Mafia General Discussion Thread

[MadDog]

Gentleman's mafia is getting better. Best mafia ever?

[The Peeps]

All the mafias I've played in have been great but I have to say I'm enjoying the Gentlemen's the most.

[Tales]

Only my third mafia but I am having a lot of fun

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Gentleman's mafia is getting better. Best mafia ever?

 

Quite potentially. Definitely my favourite so far!

[Jonnas]

You're far too kind I will say more after it's over, be patient.

 

I have a few leftover ideas, too. I already have a concept for my next mafia game, but it's still in development. I won't ask to stand in the queue until the Gentlemen's tale is over, though.

[ReZourceman]

Gentleman's mafia is getting better. Best mafia ever?

 

Yeah I'm loving it.

 

Also....JONNAS! SEQUEL! GENTLEMENS FTW. :p

[Jonnas]

 

Yeah I'm loving it.

 

Also....JONNAS! SEQUEL! GENTLEMENS FTW. :p

 

I am afraid that some of my new ideas do not quite work in a Gentlemanly world. A new setting will be needed, but I am still undecided...

 

Post-apocalyptic world, or Nordic Mythology? Vanilla, or with source material?

Either way, do not put me in the queue until the Gents are finished.

[chairdriver]

Disney's skeleton is all in place. Now just adding flavour text.

[ReZourceman]

Disney's skeleton is all in place. Now just adding flavour text.

 

Yay = the square route of win.

[chairdriver]

I love how I genuinely read that as "w.n.i", as though it were an integer multiple of omega on the complex axis.

[ReZourceman]

Phew, I was worried you wouldn't get it./

 

(Whats going on, [close parenthesis].

[chairdriver]

Phew, I was worried you wouldn't get it./

 

(Whats going on, [close parenthesis].

 

Well...

 

In mathematics, it is conventional to denote multiplication by placing elements adjacent to each other (where unambiguous; it is customary to introduce multiplication to children using the x sign. Also in certain areas, an x or a . is used, to differentiate between different forms of multiplication -- for example, with vectors, there is both a cross and dot product). "win" could be seen as the multiplication of w, i and n.

 

As far as multiplication within commutative mathematical structures (which are the most natural to be concerned with when dealing with simple non-abstract mathematics) is concerned, win = wni = nwi = niw = inw = iwn. You can swap the order, and the product will still give the same answer.

 

It is customary to place i at the end of a multiplicative term, to emphasise the importance that the term is complex. i denotes the square root of -1, and as you will realise after a bit of investigation, no such number exists in the "real" set of numbers. There is no way to find two naturally occuring numbers that multiply together to give -1. [Examples of real numbers include: 0, 1, 3, 16.45443, Pi, e, infinity, -3, -2/7, - infinity, etc etc]

 

Through investigation we see that i is actually an important mathematical concept; it is necessary to satisfactorily determine whether polynomials (or "graphs" as often they're referred to within school maths, which is a massive abuse of the English language) cross the x axis or not, which is important in many areas of science. Hence we introduce a new idea, the "complex numbers" which are of the form x + yi, where x and y are real numbers, and i is the square root of -1. Complex numbers, whilst an abstract idea, are actually fundamental to the working of mathematics, and have been used to prove powerful theorems which concern mathematical ideas which seem to be only concerned with real numbers.

 

As for n, it is commonly used to denote a variable element of the natural numbers. The natural numbers are the most "simple" set of numbers 0,1,2,3,4,5... all the way to infinity. They were the numbers that cavemen would deal with to count their sheep or their spears; no concept of negative numbers or rational numbers ("fractions").

 

I was reading w as lower-case omega, which usually is used to denote mechanic-y things, like angular velocity (but as anything in mathematics, can be used to refer to whatever, as long as it is defined as such). w in this case could be anything, it has no strict definiton.

 

As wni has no term corresponding to the x in x + yi, we say it as no "real part". Therefore it would commonly be referred to as an "imaginary number", [which while stunning as a name, gives totally the wrong impression of what complex numbers are] , and if plotted on the Argand diagram (the name of the diagram upon which we plot complex numbers, replacing the commonly-known x and y axes with the real and complex axes respectively), we'd get a point lying on the complex line, wn units of i away from the origin. [Think of i as equivalent to 1. We can use it as a unit value to compare distance on a line, like we do with 1 on the line of real numbers.]

 

So wni could be points w, 2w, 3w, 4w, 12w, 57w [etc etc] away from the origin on the complex line, depending on the value of n taken. It could even be the origin itself, if the value of n in question was 0.

 

Hope that clears things up.

[ReZourceman]

Well...

 

In mathematics, it is conventional to denote multiplication by placing elements adjacent to each other (where unambiguous; it is customary to introduce multiplication to children using the x sign. Also in certain areas, an x or a . is used, to differentiate between different forms of multiplication -- for example, with vectors, there is both a cross and dot product). "win" could be seen as the multiplication of w, i and n.

 

As far as multiplication within commutative mathematical structures (which are the most natural to be concerned with when dealing with simple non-abstract mathematics) is concerned, win = wni = nwi = niw = inw = iwn. You can swap the order, and the product will still give the same answer.

 

It is customary to place i at the end of a multiplicative term, to emphasise the importance that the term is complex. i denotes the square root of -1, and as you will realise after a bit of investigation, no such number exists in the "real" set of numbers. There is no way to find two naturally occuring numbers that multiply together to give -1. [Examples of real numbers include: 0, 1, 3, 16.45443, Pi, e, infinity, -3, -2/7, - infinity, etc etc]

 

Through investigation we see that i is actually an important mathematical concept; it is necessary to satisfactorily determine whether polynomials (or "graphs" as often they're referred to within school maths, which is a massive abuse of the English language) cross the x axis or not, which is important in many areas of science. Hence we introduce a new idea, the "complex numbers" which are of the form x + yi, where x and y are real numbers, and i is the square root of -1. Complex numbers, whilst an abstract idea, are actually fundamental to the working of mathematics, and have been used to prove powerful theorems which concern mathematical ideas which seem to be only concerned with real numbers.

 

As for n, it is commonly used to denote a variable element of the natural numbers. The natural numbers are the most "simple" set of numbers 0,1,2,3,4,5... all the way to infinity. They were the numbers that cavemen would deal with to count their sheep or their spears; no concept of negative numbers or rational numbers ("fractions").

 

I was reading w as lower-case omega, which usually is used to denote mechanic-y things, like angular velocity (but as anything in mathematics, can be used to refer to whatever, as long as it is defined as such). w in this case could be anything, it has no strict definiton.

 

As wni has no term corresponding to the x in x + yi, we say it as no "real part". Therefore it would commonly be referred to as an "imaginary number", [which while stunning as a name, gives totally the wrong impression of what complex numbers are] , and if plotted on the Argand diagram (the name of the diagram upon which we plot complex numbers, replacing the commonly-known x and y axes with the real and complex axes respectively), we'd get a point lying on the complex line, wn units of i away from the origin. [Think of i as equivalent to 1. We can use it as a unit value to compare distance on a line, like we do with 1 on the line of real numbers.]

 

So wni could be points w, 2w, 3w, 4w, 12w, 57w [etc etc] away from the origin on the complex line, depending on the value of n taken. It could even be the origin itself, if the value of n in question was 0.

 

Hope that clears things up.

You had me at hello.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I am afraid that some of my new ideas do not quite work in a Gentlemanly world. A new setting will be needed, but I am still undecided...

 

Post-apocalyptic world, or Nordic Mythology? Vanilla, or with source material?

Either way, do not put me in the queue until the Gents are finished.

 

Post-acopalypse and mythology themes both sound awesome. I'm sure you'll do well!

 

Anyway, I just came in here to say that I'll be gone for the weekend, so please excuse my temporary absence in the mafia games.

[chairdriver]

You had me at hello.

 

 

Of course! The one thing you could have said to outwit my outwit.

[Jonnas]

First of all, I'm glad I understood everything chairdriver has said, considering I rarely use english terms in my mathematical courses (and I hate the fact that we tend to use such arbitrarily different terms. What chair describes as "graphs", we call "functions", for example. Unless I understood something wrong.)

 

It is customary to place i at the end of a multiplicative term, to emphasise the importance that the term is complex. i denotes the square root of -1, and as you will realise after a bit of investigation, no such number exists in the "real" set of numbers. There is no way to find two naturally occuring numbers that multiply together to give -1. [Examples of real numbers include: 0, 1, 3, 16.45443, Pi, e, infinity, -3, -2/7, - infinity, etc etc]

 

Second, I believe that the definition of "imaginary number" is not what that phrase seems to imply. Of course, I'm reading "naturally occurring numbers" as "natural numbers", so it might be a case of mistranslation.

 

A clearer way of describing sqrt(-1)'s statute as an imaginary number would be: "There is no real number that, when multiplied by itself, equals -1 (and, by extension, any negative number)"

[jayseven]

OT: I was thinking of doing a post-apocalyptic mafia for my next one, Jonnas, but as to which type of apocalypse... two of them :P

[Cube]

OT: I was thinking of doing a post-apocalyptic mafia for my next one, Jonnas, but as to which type of apocalypse... two of them :P

 

The world will be post-apocaltpyic by the time that ends...

[Jonnas]

OT: I was thinking of doing a post-apocalyptic mafia for my next one, Jonnas, but as to which type of apocalypse... two of them :P

 

There's still a long way to go. I may even come up with other settings, so keep doing your thing.

[chairdriver]

First of all, I'm glad I understood everything chairdriver has said, considering I rarely use english terms in my mathematical courses (and I hate the fact that we tend to use such arbitrarily different terms. What chair describes as "graphs", we call "functions", for example. Unless I understood something wrong.)

 

No, we call them functions too. It's just shit school children often refer to them as graphs, and I find people understand much more easily if I talk about graphs rather than function.

 

Second, I believe that the definition of "imaginary number" is not what that phrase seems to imply. Of course, I'm reading "naturally occurring numbers" as "natural numbers", so it might be a case of mistranslation.

 

Yeah, that wasn't a clear definition at all, just a kinda hand-wavy explanation. When I said Naturally occurring, I meant real. And when I meant 2, I meant 2 of the same number (ie. square root).

[MoogleViper]

The world will be post-apocaltpyic by the time that ends...

 

You think Jay will survive the apocalypse?

[Cube]

You think Jay will survive the apocalypse?

 

He'll survive anything as long as there's still cider.

[jayseven]

And if we run out of cider... then that's probably what started the apocalypse in the first place.

[MadDog]

...I've only received 1 PM for the next night. Yes 1. What the hell is going on?

[Diageo]

Don't look at me, I'm dead.