Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
curi

[Spoilers] 2 Firefight Errors

91 posts in this topic

For nice formatting and details+quotes, see my blog post version:

 

http://curi.us/1698-two-firefight-errors

 

In short:

 

1) Regalia isn't a High Epic because she doesn't have powers to prevent dying in a regular way. Tia explains this. Later David kills Regalia and says he killed his second High Epic for the day.

 

2) The geometry doesn't make sense when David says, "From what I eventually worked out, my points had helped a lot, but we needed more data from the southeastern side of the city before we could really determine Regalia’s center base."

 

Actually the direction or area of the city isn't important, the key thing is getting new data points at the right distance from the potential base area, and that works in any direction. I have a diagram and geometry explanation at the link above.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they didn't yet have any data points from the southern side of the city.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the point is, you don't need any data points from the southern side of the city to figure out her location. geometry doesn't work that way. see my blog post w/ diagram.

Edited by curi
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the first error has been talked about to death. Most of the common people share Exel's idea that Regalia is a High Epic. It's really just the Lorists who classify her as only an Epic.

 

Plus int's been talked about to death in a bunch of other threads.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first "error" is in fact not error at all.

In David's POV, she is constantly referred as "High Epic".

Only Tia reclaimed that Regalia is not High Epic.

 

Even the book description reads:

"Babylon Restored, the city formerly known as the borough of Manhattan, has possibilities, though. Ruled by the mysterious High Epic Regalia, Babylon Restored is flooded and miserable, but David is sure it's the path that will lead him to what he needs to find. Entering a city oppressed by a High Epic despot is risky, but David's willing to take the gamble."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For nice formatting and details+quotes, see my blog post version:

 

http://curi.us/1698-two-firefight-errors

 

In short:

 

1) Regalia isn't a High Epic because she doesn't have powers to prevent dying in a regular way. Tia explains this. Later David kills Regalia and says he killed his second High Epic for the day.

 

2) The geometry doesn't make sense when David says, "From what I eventually worked out, my points had helped a lot, but we needed more data from the southeastern side of the city before we could really determine Regalia’s center base."

 

Actually the direction or area of the city isn't important, the key thing is getting new data points at the right distance from the potential base area, and that works in any direction. I have a diagram and geometry explanation at the link above.

1- is just a difference in definitions, the definition Tia gives for a High Epic here is almost identical to David's term of Prime Invincibility. In Steelheart he also says theres a few hundred High Epics in Newcago but only a dozen or so with Prime Invincibilities.

On 2, my guess was that they were referring to hitting some kind of barrier to having any data points in the NW region, or else the NW data points were all so clustered as to have too large an area of overlap and so a SE point could narrow the search a lot better.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1- is just a difference in definitions, the definition Tia gives for a High Epic here is almost identical to David's term of Prime Invincibility. In Steelheart he also says theres a few hundred High Epics in Newcago but only a dozen or so with Prime Invincibilities.

On 2, my guess was that they were referring to hitting some kind of barrier to having any data points in the NW region, or else the NW data points were all so clustered as to have too large an area of overlap and so a SE point could narrow the search a lot better.

 

you're just plain getting the geometry wrong. all directions from the possible base area work equally well.

 

if you want to deny this, draw a picture or give math details.

Edited by curi
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how to post a picture, but It makes perfect sense. They'll need 'Circles' that are all 4 directions away from Regalia at least. Having three or more circles in the NE, NW and SW quadrants would narrow it down, but they'd still be left without knowing how long the Area would be.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how to post a picture, but It makes perfect sense. They'll need 'Circles' that are all 4 directions away from Regalia at least. Having three or more circles in the NE, NW and SW quadrants would narrow it down, but they'd still be left without knowing how long the Area would be.  

you are factually-mathematically wrong and have no counter-argument to what i said. look at my picture, read what i said, i show this clearly. i cover this exact case in the diagram i provide. in my diagram you can see with circles from 3 quadrants, you get a closed area, not an undefined length. and then a 4th circle in the 4th quadrant OR in any of the others all can narrow it down further.

 

i don't get why people who don't know math, and can't draw a diagram, try to argue math. are you really that eager to insist the book has no flaws? i like the book too, but c'mon

Edited by curi
-4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're just plain getting the geometry wrong. all directions from the possible base area work equally well.

 

if you want to deny this, draw a picture or give math details.

Not if there's no possibility of getting more data points, if say the ocean was in the way. :P

Additionally you're forgetting that the position they're trying to narrow down to is a fixed place, they can't just keep checking the NW if Regalia never appears there under the assumption that it's just as good as the SE, what you're forgetting is that those data points narrow the data down equally in magnitude, but not in position, if Regalia is located closer to the SE then they need data points from the far SE to narrow down the position.

From your blogs diagrams the fourth data point when you drew it in the top left has to be significantly further away from the other top-left circle in order to provide useful data, what if the ocean is there? There are physical barriers to consider. Moreover if you look closely at your diagram only the second top-left circle is necessary, the closer data point becomes irrelevant once one with similar orientation but greater distance is identified since it provides better data.

Essentially there are a few considerations you've not included, that the area of possible data points is not infinite being primary among them. Which does propose a reason they needed data points from a particular direction, that they had data points already at the extremes of the other directions.

Also I almost never do this on 17th Shard but I find the way you replied to ToJ just now quite rude, there's no reason to get overly defensive about a theory, no one's attacking you just sharing input.

Edited by Voidus
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if there's no possibility of getting more data points, if say the ocean was in the way. :P

Additionally you're forgetting that the position they're trying to narrow down to is a fixed place, they can't just keep checking the NW if Regalia never appears there under the assumption that it's just as good as the SE, what you're forgetting is that those data points narrow the data down equally in magnitude, but not in position, if Regalia is located closer to the SE then they need data points from the far SE to narrow down the position.

From your blogs diagrams the fourth data point when you drew it in the top left has to be significantly further away from the other top-left circle in order to provide useful data, what if the ocean is there? There are physical barriers to consider. Moreover if you look closely at your diagram only the second top-left circle is necessary, the closer data point becomes irrelevant once one with similar orientation but greater distance is identified since it provides better data.

Essentially there are a few considerations you've not included, that the area of possible data points is not infinite being primary among them. Which does propose a reason they needed data points from a particular direction, that they had data points already at the extremes of the other directions.

Also I almost never do this on 17th Shard but I find the way you replied to ToJ just now quite rude, there's no reason to get overly defensive about a theory, no one's attacking you just sharing input.

 

you are, like the others, making what sound like arbitrary false statements about geometry (combined with trying to add extra premises that aren't in the book about e.g. city limits to try to rescue things). so i'll say to you the same as to them: draw a picture. show what you're talking about instead of it just being a few vague words.

 

i am aware of the city limits concept. it isn't in the book. meanwhile you are saying things like "if Regalia is located closer to the SE then they need data points from the far SE to narrow down the position" which has nothing to do with the geometry, it's just an arbitrary assertion. and you have no mathematical argument and no picture. you're just trying to throw everything at the wall and hope it sticks, for one side of the debate only.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guys this is pretty simple. draw any shape. this is the area that regalia's base could be in, narrowed down so far. now try to draw circles that overlap it to refine the search further. notice that no matter what the shape is, these can be drawn from any side. the geometry isn't biased by direction.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are, like the others, making what sound like arbitrary false statements about geometry (combined with trying to add extra premises that aren't in the book about e.g. city limits to try to rescue things). so i'll say to you the same as to them: draw a picture. show what you're talking about instead of it just being a few vague words.

 

i am aware of the city limits concept. it isn't in the book. meanwhile you are saying things like "if Regalia is located closer to the SE then they need data points from the far SE to narrow down the position" which has nothing to do with the geometry, it's just an arbitrary assertion. and you have no mathematical argument and no picture. you're just trying to throw everything at the wall and hope it sticks, for one side of the debate only.

