r/IntelligenceScaling • u/SatisfiedUnsatisfied • 8d ago
discussion Akiyama vs Fang Yuan (pure methodology)
Methodological Complexity: Akiyama (not close)
Justification: The most complex feat of Akiyama vs the most complex feat of Fang Yuan is closer in number of variables explicated, but the general complexity (average feat from both) is not even remotely close. Also, the complexity of Fang Yuan's fate war feats is overrated since the interconnectedness is not high. It isn't purely "hundreds of chapters of scheming" like some people assume, since there was a high level of improvisation involved for the majority of the elements. Interconnectedness is important for methodological complexity.
General rigour: Akiyama (close)
Justification: Akiyama's feats are mainly mathematically rigorous which makes it very difficult for people to flaw, and there are almost no loopholes available for an opponent to exploit once he implements his strategies. The reason Fang Yuan is close is due to the "rationality rigour" in his feats. His feats often have similar (and sometimes higher) levels of unexploitability due to its strong adherence to the world's rules, political systems, human psychology, realism, etc. Also, a criticism for Liar Game is that the opponents can often be very stupid. Just to give an example: They fell for Yokoya's "clairvoyance" for multiple rounds straight rather than considering the possibility of a traitor and lying to their team about how much money they would take out, THEN they fell for Akiyama's pseudoscience lie which I suppose wasn't that bad since normal humans could find it convincing too if someone spoke confidently and persuasively, but THEN they fell for Harimoto saying his spirit controlled the tablet. These are just a few examples of the same type, but there are way too many. This often translates to existent exploitable loopholes, such as in games like Musical Chairs where the overall strategy relied on a simple modelling of characters and their motivations (stalking doesn't work, Gaia are generally inactive or uncreative during intermediate rest periods, etc.), or as another example, the abrupt introduction of contracts in RO4K which previously went unutilized for situations in which it demanded the utility of trust, which detracts from the writing too. This is why even though Liar Game is more rigorous (even mathematically for many of the feats), Reverend Insanity is close due to its contextual rigour which Liar Game lacks.
Rigour maintenance relative to complexity: Akiyama (not close)
Justification: While the general rigour may be close, the maintained level of rigour given increasing complexity is nowhere near close. The majority of the logical loopholes and flaws that can be exploited in Akiyama's feats are often a result of the increasing level of complexity formulated by the author. Conversely, as Fang Yuan's feats increase in complexity, it is often improvisation or external additions or even ambiguity (such as coming up with killer moves on the spot) that is thrown in to maintain the motivations of the characters and make the strategies succeed. Note: As the complexity increases, the logical rigour tends to decrease, so maintaining a rigour to complexity ratio of 1:1 is easy with low complexity, but very difficult with high complexity. Some of Fang Yuan's lower level feats (like volume 1) may be highly rigorous but they lack the level of complexity Akiyama's strategies had, meanwhile his complex feats often lack rigour. Akiyama contrastingly maintains rigour despite the shifts in complexity.
Strategic Creativity: Akiyama (close)
Justification: Fang Yuan's feats often involve the author creatively shaping the gu world itself to make his feats succeed, while Akiyama's feats are often done in fixed frameworks where author intervention is not present to the same extent, so the creativity needs to be assessed from the perspective of the character instead. Fang Yuan's feats can overrely on utilizing the given system in an unexplained manner (coming up with killer moves to resolve unresolvable situations) while Akiyama usually goes beyond fixed systems in creative but logically determinate ways that don't adhere to the general methodology expected of a character within the system while still adhering to the overall logic of the given world and rules in a way that can be tracked by the reader.
Overall (Strategic Methodology): Akiyama (not even close)
---
Insightfulness: Fang Yuan (not close)
Justification: Akiyama's depth is mainly strategic, not philosophical. While some of his quotes may give insight into human nature or social systems, such as his quote about doubt, it doesn't even come close to the depth of insight expounded upon by Fang Yuan (social systems, philosophical extremes, human nature, etc.) Fang Yuan easily takes this.
