Welcome to the staging ground for new communities! Each proposal has a description in the "Descriptions" category and a body of questions and answers in "Incubator Q&A". You can ask questions (and get answers, we hope!) right away, and start new proposals.
Are you here to participate in a specific proposal? Click on the proposal tag (with the dark outline) to see only posts about that proposal and not all of the others that are in progress. Tags are at the bottom of each post.
Activity for celtschk
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edit | Post #294807 | Initial revision | — | 11 months ago |
| Answer | — |
A: A sphinx's riddle with the solution "Death" Here's my suggestion: >No life within, no life without. >Forever you will have no time. >The lack of motion that is moving. >No pocket for the boatman's dime. I guess if you know the solution, you don't need an explanation, but anyway: Explanation No life within: Death i... (more) |
— | 11 months ago |
| Edit | Post #293573 |
Post edited: Copied clarifying formulas from comment to answer body |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #293573 |
Post edited: Wording and spelling error |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #293573 |
Since all numbers are integers greater than 1, we have:
\begin{align}
a^{bn}&<c^{dn}\\\\
\implies (a^b)^n&<(c^d)^n && \text{(power law)}\\\\
\implies a^b &< c^d && \text{(monotonicity of power function)}
\end{align} (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #293573 |
Post edited: Fixed a type and streamlined the argument |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #293573 | Initial revision | — | over 1 year ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Which is larger: 4^(6^5) or 5^(3^8)? Let's first look at the exponents: \begin{align} 6^5 = (2\cdot 3)^5 &= 2^5\cdot 3^5\\\\ 3^8 &= 3^3\cdot 3^5 \end{align} We see that both exponents have a factor of $3^5$, which we can therefore drop because of the monotonicity of the power functions: \begin{align} a^{bn}& 5^{3^8}.$$ (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #293572 | Initial revision | — | over 1 year ago |
| Answer | — |
A: What possible abilities could I add to my fictional human enhancement technique Here are a few ideas: see-behind: the user can sense objects that are hidden from view, e.g. someone behind a door, or things in a wall. Works only on close people or objects (say, no further than the person's body height). Works only for people who already have a photographic memory. ... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #292952 |
You seem to confuse Megahertz for an energy measure. It is a frequency measure. An earthquake in the megahertz range wouldn't be an earthquake at al, it would be ultrasound travelling through the earth (and I guess wouldn't go far because the earth is not smooth enough to transmit such high-frequ... (more) |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #292731 |
Good points. I like the idea of long term damage. I think that could be well combined with John's idea of taking order from somewhere. That somewhere might always include you own mind/brain, which would make sense since that is the interface to the magic power. (more) |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #292720 |
I really like the idea of having to draw the order from some other system. (more) |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #292716 | Initial revision | — | almost 2 years ago |
| Question | — |
What are reasonable limitations for probability-manipulating magic? I'm imagining a sort of magic that only manipulates probabilities. That is, you cannot achieve something that's against the laws of nature (for example, you cannot create energy out of nothing), but you can make unlikely events more likely and likely events more unlikely (as a simple example, you... (more) |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #292536 |
Nice solution, and might be adaptable to my setting. If the signs of supernatural activity they found are really signals from satellites controlling that technology (possibly with non-standard means so that even if you know satellite technology, you wouldn't identify those signals as satellite si... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #292509 |
True supernatural would be outside the scope. But sufficiently advanced technology would not be. (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #292477 |
I don't think moving posts between categories is currently supported by the software. If the moderators copy the post to the sandbox by hand, the sandbox post appears to be written by themselves, and of course the original post in the Q&A section won't be gone anyway. (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #292509 | Initial revision | — | about 2 years ago |
| Question | — |
What could be a believable reason for technologically advanced underground people to not notice the end of surface war for hundreds of years? Consider the following scenario: We are in a far future. Technology has advanced quite a bit. A large, devastating global war has broken out. One faction decides to hide from that war underground; thanks to their technology they can create an autonomous society that's completely separated f... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #292508 | Initial revision | — | about 2 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Is Kant's categorical imperative applicable to Q&A sites like Codidact? Let's first consider the side of those who have a question. If you have a question, you want an answer. Now there are two ways to get an answer: You find that someone already asked what you want to know, and someone already answered it, and the second one is that you ask yourself. The first ca... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #292477 |
There's already the precedent of a sandbox system in the code golf community. There the sandbox is simply another category, and challenges are supposed to be copied to the main category when they are mature enough. However the system relies very much on users following the policy voluntarily; it ... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |