General

[quote=Lecarde]@LittleTLK: I'm not the one who used incorrect terminology earlier. We can most certainly prove propositions and conjectures, which you said we could not. Furthermore, even for those that cannot be logically proven, 5 sigmas of accuracy is enough for it to be considered true and proven. In both counts you are wrong, and in the one you defend yourself on a technicality that even professionals do not worry about.[/quote]

Yeah, and I admitted to using the wrong word. Don't be an ass.
And again, "considered." The entire purpose of my very first post was to highlight the technicality.

I'll say it one more time for you: The entire purpose was to point out the funny technicality.

One last time:

The entire purpose was the point out the funny technicality.

Well 8/8 70% passed for me.

@LittleTLK: I'm not the one who used incorrect terminology earlier. We can most certainly prove propositions and conjectures, which you said we could not. Furthermore, even for those that cannot be logically proven, 5 sigmas of accuracy is enough for it to be considered true and proven. In both counts you are wrong, and in the one you defend yourself on a technicality that even professionals do not worry about.

[quote=LordofSky]How do we know if battle mode attack and ignore def still works from ambition? They were made long before the most recent revamps, and ignore def doesn't appear on the stat screen.[/quote]

Ignore defense does show on the stat screen and I know for sure it does work as I've leveled ambition on characters and seen an increase.

@Lecarde:

I know all of this. I'm a comp sci major. I've done mathematical proofs before. Your little middle school quip is funny, but not appropriate.
I shouldn't have said proposition, that's not the correct word.
Mathematical propositions are different than "Diligence works with spell traces."
We don't have access to the server code, so we can't say for sure. The only "proof" methods we have are experimental, not logical like induction proofs, for example.
You cannot "prove" something by doing it over and over and over again. It would take an infinite number of trials to "prove" something compared to logical methods of proof.
Again, this was my point. If I flip a coin 100 times and land heads every time, I have not "proven" that the odds of landing heads is 100%.

You're conflating evidence gathering with mathematical proof methods.

EDIT:

For example, you cannot "prove" the infinite nature of primes by just finding lots and lots and lots of high prime numbers. The "proof" is much more logical than that. It doesn't matter how many primes I find, there's no way to know if this one is the last or if there's another down the road I haven't found. That's why the proof methods are so beautiful, because they avoid this logical pitfall. This was my point.

Also, just so you know, I am finding this conversation entertaining.
Relax, mmk? You know your stuff. I really respect that.

@LittleTLK: Again, you are incorrect. Propositions can indeed be conclusively proven. Go take a set theory class, or an introduction to advanced math class, or even a proofs class. We can, and do all the time, conclusively prove propositions in math. We have proved that there are an infinite amount of prime numbers. We have proved that the number [I]pi[/I] is irrational and transcendental. We have proved that an integral is an anti-derivative. We have proved that there are just as many real numbers between 1 and 2 as there are between 1 and 100. We have proved the ABC conjecture, the 4 color theorem of graph theory, eulers conjecture, fermats last theorem etc... And we have also proved that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and just reiterate what your middle school teachers told you yesterday in class

@Lecarde:

No, it's not BS.
Again, I'm talking theoretical, not practical.
You used the word "considered." That's an admission of this.
I was merely pointing out a truism: propositions can never be conclusively proven. They can only be conclusively disproven. This doesn't mean that in practice we assume they're not true.
When we get such overwhelming evidence, we assume they are true until proven otherwise. And that's the key" "PROVEN" otherwise. Even if we get one trillion examples backing it up, a single example of the opposite invalidates all of them. That's my point.
I was using this to highlight this little quirk of science, not to suggest that OP's method can't or shouldn't be used to determine if traces work with diligence.
Sheesh, you people read so much more between the lines than there is.

i've run tests before, dilligence does affect traces and it is additive.

[quote=Lecarde]This is pretty much BS. The hard sciences take anything with 5 sigmas of accuracy to be considered true and proven. You are way beyond 5 sigmas with that number, if we reached that many successes and zero failures even a physicist would say that it has been confirmed true.[/quote]

he's trying to apply simple things he learned in math to this lol. the whole "you can't use an example that works to prove it's true but you can use an example that doesn't to prove it isn't".

[quote=LittleTLK]We can't confirm if they work. We can only confirm if they don't work.

Classic scientific hypothesis. They can only be disproven, never proven.

Even if we get 1,000,000,000,000 successes and no fails, we can only say "There's overwhelming evidence to suggest that dilligence DOES work. But we can not know for sure."[/quote]

This is pretty much BS. The hard sciences take anything with 5 sigmas of accuracy to be considered true and proven. You are way beyond 5 sigmas with that number, if we reached that many successes and zero failures even a physicist would say that it has been confirmed true.

How do we know if battle mode attack and ignore def still works from ambition? They were made long before the most recent revamps, and ignore def doesn't appear on the stat screen.

@LitheMovement:

We generally omit it, yes. But my point was that the only conclusive result we can get is if someone's trace fails. At that point, without a doubt, we know either the event didn't work, or diligence doesn't apply to traces.
This is just an exercise in theory, not practicality.

i can go scroll a bunch of useless stuff after im done miracle timing and see what happens idk i have 28262 spell traces for some reason
who wit me on dis

[quote=LittleTLK]We can't confirm if they work. We can only confirm if they don't work.

Classic scientific hypothesis. They can only be disproven, never proven.

Even if we get 1,000,000,000,000 successes and no fails, we can only say "There's overwhelming evidence to suggest that dilligence DOES work. But we can not know for sure."[/quote]

...and then we can go on to conclude that it does indeed work based on the results, regardless of if we know for sure or not. That last part is omitted because it starts to get redundant if we start attaching that to every observation.

We can't confirm if they work. We can only confirm if they don't work.

Classic scientific hypothesis. They can only be disproven, never proven.

Even if we get 1,000,000,000,000 successes and no fails, we can only say "There's overwhelming evidence to suggest that dilligence DOES work. But we can not know for sure."

[quote=LuizEvilx]no srsly who cares[/quote]

Sanbounty has da anserrr

unless people get a fail on video, it would still be tough to confirm.
Although I thought it was already confirmed that dili works on traces

[quote=BlissHD]This guy.... -_-[/quote]

no srsly who cares

[quote=Aaaayee]who cares[/quote]

This guy.... -_-

Reserved for results.

Power to tha peoples!

who cares

yaaaaaasss