User talk:Krymson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 The Revenge of Shinobi 3 Decision problem 4 User Categorization 5 About the "Personal View" section on Blog...

[edit] Welcome!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Revenge of Shinobi

Hello Krymson, it is great to hear from someone who shares my passion for The Revenge of Shinobi, and yes, I'm still hanging around Wikipedia.

I suppose the naming trouble of the page began when I incorrectly started the page "Revenge of Shinobi" (after following a link from a Sega games list), I should have been more careful, but it was one if the first things I did on Wikipedia.

"The Revenge of Shinobi" is the only correct address, and any other iterations will have to be deleted (by an administrator or sysop or something like that - I'll look into it). I know that "The Revenge of The Shinobi" exists, do you know of any other varieties of the page title that need to be deleted?

Have you finsihed the game yet? Thanks for pointing out that the junkyard boss is The Terminator, I didn't realise.

And finally, thankyou for de-stubbifying the page. It looks great now. --Commander Keane 12:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have finished the game. In case you ever play again, here's a list of tips I gathered while doing so:

• Touching an enemy causes no damage but gives you invulnerability for a short period
• Jitsu of Fushin only adds height, not distance
• Kicks and shuriken stabs block all projectiles except fireballs on the last level.
• Shuriken sweep takes 8 shurikens, unless you have less than 8 in which case it takes your remaining shurikens. So usually you should shuriken sweep if you only have 1 or 2 shurikens instead of just throwing them.
• The first hit you take while "POW"-ed takes off the POW but does not damage you.

I got well acquainted with the mechanics while getting through this hard as balls game.Krymson 07:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on finsihing the game. It took me ages the first go, but all of the years of playing now results in finsihing the game in just over an hour. How did you get past the maze level (with the characters on the doors)? That was particulary tircky. --Commander Keane 13:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm an engineering major so this was kind of like debugging a program or circuit. I just kept track of areas I'd been in, doors I'd gone through and those I hadn't. Having a working knowledge of Chinese also helped a little; if the numbers got higher, you were on the right track, if I remember correctly. But yeah, it was a b*tch. -Krymson 18:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Decision problem

Hi, I saw your addition to the decision problem page which is the notion as it relates to formal (mathematical) logic, not computer science. Thus I have two issues. One, the terminology is inappropriate. Predicates take arguments (or parameters or (individual) constants and variables), not inputs.

Two, "For infinite number of possible inputs, this is of course not possible, so decision problems with an infinite number of instances are not guaranteed to be solvable" is in general incorrect, or at least poorly worded. If the domain (of a predicate, not function) is infinite the decision problem for that predicate may still be solvable. In fact, numerous such problems are; e.g. if the domain of the predicate is the naturals N, then P(x,y), where P(x,y) reads 'the sum of x and y', is solvable for any x,y. The situation for quantified formulas is different. E.g. ExP(x,y) is not in general solvable even if P(x,y) is. (Neither are universally quantified formulas without the axiom of mathematical induction or an omega-rule.)

I suggest removing it or heavily revising it.Nortexoid 03:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I put this section in because this is something about decision problems that was actually interesting and seemed significant. I wasn't aware this page was only under the logic category. My terminology is straight from my Algorithms professor's notes [1], so it is definitely CS terminology like you said. If you want to reword it to fit the mathematical terminology go ahead. I don't have the slightest how to do that.

I guess I did word it poorly. The point was that problems with finite input instances stood out by being guaranteed solvable. Problems with infinite instances such as "Is prime" or SAT or TSP are not guaranteed to be solvable, but nothing is restricting them obviously. Krymson 04:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Your part about guaranteeing solvability is right, but perhaps misleading. While some predicate P(x,y) might be undecidable, it might also be semidemicable (i.e. semirecursive). There are also various degrees of solvability (due to Kleene, Post, Mostowski, et al) which shows that some predicates have a higher degree of unsolvability than others (with the lowest degree being solvable).

There is sometimes a difference between solvability and decidability, in that the former is the notion as it relates to computational complexity theory or whether there currently exists a solution to some problem, regardless of whether the problem is decidable. E.g. some conjectures are decidably true or false, but solving the problem of whether they are true is outside of practical limits or has yet to be accomplished. This sense of solvability is used often in computer sciences but not in formal logic where solvability is often taken as a synonym for decidability. We should stick to the usage in formal logic, since that is what the article is about. And as far as formal logic is concerned, any monadic predicate, including 'is prime', is guaranteed decidable even if there are infinite "input instances". (And any undecidable predicate is also solvable in the negative--i.e. provably there doesn't exist a procedure.) Nortexoid 00:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Krymson, I am a new Wikiman born in Urumqi, now in Shanghai! Nice to have me you here!Pourfemme 02:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Categorization

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/China page as living in or being associated with Xinjiang. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Xinjiang for instructions. Rmky87 17:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About the "Personal View" section on Blog...

The section you took out of the Blog article is a vanity text by User:Omnicapital, who is very likely the Vigdor named in the text. Unanimous consensus of everyone but Omnicapital on the Talk:Blog is that the "personal views" section was not worth keeping: there is an ongoing Straw Poll formalizing this which I encourage you to weigh in on. The only reason the text is still in the article to begin with was in an attempt to avoid WP:3RR violations while noting the dispute over the section, since Omnicapital would always revert to an outdated version of the page and remove work done in the meantime. Unfortunately, Omnicapital has taken the "disputed" tag as being malicious (don't ask me why, it doesn't make sense to me either) and has continued reverting anyway. Hope this brings you up to speed. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)