Bigger Maps

[Lopdo]

problem is language is not math, it isn't exact enough, your bickering leads to no end and you are just arguing about interpretations of words. State some axioms and build your theories on top of that, but do it somewhere else

[techgump]

It's not that I dont understand what you are trying to say Norman Bates, but you are still incorrect... Larger, in this case, in inferring a function of size. No other way around it. If it is not, and you make the statement if can be "either one", than you mean larger is either a function of size and/or this mysterious something else. What is that? I find it odd that you state it better to say "2x the size", when 2x the size is making it larger... as of course, larger is a function of size, so 2x larger is a correct statement meaning exactly the same as 2x the size.

To me, larger merely describes the mathematical equation used. IE: I want a map 2x smaller, is also in reference to size, but cutting it in 1/2 (not 1/3 with your math/relationship), with math of "Y x 1/2". Again, with this statement, I use smaller as a function of size to describe the size in which I want it increased or decreased. Hence, larger or smaller, are functions (or better descriptors) to describe size, and size is the variable. The size variable/multiplier is determined as over 1, or under 1 (Y/1, or 1/Y), based on the usage of the descriptor (smaller, larger, bigger, tinier, more, less, greater than, less than, etc).

Essentially what you are saying though is, if I want something 4x smaller, it would really be 1/5 the size, or 5x larger, would be 6x the size. To clarify though, the "4x larger" statement means we need to analyse what larger means. To me it means a description (function/descriptor) to size, which is the same as 4x larger in size, or 4x in size. Again larger is merely describing (or inferring) the 4x variable as a > or < the current state of the object at hand. If it does not mean this to you, what then does it mean? If it does not infer size, what does it infer. This is where the confusion begins for me.

I guess, for some reason when smaller or larger is used, you feel this means that the multiplier gets a +1 added to it. IE: 2x larger = (Y x (2+1)); 2x smaller = (Y x 1/(2+1)).

[techgump]

And fair enough Lopdo, as I posted that previous post at pretty much the same time u chimed in.

[Ratburntro44]

First off, I was the one who you are calling incorrect, not Norman Bates. Don't mistake me for a fictional psycho.

To give it a function: Tx larger would be described as f(t,x)=x+tx

I'm simply saying that one term is better because it is more clear. As Lopdo said, problem is language, not math.

[Norman Bates]

It's not that I dont understand what you are trying to say Norman Bates, but you are still incorrect... Larger, in this case, in inferring a function of size. No other way around it. If it is not, and you make the statement if can be "either one", than you mean larger is either a function of size and/or this mysterious something else. What is that? I find it odd that you state it better to say "2x the size", when 2x the size is making it larger... as of course, larger is a function of size, so 2x larger is a correct statement meaning exactly the same as 2x the size.

To me, larger merely describes the mathematical equation used. IE: I want a map 2x smaller, is also in reference to size, but cutting it in 1/2 (not 1/3 with your math/relationship), with math of "Y x 1/2". Again, with this statement, I use smaller as a function of size to describe the size in which I want it increased or decreased. Hence, larger or smaller, are functions (or better descriptors) to describe size, and size is the variable. The size variable/multiplier is determined as over 1, or under 1 (Y/1, or 1/Y), based on the usage of the descriptor (smaller, larger, bigger, tinier, more, less, greater than, less than, etc).

Essentially what you are saying though is, if I want something 4x smaller, it would really be 1/5 the size, or 5x larger, would be 6x the size. To clarify though, the "4x larger" statement means we need to analyse what larger means. To me it means a description (function/descriptor) to size, which is the same as 4x larger in size, or 4x in size. Again larger is merely describing (or inferring) the 4x variable as a > or < the current state of the object at hand. If it does not mean this to you, what then does it mean? If it does not infer size, what does it infer. This is where the confusion begins for me.

I guess, for some reason when smaller or larger is used, you feel this means that the multiplier gets a +1 added to it. IE: 2x larger = (Y x (2+1)); 2x smaller = (Y x 1/(2+1)).

I think you are making things more complicated then nessecary. Just make a bigger map, and keep the math out of it.

[techgump]

Norman, sorry, for the name mix-up

[Norman Bates]

s'all right

[DaGunner]

I want maps the size of AFRICA!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ratburntro44]

I don't want Lopdo to go broke spending money on the servers to host one of those maps...

[dsrta]

I agree the "huge maps" aren't to big at all. I would like to see the huge maps around 1.5-2.5x bigger.