I'm not sure why on earth you'd need a diagram for this? It's a pretty simple concept. And of course the city limits is in the books, Regalia rules over a city, why on earth would she appear outside of the city? The point that's being made is that you're ignoring reality and focusing on it as a pure geometrical excercise which it's evidently not.

Yes it may be an arbitrary assertion but that's the way reality works, it doesn't just offer you up nice clean points exactly where you'd like them. Regalia is a person, with motivations, every single appearance she makes is for a reason, she has a motive behind appearing somewhere. Perhaps the NW of the city is scarcely visited by her, or perhaps she's made plenty of appearances there but they're all too clustered in one spot, for example near where she has meetings with Newton, in which case there would be no reason for her to appear further NW but could be lured into appearing in the SE.

It's worth noting that the believed range of her abilities is around 5 miles, the length of manhattan is around 13, from a position in the centre she could reach nearly the entire island. If she was positioned in the far north then the only way they could discover that by getting points from the NW is if they found her appearing 5 miles away from her city.

The number of possible variables that could influence the outcome is so staggeringly large compared to the known variables that it's pointless to speculate. But simply saying 'This is how it could work in a geometry problem, it didn't work like that therefore error.' is simply fallacious. We have no where near enough information to assert that. Granted it is possible that Brandon simply didn't run through the geometry while writing this one line but given his history of in-depth research it's also highly possible that he did and there's another reason that David said what he said.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what you mean is: you are unable to provide any diagram where the book is correct, but wish to go on believing the book is correct, while ignoring the fact that you said several things which *contradict basic geometry* and without retracting them.

-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what you mean is: you are unable to provide any diagram where the book is correct, but wish to go on believing the book is correct, while ignoring the fact that you said several things which *contradict basic geometry* and without retracting them.

Were those words typed by me? If not then I would think it unlikely that that's what I mean.

The book could be wrong, although actually to be technical a character from the book would be wrong. Brandon has made mistakes in the past and will again, no one here is disagreeing just because we want the book to be right, we're disagreeing because your point is not valid.

What specifically did I say that contradicts basic geometry?

Why the incessant requests for needing a diagram? These are simple concepts that shouldn't need diagrammatic aid to understand, I honestly fail to see how a diagram could in any way aid in the explanation here.

Just to make sure you understand, I'm not disputing the underlying geometry behind your argument, I'm just pointing out that practical factors eliminate it as valid evidence for the proposed 'error'. David had plenty of possible practical reasons for saying what he did, in fact given the dimensions of the area Regalia could be reasonably expected to manifest I think the error if there is one lies in the opposite direction, even with sufficiently large numbers of data points they may have required sighting her in extremely specific areas to narrow her location down precisely.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 This is their plan:

 We pick predetermed locations and set up situations we´re sure will provoke Regalia to appear via one of her projections.

 

So they don´t need the points in SE because they can´t do it otherwise with geometry but because they haven´t ticked them of their checklist of "points that would deliver the best data" yet. Sure you can just flood yourself with data of a limited area but that is not only less efficent but also means more situations in which they get on the nerves of Regalia, the consequences they don´t know of.

 

Sadly, I don´t think they ever tell us where the building they found is related in terms to the city, only calling it Building C. Meaning that the situation is to vague to make a call if they had better options.

Edited by Edgedancer
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this has to do more with the playing to probabilities. Is it possible to figure out her exact location if you keep pushing her to appear farther in the same direction and figure out the exact five mile distance? Yes, it's very possible, but also impractical. You'd yield greater data in getting a point of reference away from the other points, where there's small overlap between the circles. While they mention in the book they could rely on her not showing as a useful data point, it really isn't, as is demonstrated later in the book when she does appear outside her range (granted that does make the whole exercise futile, but my point is that she's a human variable.) She doesn't just show up every time, and they can't repeat the exercise (killing High Epics) an indeterminable amount of times to narrow down the results. 

So let's assume they did try to gather data farther in the northern direction. They attempt to illicit a response 2.5 miles away from the edge of the last circle, and Regalia doesn't appear. That could mean that somewhere between the edge of that circle and the current point is her 5 mile radius, or it could mean that she ignored them and didn't appear. 

 

Now, if they attempt to elicit a response in an area that doesn't have a lot of data points, they'll get more useful information out of an area they haven't yet collected information on. Let's refer to your diagram. The second diagram you drew is their plan yes? They are playing to probabilities, because a positive response provides more information than a negative response, and it's more likely they'll get a positive response in that direction, rather than testing at the boundaries to a very specific degree, as in your third diagram. Does your way provide the exact information if a positive response can be elicited? Yes, but it also relies on a good deal of precision, and doesn't include the human variable element of applying the mathematics to a real world scenario, which includes other considerations brought up earlier. Getting more information is more useful. In your third diagram, you've assumed a perfect guess of where the edge would be, just trying to explain the concept. They don't have the luxury of attempting multiple times to achieve the exact distance needed to elicit a positive response. 

 

You're saying that this is an error, but the way they choose to perform the math doesn't make it an error if they can still come a correct conclusion. What you've been arguing the whole time isn't that it doesn't make sense, but that you don't agree to their methods, which is a distinctly different assertion. Can it be done your way? Yes, but there are multiple barriers to that which could include lack of a heavy population, lack of city, Newton not patrolling that area, a lack of response not being a true data point, etc. 

 

So here's my question for you. If their methodology can still come to a correct answer, because as you state, direction doesn't matter, so them experimenting in the SE corner instead of other areas doesn't matter, just distance, then how can it even be an error, as it's just their choice as to where to establish the points? She'll be doing the same math, come to the same conclusions, just not doing it in a way you agree with. 

Edited by Fifth of Daybreak
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this is the wrong place for me, since anything more complex than basic math gives me a headache, but...really, a possible error in calculations didn't dampen my enjoyment of the story at all. The geometry wasn't even a huge deal in the book itself, since Regalia turned out to have just been leading them on.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this is the wrong place for me, since anything more complex than basic math gives me a headache, but...really, a possible error in calculations didn't dampen my enjoyment of the story at all. The geometry wasn't even a huge deal in the book itself, since Regalia turned out to have just been leading them on.

It´s actually very important to the climax, because it was the key element of Regalia´s plan to lure Prof to the Obliteration bomb. Without it Prof might still be the same old Reckoner we know and love.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It´s actually very important to the climax, because it was the key element of Regalia´s plan to lure Prof to the Obliteration bomb. Without it Prof might still be the same old Reckoner we know and love.

I doubt that. He was pretty far on the edge through the whole book. I plan on typing up a topic for that later when I get my book back from my friend and can reference the scenes.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that. He was pretty far on the edge through the whole book. I plan on typing up a topic for that later when I get my book back from my friend and can reference the scenes.

Yes he´s been very bad but still in a position where he could recover, probably. He certainly wouldn´t have started to suddenly murder other Reckoners without it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes he´s been very bad but still in a position where he could recover, probably. He certainly wouldn´t have started to suddenly murder other Reckoners without it.

 

I'll save my disagreement for when I post a new thread, since it's off topic here.  :D

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It´s actually very important to the climax, because it was the key element of Regalia´s plan to lure Prof to the Obliteration bomb. Without it Prof might still be the same old Reckoner we know and love.

Possibly but also there wouldn't be any other Reckokners because he wouldn't be there to stop the explosion :P

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly but also there wouldn't be any other Reckokners because he wouldn't be there to stop the explosion :P

Actually the bomb had a manual remote activated by Regalia and it´s fairly safe to assume she wouldn´t have activated it until Pro was close enough to stop it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.