IlstrawberrySeed

I just reread the book, and can confirm that there isn't a mention of programtic loops in chalkling commands or about giving a number for how long to wait.

Thanks, no worries. I'll either find it on my rearead or finish without finding it & discover that I'm missrembering.

The page you provided has the LoS, I'm refering to loops in chalkling commands. I thought I remembered something about it, but could be missremembering.

Yes in general. For my question, not really. Thanks though.

On the Coppermind, "[A] number below a glyph can be added to determine duration of a Go command or the angle of a Turn command." I'm not sure if it's mentioned in the book (curently waiting on the library for a reread), but how does the Wait glyph work? Do you give it a number like for Move & Turn or does it work some other way? Also, I remember the book or a WoB mentioning loops, but that isn't on the Coppermind either. Do we have a description of the standard glyphs for those? Edit: If a chalkling command is destroyed before it disapears or the chalkling starts executing it, will the chalkling remember that instruction?

Ah. Ok.

@alder24 How do we know Foil got there after those were invented? I'm probably forgetting something, but I don't remember anything specifying how long ago they left other than when Foil arrived. I want to be clear, I understand when Tress takes place - Era 4, and that the Irali migration to Roshar is Era 0 (Pre Era 1). I'm asking how we know that Foil's arrival & the Irali departed during era 0?

I know both of those. If all we know is that Foil got there roughly the time the Irali left, then how do we know that he hasn't been there since before the sliver kingdoms?

How do we know that Foil hasn't been there long enough that the Irali left Lumar to go to Roshar? Or that he arived that early, left, and came back more recently?

The way it's worded, I always assumed that variations in push strength given a set burn rate were difficult, and changing burn rate by small amounts is tough, and going below a burn is really tough.

Several. We know the Rithmatist and the Cytoverse were going to be cosmere, which brings to mind the questions of how they interact. For example: Also, crossing with out of BS as well would be interesting, such as how the source from James Islington's Licaneous trilogy would interact with the cosmere.

For a while now I've wondered why there isn't a spot to discuss topics that specifically span non-cosmere works or cross the cosmere with non-cosmere works. Is there a reason? If not can we have one?

It's possible I'm reading into the way Brandon words it, but I specifically remember "can" which implies "but not necessarily."

I brought it up since you say it's the same for a single practitioner, which it's not if their a savant, since they can turn their efficiency up beyond typical levels, which means they can return to regular levels and change it throughout the push. I agree it's best to make the assumption that it's the same throughout the push for the model, especially since we're basing it on "normal" misborn & mistings, but was rather saying it's not necessarily all of the variables at play.

Those are the only variables understood in world. However, we know for a Fact this isn't everything, since there is more control than Burn vs Flare in savants, and with hemalurgy. I see no reason why another variable couldn't be introduced to "fix" the model. However, we have to be careful we aren't pulling an epicyclical orbit style fallacy. OK, what's the justification for setting something equal to a non-calculous function of itself? limiting an allomancer by the investiture they can produce is obviously neccessary, but since there is a level of control in the most powerful of cases (Savants/Hemalurgy), and there are no factors that influence the push and the investiture process, I see it as being a simple matter of proportionality: the force of a push of N investiture is equivalent to the force of a push of 1 investiture multiplied by f(N). (Likely a minor degradation, since I resists I) That makes sense. It would model it more effectively given a static strength, which might be an incorrect assumption, but it is a reasonable assumption until we get a WoB. We need the strength of the push to decrease toward the middle and increase towards the end. And it needs a sharp increase, since it needs to be well below gravity. That sounds parabolic, though since V goes up then down, logarithmic function would look parabolic to an extent. He pushes on it and pulls on it only while opposite it? That doesn't sound too hard, and would explain how Kel was able to aim, since he had no practice hitting curves. It's certainly how I read it the first time.

It's fine. I don't understand. You want to model F(P,D), which means that F(FV,D)? I don't understand that idea. As for no physical model, I thought of this from reference frames/vector addition. However, it would make it similar to air resistance, which is why I thought it made sence physically. I push away from me at 3 m/s, but I'm moving at -2m/s, so what I'm pushing only moves at 1m/s.

Not what I was saying. (sorry fir brusqueness, not trying to be rude, just fast)

So it's mostly about timeframe? No, I was setting up the requirements. When V=0, A must = 0 for there to be a stop. Since V=0, push must equal gravity for A=0. Alternitively, you may have been seeing my Air resistence or push forces, which both factor in velocity/delta distance (Which I noted as the same thing since we're working in 1D) Basically, I postulate that the Force of a 1d push with a mounted object is based on 2 variable, Velocity and Distance. The exact relation in my head is changeing as I try to make more accurate models in my head, currently I'm wondering in inverse proportionality works for them both. That would imply (for the mistborn) A= 1/(PV)-g-rV (g gravity, r air resistance) V=∫ (0, t) 1/(PV) dx -gt - rP P=∫ (0, t) ∫ (0, x) 1/(PV) dy dx - .5gt - r∫ (0, t) P dx (This general format works for any push strength function by replacing 1x/(PV) with whichever formula you use) Anything with recursive integrals is annoying to calculate. I typically end up using a script or chatbot, and having it linearly and quadratically estimate values of V and P and then plug them into the formula for A. Is there a better way to do it?

I am definitely saving that WoB. So it was just another way of stating the issue. Got it. I don't think it is litteral topology in the 3d nature of the word. I don't see any perfect solution to crop up, unless you go with the Seeker's answer: or use high Demensional rotation for identical topology in sub-spaces using 3 dimensions. Before I wrote the Seeker's answer out, I thought that the latter was more likely. Now I'm not sure.

First off, I understand about 1/10 of the conversation's backend, but I can follow the frontend. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding something. Also, @idanstark42. The cosmere is deterministic given no one can see the future. Once the future impacts the present, the future splits - They do something to change the future which changes the future they see and changes what they do to change the future, Ad infinitum. This is why Atium shadows split when multiple people see the future. This is known as fortune, and is how Free Will seemingly takes shape in the cosmere. The cosmere's future is therefore a self-referential function, which manifests itself as possibilities, which further muddles itself. Think about how Vin's split worked - either he does A and she does a, or he does B and she does b. It's a self referential function based on which future he reacts to, which is (theoretically) deterministic. With regular Atium, it's more complex, but follows similar principles. You see they do A, so you do a. They see you do a, so they do B, so you do b, so they do C, so you do A again. It looks like lots of choices, but it's just a deterministic loop (as long as "free will" is deterministic). But since they all start at the same time with the same origin and no obvious cause and effect order (since you would also need to decide what your doing independently of other atium shadows. If someone decided what they were doing, programmed it into an exosuit, and then burned atium, their opponent burning atium wouldn't get split shadows, because nothing changes based on the one seeing the future. The one in the suit would see 1 or 2 shadows, the one that would happen if the one outside the suit wasn't burning atium, and one because he's burning atium. The former is always accompanied by the latter. Objects have spiritwebs. (Except maybe aluminum?!) All forging does is change its SW, and that works on objects. Body can't stay there, but why couldn't it pass through it as point? (PS, asking because that's how I see teleportation working.) I don't understand the bolded line. I also don't see how 4d wouldn't solve the continuous projection problem immediately. A 3d projection would look like a sphere tangent to a plane. Technically they could exist as of investiture, since Ado could prioritize certain parts of inves when allocating. I personally believe that primary intent is the E of intents of the component investiture, and due to the connection to the shard, their intent is overridden by the shards. However, factors can change the shard's intent (When mixing inves) that casues it to override the component intents. In other words, starting from ado and breaking it down, without mixing it, you would find that Ado is the sum over a space, the shards are sums over subspaces, etc, until you have the smallest unit of intent over some value of investiture. Each part of the intent "graph" would be split over all the shards, on a sliding scale from even to isolated. This gets muddled when recombining, since the reason Harmony should be Creation is that is what the parts did together, rather than an emergent property of the investiture, which is what Sazed wants/expects it to be.

I don't see how the inefficiency can be explained like that. With an infinite supply, they can simply store more investiture in the metalmind while storing to get the 1 to 1. The issue is in part that Mass as we understand it isn't Mass as it is in the cosmere, since (as I probably misunderstand it) Mass and Matter are functionally equivalent for us, but it doesn't seem like it in the Cosmere, due to Iron feruchemistry keeping the same particles in the feruchemist. I'd contenue, but I have to go, and I do expect that I'm misunderstanding the Mass/Matter functional equivelence for some reason.

I guess I don't understand why Air resistance cannot bring it to 0 at the right time, for the first model. For the second, f() and g() are functions, G is gravity. Sorry for the confusion. I'm sure there is a model that works based on these, it just might not be the simplest (and therefore the one that works based on actual principles). For example, a cubic that spikes at velocity=0, and then slowly increases again as a function of velocity (Or perhaps distance') over a function of distance would allow it to decrease as she approaches the top, then land on the constant |G|. Edit: I just spent a while trying to figure out a set of functions that worked, but It's hard since I'm having trouble finding a calculator OK with recessive integrals. However, I realized that if it's force oscillates about V=0, then bobbing would be cut to neigh even with a linear or quadratic decrease based on distance.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't either of these work: As V->0, if Push=G, then stationary would be acheived. So one would only need solve for Push modulation based on distance. Personally, it seems that if it decreases tetratively, then some factor would allow it to equal Gravity at the same point velocity roughly hits 0. And crept to a halt doesn't imply single direction either, I envisioned her bobbing slightly for a second. Alternatively, push strength is also based on velocity, such that it decreases as you speed up, which is why it seems like constant acceleration for longer than a point, and so f(distance) increase and g(velocity) increase would be roughly equal at the start, but at a point f(distance) gets larger than g(velocity), and then G(velocity) starts to decrease as well, causing the g(v)/f(d) approach G. That means that g(0) != 0, but we have the value of both g(0)/f(~0) and g(0)/f(~30), which should let us get some approximate points to play with.

I disagree. I don't think Feruchemistry accesses the pool of investiture, though because I haven't read that book I couldn't provide arguments against the evidence presented there. The main reason I believe this is the inefficiency constant - Feruchemistry isn't 1 + 1i to 1 + 1i, it's 1 + 1i to 1 + 0.9i or 0.9 + 1i (Decimals truncated, go on as 9s for too many digits) (i is the investiture, R is time). If it converts attribute into Inves, uses that inves to pull from the SR and put some into the metalmind, and then uses that to access the SR Inves pool, then it is easier to say it's equal than inefficient. (PS. I don't mind minor spoilers like that, it builds anticipation.)

Compare these responces (and dates) to this: He immediately brings up the issue of it being like a metalmind. Same with brining nightblood (though I don't have that WoB).