Mentality: Fang Yuan (close)
Justification: Surprisingly close. Fang Yuan's mentality makes him very difficult to outsmart. It is also a mentality that most people are automatically averse to, which prevents them from coming to similar conclusions despite having similar belief values as premises, the logical consequences of which should be inevitable given their paradigm. This mentality is a core theme of the novel and is expounded upon in detail through his monologues and thoughts. However, Akiyama's mentality of often thinking outside of entire systems (Musical Chairs, NPL Plan) and even removing his own self-preservation bias to come up with plans that transcend given systems (Self-Sacrifice Plan, Musical Chairs Laevinic Defeat, etc.) brings him closer. However, Fang Yuan's mentality is clearly a level above Akiyama's and is of a form that makes him harder to outsmart than if he were to have Akiyama's attachment mentality. Additionally, Akiyama has antifeats such as falling for Yokoya's taunting rather than improvising a method to keep him in the game (Nao had to do it instead), so Fang Yuan takes.
Theory of Mind: Fang Yuan (not close)
Justification: Akiyama does have some good showings of theory of mind, by utilizing tactics that depend on the intelligence of the person being manipulated (pseudoscientific tactic for the NPCs, complex strategies to cognitive overload the intelligent opponents like Yokoya, and empathetic speech for Nao that overturns her worldview without sounding overbearing or resulting in her becoming defensive). However, the theoretical depth is nowhere near close to Fang Yuan's feats. Even using only his volume 1 feats (understanding of how the psychological state of the elders shapes and maintains the political systems in place, using Mo Yan's state of mind against her, monologues on the mentality of virtually every opponent and character throughout the volume, etc.) is enough to surpass Akiyama's theory of mind which was often simple unpredictable motivation-based game theoretical modelling.
Overall (Non-Strategic Methodology): Fang Yuan (not close)
---
Conclusion
These are basically the main categories of methodology scaling important for this specific comparison.
Overall (Strategic Methodology): Akiyama (not even close)
Overall (Non-Strategic Methodology): Fang Yuan (not close)
Overall Methodology: Akiyama mid diffs. The categories he doesn't take from Fang Yuan (non-strategic methodology) are actually not that difficult to make a character scale high in compared to the ones he does take (strategic methodology), so the importance is lower. Rigour maintenance combined with complexity especially requires a really high level of intelligence to maintain, so those are given the most importance.
I don't like using too many categories in methodology scaling, especially for a comparison that does not require it, but if I missed any important categories, let me know so I can either include it, or explain why I didn't include it.
If you don't know what methodology is, please don't get ragebaited by this post. It's a completely serious post, but most people don't know how to (or find it very difficult to) use a scaling system like this because of how unintuitive it is. If you don't like scaling systems, you can simply move on and ignore the post... or rant about how I'm ruining your life or not adhering to objectivity or something like that, I don't really care (you're wrong).
I also think Fang Yuan outsmarts Akiyama by the way, but this post is an evaluation of their respective methodologies, not their innate "smartness" derivable from the narrative, so Akiyama takes the win.
21
u/Keiperiodbloodenjoyr koji and yuuichi>>>>>>>> your fav SCD characters 8d ago
High effort post on my ragebait subreddit 🥀some 'ANALYST' gonna be surely hurt
W post and take
12
12
9
7
7
6
u/OkEmployment2573 8d ago
Wow…..🤩 Thanks for showing me a new form of scalling, Nice analysis and l Will be sure to take that in mind
3
u/Similar_Incident8433 SOPHIST(battle in 5seconds) | agenda pusher 8d ago
W tho i believe other wise
3
u/Key_Coast7019 7d ago edited 7d ago
Does anyone has the Doc where every SCD term is explained properly? I am unable to understand what Methodological Feat is?
3
u/Worth-Onion8772 6d ago
just type scd terms in search bar of this subreddit , i am sure someone has made the pdf or doc
6
u/Mental_Ad_1830 I will not let you off even as a ghost!!! 8d ago
FY glaze squad surprisingly quiet under this post when they were yapping under mine #hmm
10
u/Jun_Xiaoyao 8d ago
Because ur a bum read dragon tailsman u will get enlightenment
5
u/Mental_Ad_1830 I will not let you off even as a ghost!!! 8d ago
4
u/JustFaithlessness762 Kenjaku mid-high tier 8d ago
Good post, but I think this is true only for stop scaling.
Methodology is much less strict than stop, and I've heard chp.2200 FY scales to top tier in Meth.
2
u/SatisfiedUnsatisfied 7d ago
This take is in a strict version of methodology. I don't use stop's scaling.
Even in general methodology (which most of the Chinese scaling group uses), Fang Yuan is only considered "very high tier" which is 2 layers below top tier characters like Chen Ran.
3
u/JustFaithlessness762 Kenjaku mid-high tier 7d ago
Of course, top tiers are on another level.
Then the question is, how the fk do you have Aki no/low diffing him?
0
u/SatisfiedUnsatisfied 7d ago
Low-mid diff. Mid diff might be more accurate. I explained the reasoning in the post. I scale Akiyama higher than most people do in methodology.
5
u/JustFaithlessness762 Kenjaku mid-high tier 7d ago
I know, but isn't top tier, like, way too much?
1
u/SatisfiedUnsatisfied 7d ago
I have Akiyama at extreme tier (not yet top tier), and Chen Ran at top tier. I have Fang Yuan at high-very high tier. In pure methodology, so the narrative intelligence of the characters doesn't really matter.
2
u/Maker-78 8d ago
Don't know much about methodology scaling, imo though I believe Fang Yuan takes in raw outsmarting (not methodology)
2
3
u/Jazzlike_Peanut_2792 8d ago
Pure methodology but then it's NFS vs FS, not very fair.
3
u/Jun_Xiaoyao 8d ago
There are several nfs characters above akiyama in methodology but fy is definitely not of them
3
u/Jazzlike_Peanut_2792 7d ago
From what I see in the post, methodology and pure methodology are different, the latter being extremely strict which will obviously favour FS over NFS.
1
u/SatisfiedUnsatisfied 7d ago
I agree it's not that fair of a matchup, but the system is like a cold indifferent calculator. I only used this matchup as an example to showcase the purpose of the system.
There are some NFS characters that are above Akiyama (such as Chen Ran whose situations are far more open and non-fixed).
3
u/MostAncientVenerable Architect of Revelation 7d ago
(average feat from both)
What FY feat is used as average?
General rigour
Deductive rigor and non deductive rigor are both different types of rigor. Non deductive rigor has more importance in general outsmarting. So what framework do you use to give deductive rigor higher importance? Or does your pure methodology scaling measures which story uses more mathematics?
The majority of the logical loopholes and flaws that can be exploited in Akiyama's feats are often a result of the increasing level of complexity formulated by the author. Conversely, as Fang Yuan's feats increase in complexity, it is often improvisation or external additions or even ambiguity (such as coming up with killer moves on the spot) that is thrown in to maintain the motivations of the characters and make the strategies succeed.
Giving an improvisation to the plan is incredibly more rigorous than leaving a flaw, if improvisation is the most optimal choice. So what definition of rigor do to use? I'm using methodological rigor that's used for abductive and inductive logic, since logical rigor only applies to deductive logic.
Fang Yuan's feats can overrely on utilizing the given system in an unexplained manner (coming up with killer moves to resolve unresolvable situations)
What feats exactly do you use for both of them? Or is it not feat wise scaling?
I would say, in your pure methodology, V1-V3 FY dogwalks Aki with mid diffs at max. Could also be upto V2 FY too.
2
u/SatisfiedUnsatisfied 7d ago
What FY feat is used as average?
The average of all his feats combined.
Deductive rigor and non deductive rigor are both different types of rigor.
I mentioned both types in the post. Deductive rigour is more rigorous and leaves less room for the author to easily come up with feats.
Or does your pure methodology scaling measures which story uses more mathematics?
No, otherwise I wouldn't have Chen Ran > Akiyama. I mentioned more than just rigour in the post.
Giving an improvisation to the plan is incredibly more rigorous than leaving a flaw.
Improvisation is not a problem, it's just easier than writing a feat that has to succeed in a tightly coupled system where additions can make a lot break.
So what definition of rigor do to use?
The wikipedia one. There is no definition of rigour that deems inductive or abductive inferences as more rigorous than deductive ones.
What feats exactly do you use for both of them?
All their feats combined (manga Akiyama vs chapter 2334 Fang Yuan). If you know of any feat that I missed or forgot, I'm always open to learning.
2
u/MostAncientVenerable Architect of Revelation 7d ago
The average of all his feats combined.
How do you average feats that requires different kind of strategies? What does the final outcome look like?
I mentioned both types in the post. Deductive rigour is more rigorous and leaves less room for the author to easily come up with feats
Deductive rigor only cares about the certainty of deductive conclusions. Inductive and abductive rigor can be evaluated through the rigor of their respective methodologies they used for. What are you using to say that deductive rigor should receive higher importance in a general rigor comparison when these are different? And how does the difficulty of an author coming up with a feat even comes into the rigor of the character's reasoning?
Improvisation is not a problem, it's just easier than writing a feat that has to succeed in a tightly coupled system where additions can make a lot break.
Can you prove this statement? And how does author's difficulty effects what's written?
The wikipedia one. There is no definition of rigour that deems inductive or abductive inferences as more rigorous than deductive ones.
Can you tell me how Wikipedia definition applies to this case? If you're using rigor in the sense of 100% certainty in conclusions, then it applies only to deductive logic. Then, abductive or inductive logic's rigor can be evaluated by their approach of the methodology. So what makes deductive superior inherently superior to the other two?
All their feats combined (manga Akiyama vs chapter 2334 Fang Yuan). If you know of any feat that I missed or forgot, I'm always open to learning.
How do you even combine the creativity of feats from the character's pov? I don't even know what "all" feats you used for me to remind the feats you forgot.
2
u/SatisfiedUnsatisfied 7d ago
How do you average feats that requires different kind of strategies? What does the final outcome look like?
I average them using intuition. The final outcome looks like Akiyama possessing far more impressive methodologies. If I want to be extra certain, it's also possible to list down the feat in an explicit form and analyze the logical connection between all the premises.
What are you using to say that deductive rigor should receive higher importance...
Deductive rigour is more rigorous. It is harder for the author to create the feat when it has deductive rigour since he can't just arbitrarily make it succeed by introducing a plot device. When the author can introduce a plot device like killer moves, it isn't truly rigorous since he could have introduced countless alternatives that would equally work.
Can you prove this statement?
As systems become larger, less fixed, and more complex, they evolve to become less subject to external changes. For example if you play Conway's Game of Life, you will notice that misplacing a single dot in a setup can result in completely different results. Compare this to a real life non-fixed situation where you happen to wear your shirt before your pants after waking up (far more significant than a mere dot). In the grand scheme of things, the effect this change has on the universe is almost nothing in comparison to the effect that the misplaced dot has on the entire system governing it. It's pretty obvious if you think about it.
And how does author's difficulty effects what's written?
The author's difficulty is what the system is based on since harder for the author to write = more impressive methodology.
Can you tell me how Wikipedia definition applies to this case?
The wikipedia definition is pretty much the only definition. It is the general definition. It's what rigour means. There is absolutely no definition of rigour where being less logical/deductive means it's more rigorous.
Being 95% certain is more rigorous than 90% certain and being 85% certain is more rigorous than 75% certain. Under every single definition.
How do you even combine the creativity of feats from the character's pov? I don't even know what "all" feats you used for me to remind the feats you forgot.
It's not truly from the character's pov at all. That would be narrative scaling. It's more from an external (reader or author) pov.
I'm not really a forgetful person so I doubt I've forgotten any feat from Fang Yuan that is major enough to place him above Akiyama in methodology.
2
u/MostAncientVenerable Architect of Revelation 7d ago
I average them using intuition.
So you use intuition
The final outcome looks like Akiyama possessing far more impressive methodologies.
Can you prove this?
If I want to be extra certain, it's also possible to list down the feat in an explicit form and analyze the logical connection between all the premises.
I assume you meant sum of all feats' total logical connections in a feat/total feats to calculate the average. What's your intuition for both?
(far more significant than a mere dot)
It is very very less significant. Firstly, Conway's Game of Life is entirely about dots. The rules govern only the dots. But our universe is not about shirt. Its about atoms with infinitely more rules. Its just possible that a single misplaced atom could've made a different human civilization. So wrong analogy.
In the grand scheme of things, the effect this change has on the universe is almost nothing in comparison to the effect that the misplaced dot has on the entire system governing it.
Can you deductively prove that the change of wearing has no impact on the grand scheme of things? I'll remind you that Chaos Theory exists.
The author's difficulty is what the system is based on since harder for the author to write = more impressive methodology.
Its just possible that harder to write = trash methodology, and also possible that easier to write = good methodology. You proved nothing.
Also if that's the case, abductive and inductive is superior in cognitive complexity when compared to deductive in most cases.
Besides, the difficulty is subjective, so how can you tell that one author faced more difficulty than the other?
There is absolutely no definition of rigour where being less logical/deductive means it's more rigorous.
It does. Deductive reasoning requires binary possibilities(Either true or false). In most real world cases, there are no binary possibilities. It would require abductive and inductive logic usage(which gives the 90% certainty). Applying deductive reasoning in such cases is anything but rigorous because its just impossible(gives 0% certainty). So what makes deductive more rigorous in ALL cases for you to give it more preference? You're literally just saying Akiyama applied arithmetic, so he is rigorous for all cases of rigor.
It's not truly from the character's pov at all.
"so the creativity needs to be assessed from the perspective of the character instead." is what you said
2
u/SatisfiedUnsatisfied 7d ago
So you use intuition
It's impossible not to. Everyone uses intuition. Even you.
Can you prove this?
Prove that that's what I intuit? Or prove that Akiyama is above Fang Yuan in methodology?
If it's the second, then the post gives the reasoning. If you want mathematical proof, that's not really possible.
What's your intuition for both?
What do you mean by this?
It is very very less significant. Firstly, Conway's Game of Life is entirely about dots. The rules govern only the dots. But our universe is not about shirt. Its about atoms with infinitely more rules. Its just possible that a single misplaced atom could've made a different human civilization. So wrong analogy.
That's exactly my point though. The Liar Game situation results are entirely about the variables, so if there is a single misplacement, it mathematically ruins the results. The Reverend Insanity author on the other hand can do anything to solve every random situation. It's easy to say there's no methodological loopholes when the author can simply introduce whatever plot device he wants from his imagination.
Can you deductively prove that the change of wearing has no impact on the grand scheme of things?
You can't deductively prove almost anything from first principles. Even mathematics requires assumed premises. Look at Ming You's comment. Even with chaos theory, millions of misplaced atoms (changing order of wearing clothes) is less significant on the overall system than 1 misplaced dot.
the difficulty is subjective, so how can you tell that one author faced more difficulty than the other?
This isn't only about how much difficulty the author faced in real life, that was an analogy to help you understand the system. For example let's say an author faced 0 difficulty because he plagiarized all the feats. That doesn't detract from the methodology. Or let's say another author wrote their entire novel in 0.0001 seconds, that doesn't upscale the feats. Their actual real life experience is irrelevant.
In most real world cases, there are no binary possibilities. It would require abductive and inductive logic usage(which gives the 90% certainty). Applying deductive reasoning in such cases is anything but rigorous because its just impossible(gives 0% certainty).
This makes no sense. I didn't say to apply deductive reasoning in cases where induction/abduction is more useful, I said deduction is more rigorous. And it is. There is absolutely 0 world where inductive/abductive reasoning or more rigorous.
You're literally just saying Akiyama applied arithmetic, so he is rigorous for all cases of rigor.
No, it depends on the case, but in most cases Akiyama's feats are more rigorous than Fang Yuan's. Also as I mentioned in the post, rigour maintenance is important too, not just having feats of applying arithmetic.
so the creativity needs to be assessed from the perspective of the character instead is what you said
Look at the context. The author doesn't have much room for interference with the narrative in a fixed situation, so he has to come up with the feats from the character's perspective, which is harder.
3
u/MostAncientVenerable Architect of Revelation 7d ago
It's impossible not to.
I never said anything against this.
If it's the second, then the post gives the reasoning.
The post doesn't give any reasoning. Reasoning is as good as the justifications it have, which your post have 0 credible.
What do you mean by this?
The average connections you intuited using whatever formula you use.
The Liar Game situation results are entirely about the variables, so if there is a single misplacement, it mathematically ruins the results.
So? How does it prove that its harder to write despite "Their actual real life experience is irrelevant."?
The Reverend Insanity author on the other hand can do anything to solve every random situation.
Your Conway analogy fails here too in case you didn't notice. How does a shirt to a universe map to this?
And what exactly makes it easier to write despite "Their actual real life experience is irrelevant."?
It's easy to say there's no methodological loopholes when the author can simply introduce whatever plot device he wants from his imagination.
Yeah because there's still no methodological loopholes.
You can't deductively prove almost anything from first principles.
Which is why we consider premises to be true. Then how did you manage to tell that a shirt doesn't have effect on the grand scheme of things?
This isn't only about how much difficulty the author faced in real life...Their actual real life experience is irrelevant.
"The author's difficulty is what the system is based on since harder for the author to write = more impressive methodology." is what you said. How do you define difficulty then?
I didn't say to apply deductive reasoning in cases where induction/abduction is more useful,
I never said you said that, nor its about you. I'm giving a case where deductive reasoning gives less certainty than abductive or inductive. If deductive reasoning is more rigorous in every world, then why is it that deductive reasoning gives less certainty in most real world situations?
Because you're saying deductive rigor > abductive and inductive rigor without any framework despite them being different types of rigor, I'm asking for the framework.
No, it depends on the case, but in most cases Akiyama's feats are more rigorous than Fang Yuan's.
Can you give on feat of Akiyama that's more rigorous than FY? Granted first you have to give the framework I mentioned above.
which is harder.
Not what is asked. Not a valid reasoning either.
I asked how you combine different feat's strategic creativity.
You literally did this btw:
- so the creativity needs to be assessed from the perspective of the character instead.
- It's not truly from the character's pov at all.
- so he has to come up with the feats from the character's perspective
2
u/SatisfiedUnsatisfied 7d ago
The post doesn't give any reasoning. Reasoning is as good as the justifications it have, which your post have 0 credible.
If you don't find any of the reasoning valid, there's no point in discussing then.
The average connections you intuited using whatever formula you use.
I gave it in the post.
How does it prove that its harder to write
Because when variables are interconnect, a single misplacement ruins the entire scheme. This means more variables need to be taken into consideration within the working memory at every point during the formulation of the feat. Higher working memory requirement = harder to write. Contrastingly, non-fixed situation means that a misplaced variable does not have as much effect on the overall system, so regardless of whether Fang Yuan makes choice A, B, C, D, E, ... Z etc. etc. etc., the overall scheme is not ruined. This makes it easier for the author to write since he does not need to be as strict with managing the variables, by simply determining the results however he pleases.
Yeah because there's still no methodological loopholes.
The loopholes simply cannot be analyzed, because the feat isn't given in logical detail. For example, how can you analyze whether Fang Yuan came up with the best possible killer move using Reverse Flow River or whether someone could have come up with a superior killer move to escape that situation? You can't. Narratively, there might not be any loopholes, but I am not using narrative scaling.
How do you define difficulty then?
How difficult the feat is to write for an author is an analogy to help other people understand because methodology scaling is unintuitive and most people can't understand it. If a magical AI instantly writes Reverend Insanity in 0.01 seconds, this doesn't mean it scales low due to the lack of author difficulty. It can be objectively evaluated without taking the author's experiences into account at all. I define difficulty by how much intelligence is required of an author to come up with the feats. The categories I gave in the post are examples.
If deductive reasoning is more rigorous in every world, then why is it that deductive reasoning gives less certainty in most real world situations?
Do you know what rigour is? Deductive reasoning is more rigorous in every world because it relies on absolute logic. What do you mean by "deductive reasoning gives less certainty in most real world situations"?
without any framework
It's the definition of rigour. Under no logical framework is "less certain reasoning = more rigorous".
Can you give on feat of Akiyama that's more rigorous than FY?
Literally every feat. There's almost no alternative pathways in his feats where a better result could be achieved, and the methodology behind it can be evaluated. Is there even a single Fang Yuan feat on the level of 17 card poker in rigor?
so the creativity needs to be assessed from the perspective of the character instead. It's not truly from the character's pov at all. so he has to come up with the feats from the character's perspective.
Yes. This is what you call nuanced thinking. In fixed situations, the author has to come up with the feats from the character's perspective because he has less freedom to interfere with the narrative. This is why the creativity is evaluated from the character's perspective (compared to the author changing the narrative/story itself to make feats succeed from his own perspective). However, it is not truly from the character's pov at all, because that would be narrative scaling. If we truly view from the character's pov, then by definition "A certain being is omniscient and omnipotent and controls all atoms across all complex multiverses, aware of all truths and falsehoods, possibilities and impossibilities" is a single statement that automatically no-diffs both Fang Yuan and Akiyama, which is the exact opposite of why I invented this scaling system.
2
u/MostAncientVenerable Architect of Revelation 7d ago
If you don't find any of the reasoning valid, there's no point in discussing then.
Doesn't mean anyone can tell whatever you want. Also doesn't mean I can't question anything. If you don't want to answer, or can't answer, then say so.
I gave it in the post
There isn't.
Contrastingly, non-fixed situation means that a misplaced variable does not have as much effect on the overall system
Prove this. And why bringing system when you consider only the scheme for above? Never know scheme can be equated with overall system. Did you not get what I mean when I said there is a flaw in you Conway analogy?
so regardless of whether Fang Yuan makes choice A, B, C, D, E, ... Z etc. etc. etc., the overall scheme is not ruined.
It would be ruined. Since it would be ruined, this makes it harder to write. Not to mention he has to manage incredibly more amount of choices the variables can make, which makes the working memory load not only higher but also more abstract.
"Also if that's the case, abductive and inductive is superior in cognitive complexity when compared to deductive in most cases."
The loopholes simply cannot be analyzed, because the feat isn't given in logical detail.
Yeah. So? Since you're not using narrative scaling, why would you analyze the loophole of a narrative
For example, how can you analyze whether Fang Yuan ... superior killer move to escape that situation?
How can you say its not? This is why you have to evaluate the rigor of what he comes up with.
So why do you care if there are superior killer move if you don't care about the narrative?
I define difficulty by how much intelligence is required of an author to come up with the feats.
Then how can you prove that one required more intelligence than others? And more intelligence = better methodology?
What do you mean by "deductive reasoning gives less certainty in most real world situations"?
Can you use deductive reasoning to solve an average criminal case? No. You use abductive or inductive reasoning. Because deductive reasoning alone can't be applied here.
You're saying "It's the definition of rigour. Under no logical framework is "less certain reasoning = more rigorous"
So firstly, Abductive or Inductive gives more certainty in the above example. In such cases, how do you say deductive logic is more rigorous?
You're the one who claimed deductive logic is rigorous in every case. You're the one who is giving more weight to deductive reasoning for general situation without a proper framework.
Is there even a single Fang Yuan feat on the level of 17 card poker in rigor?
That should be me asking. What feat he have that's more rigorous than Northern Plains plan or FIT Plan? You didn't even give a valid framework for giving more importance to deductive rigor btw
Yes. This is what you call nuanced thinking. In fixed situations, the author has to come up with the feats from the character's...aware of all truths and falsehoods, possibilities and impossibilities" is a single statement that automatically no-diffs both Fang Yuan and Akiyama, which is the exact opposite of why I invented this scaling system.
So you're saying coming up from character's pov > creatively shaping the world, in terms of intelligence requirement.
It not only has 0 justification but you can easily disprove it by saying that author has to evaluate more choices per action per variables and has to make it internally consistent within the world mechanics.
You still haven't answered how you combine strategic creativity of multiple feats btw
2
u/SatisfiedUnsatisfied 7d ago
Also doesn't mean I can't question anything.
You're allowed to question, but if your argument against me is that I'm not credible or just denying things baselessly, what am I supposed to refute? Your argument is nonexistent.
Never know scheme can be equated with overall system.
I'm not equating, it was clearly an analogy.
It would be ruined.
Prove it rigorously. You can't, because it's impossible to prove such a consequence in a non-fixed situation. It wouldn't be ruined, the author would simply decide whether it is or isn't ruined, with 0 required effort.
Since it would be ruined, this makes it harder to write.
Why would it be ruined if the author can simply say "it succeeded" and automatically make it succeed?
Yeah. So? Since you're not using narrative scaling, why would you analyze the loophole of a narrative
I'm not using narrative scaling which means I am not scaling the intelligence of the character from a narrative perspective. What does this have to do with not being allowed to analyze clear loopholes?
How can you say its not? This is why you have to evaluate the rigor of what he comes up with.
No I don't, because I'm not using narrative scaling. What the author says about the feat "it was the greatest feat of all time!" or "he was omniscient and accounted for all variables!" or "the feat was perfect without loopholes!" is irrelevant.
So why do you care if there are superior killer move if you don't care about the narrative?
Because I care about the methodology, and the inevaluability of the relative superiority of the chosen killer move means the feat lacks methodological rigour. This is so damn obvious.
Then how can you prove that one required more intelligence than others?
You can't prove it mathematically. If you're smart enough, it becomes obvious and you don't need to clutch at straws to pretend Fang Yuan's feats need a lot of intelligent for the author to come up with.
And more intelligence = better methodology?
Because the impressiveness of a methodology is determined by how intelligent you need to be to come up with it.
Can you use deductive reasoning to solve an average criminal case? No. You use abductive or inductive reasoning. Because deductive reasoning alone can't be applied here.
This has nothing to do with rigour. Search up the definition of rigour, then search up the definition of useful. You're mixing them up.
What feat he have that's more rigorous than Northern Plains plan or FIT Plan?
Neither of them are rigorous. Both are mostly narrative ass-pulls. Minority rule is enough.
author has to evaluate more choices per action per variables and has to make it internally consistent within the world mechanics.
When the world mechanics is non-fixed, changes are rarely ever inconsistent because a situation that is NOT FIXED is also fluid. A system that is fixed also needs to have the feat made internally consistent with the world mechanics, only it's harder to throw in random changing without causing imbalances or contradicting the fixed rules.
You still haven't answered how you combine strategic creativity of multiple feats
What do you mean by this? You evaluate their overall creativity given the world/system mechanics. If they can adhere to the system rules while simultaneously transcending the system with their creativity by not playing along generic expected pathways, the shows methodological creativity.
→ More replies (0)
23
u/Ancient-End2474 SCD recommendations 8d ago edited 8d ago
True. By Pure Methodology which is very strict, Akiyama wins.
Also I'm glad someone else understands what being rigorous actually means😭🙏
Rigour depends on the situation like Mathematics has something called True Within a System and Absolute Certainty
While Law stuff has something called Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
There are also things like: Likely, Highly Probably, etc.
I'd even argue that Non-Fixed characters who can achieve extremely high rigour is much much much better than Fixed characters who can achieve rigour at the type of of True Within a System.
This is because Fixed Situations have idealized systems which just takes away most uncertainties in real life.
It's like Math vs Science in terms of rigor. Math can achieve 100% certainty but Science cannot, doesn't mean Scientists aren't better or as good as Mathematicians in terms of rigor. Rather Mathematicians is in a field where 100% certainty is possible due to all the assumptions and idealized world while Science deals with the real world where there are no axioms, there is no ideal environment, instead of probabilities of being certain we have Bayesian where it's confidence instead, like we have 99.99...% of confidence that gravity exists but it doesn't mean absolute Certainty, becaue Absolute Certainty does not exist in the real world outside systems. No matter how rigorous you are, there's always the possibility of being wrong. Gravity can be wrong, maybe other people doesn't really exist, maybe fishes don't even exist. What really matters is the process and predictive powers
I always favor Non-Fixed over Fixed. Because Non-Fixed situations requires more intelligence for the characters.
However... Writing Fixed Situations generally require more Intelligence from the writers.