year we`re about to get smashed in by a large asteroid or something.
> I aint mocking you, but whats the point in doing maths, well, the kind of maths
> you will rearly use in life, if at all?
Two reasons mainly:
1) Maths is the basis for absolutely everything. Anything you can think of has maths behind it. How do they make games? With computing languages that use a load of maths to work out whats happening on screen.
2) Its ultra clean. Nothing is ignored or left untouched. Every possible eventuality is dealt with. If you take a more english subject - literature or something - then you can have more than one ending, more than one answer, and varying points of view. This slows things down, so its much simpler to go for the straight answer that maths always gives.
Another example question is needed. No detail or figures this time, just the general idea:
A planet orbits the sun, with certain forces, and trajectories. Taking these into account when, if ever, will it collide with planet b which has forces and trajectories x and y etc...?
Without the maths behind this kind of thing, we wouldn`t know if next year we`re about to get smashed in by a large asteroid or something.
Triple_H wrote:
> I sincerely hope my boys will beat Germany in the play-offs....
Rebrov, Poyet and Schefchenko....germany don't stand a chance.Come on Ukrain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> I sincerely hope my boys will beat Germany in the play-offs....
Rebrov, Poyet and Schefchenko....germany don't stand a chance.Come on Ukrain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ssxpro wrote:.
e.g.
Suppose that
> V is a vector space over the field F, and that v is an element of V, v not the
> zero vector. Let l,m be an element of F.
Show that if l.v = m.v then
> l=m.
Proof -
l.v +- (m.v) = 0 (take the additive inverse using axiom
> 4.
(For each a in F there is a negative element -a in F)
Then, using the
> associative properties of multiplication:
-(m.v) = (-m).v
Therefore: l.v +
> (-m).v = 0
Using a previous proof, l +- l = 0 , so then l +- m = 0, which
> gives: l=m.
Hmmmm, is this a test.
Better not be, but it sure reminds me of one.
OOOOO, the headaches.
Stop, STOP I SAY!!!
e.g.
Suppose that
> V is a vector space over the field F, and that v is an element of V, v not the
> zero vector. Let l,m be an element of F.
Show that if l.v = m.v then
> l=m.
Proof -
l.v +- (m.v) = 0 (take the additive inverse using axiom
> 4.
(For each a in F there is a negative element -a in F)
Then, using the
> associative properties of multiplication:
-(m.v) = (-m).v
Therefore: l.v +
> (-m).v = 0
Using a previous proof, l +- l = 0 , so then l +- m = 0, which
> gives: l=m.
Hmmmm, is this a test.
Better not be, but it sure reminds me of one.
OOOOO, the headaches.
Stop, STOP I SAY!!!
ssxpro wrote:.
e.g.
Suppose that
> V is a vector space over the field F, and that v is an element of V, v not the
> zero vector. Let l,m be an element of F.
Show that if l.v = m.v then
> l=m.
Proof -
l.v +- (m.v) = 0 (take the additive inverse using axiom
> 4.
(For each a in F there is a negative element -a in F)
Then, using the
> associative properties of multiplication:
-(m.v) = (-m).v
Therefore: l.v +
> (-m).v = 0
Using a previous proof, l +- l = 0 , so then l +- m = 0, which
> gives: l=m.
What the....I am dizzy..*Faints*
e.g.
Suppose that
> V is a vector space over the field F, and that v is an element of V, v not the
> zero vector. Let l,m be an element of F.
Show that if l.v = m.v then
> l=m.
Proof -
l.v +- (m.v) = 0 (take the additive inverse using axiom
> 4.
(For each a in F there is a negative element -a in F)
Then, using the
> associative properties of multiplication:
-(m.v) = (-m).v
Therefore: l.v +
> (-m).v = 0
Using a previous proof, l +- l = 0 , so then l +- m = 0, which
> gives: l=m.
What the....I am dizzy..*Faints*
I aint mocking you, but whats the point in doing maths, well, the kind of maths you will rearly use in life, if at all?
Im not saying you are stupid for picking it, i just dont see the point.
Im not saying you are stupid for picking it, i just dont see the point.
Pro Evo wrote:
>Go get it done properly instead of wasting your time here.
A great suggestion... but there`s no point. Its not just doing the maths of the question - the working out, and finding an answer. Its also getting your head round the question.
For example - a really simple bit of maths is made extremely hard simply because you have to prove everything. This means that when you get something complicated it all gets very silly.
e.g.
Suppose that V is a vector space over the field F, and that v is an element of V, v not the zero vector. Let l,m be an element of F.
Show that if l.v = m.v then l=m.
Proof -
l.v +- (m.v) = 0 (take the additive inverse using axiom 4.
(For each a in F there is a negative element -a in F)
Then, using the associative properties of multiplication:
-(m.v) = (-m).v
Therefore: l.v + (-m).v = 0
Using a previous proof, l +- l = 0 , so then l +- m = 0, which gives: l=m.
So, if something so obvious is so stupid to prove, just imagine how it is when you meet a question you don`t actually understand, in that you don`t even know what its asking!
>Go get it done properly instead of wasting your time here.
A great suggestion... but there`s no point. Its not just doing the maths of the question - the working out, and finding an answer. Its also getting your head round the question.
For example - a really simple bit of maths is made extremely hard simply because you have to prove everything. This means that when you get something complicated it all gets very silly.
e.g.
Suppose that V is a vector space over the field F, and that v is an element of V, v not the zero vector. Let l,m be an element of F.
Show that if l.v = m.v then l=m.
Proof -
l.v +- (m.v) = 0 (take the additive inverse using axiom 4.
(For each a in F there is a negative element -a in F)
Then, using the associative properties of multiplication:
-(m.v) = (-m).v
Therefore: l.v + (-m).v = 0
Using a previous proof, l +- l = 0 , so then l +- m = 0, which gives: l=m.
So, if something so obvious is so stupid to prove, just imagine how it is when you meet a question you don`t actually understand, in that you don`t even know what its asking!
HA, lol.
Go get it done properly instead of wasting your time here.
;)
Go get it done properly instead of wasting your time here.
;)
Page: