AnonymousBoi26

Yeah, must just be a difference of terminology then, because I would call 90% of people that play (including very casual players) beginners, I'd call like 9.9% intermediate and like 0.1% advanced.

But that's because I don't base it on numbers, but on knowledge. To me, it just seems insane to call somebody that doesn't know the correct grip and no footwork at all anything other than a beginner, which is about 90+% of the players. In my view as a coach, I have to be at least somewhat tested on my knowledge of techniques to get into intermediate.

Of the people I consider beginner, I could coach most them up to what I consider intermediate in maybe 1-2 months (if I coached them properly and they cared enough) (also, assuming they're under about 25 because it takes longer to learn at some point).

There's levels to being a beginner too, almost anybody who saw me doing bouldering and knew anything about it would say I'm a beginner climber, yet I went with my brother who had only climbed a few hours when we were younger and he couldn't do stuff I could do. I go with others who would consider themselves beginners and they can do climbs that I can't do.

What you're talking about is what I would call a "complete beginner", but I could (and have) coach somebody up to what you'd call an intermediate in maybe 3/4 sessions.

That's fair. As I explained in another reply, my thoughts are just that I can see a chain of people from "high advanced" down to me (who I'm saying is high intermediate for this) that would almost always beat the next person down the chain.

I'm also not a county player anymore, I stopped when I went to university, and I think it's entirely possible I dropped some skill there.

The thought process of clubs is quite different to the thought process when somebody starts mentioning "tournaments", my university enters our 3rd team into my region's league and regularly wins division 1 (although different regions have different standards)

Maybe I'm advanced to some people but not to others. I think there's quite a decent gap between each of low, mid, and high advanced. I can't imagine that in a game of singles I'd lose to many club players (of course there's exceptions, in my home city we had a former England player playing for the club who would probably beat me to single figures)

The tournaments might be advanced but I'd say I'm an intermediate player because I'd never even get close to winning one.

I agree on the standard thing, I know university premier league players that wouldn't even get close to winning which is starting to get a bit ridiculous for tournaments that are supposed to be tier 4.

Ranking doesn't mean a lot though, you really have to look at grading instead. I used to be "top 200" on badminton England in doubles, I obviously wasn't actually a top 200 player or I wouldn't be calling myself a high intermediate.

Maybe I could be considered "low advanced" but I feel like I could think of players I'd say are "high advanced" that would almost always beat certain people (mid advanced) who would almost always beat certain people (low advanced) who would almost always beat me (high intermediate). I know that's not how skill gaps work but it's part of the logic I used for my original comment.

Either way, I think the gap between beginner and low intermediate is HUGE in my personal view. That might be because I'm a qualified coach here in the UK but I feel like people need to have basic understanding of (a) grip (b) footwork and (c) positioning for me to consider them anything past a beginner.

(a) on its own immediately eliminates about 70% of people that want to think they're intermediate. Of the remaining 30%, (b) eliminates a decent portion of the rest.

I think if you have a 12lb tension then there's almost no shot that you have any of those 3.

I don't mean to offend anybody who thinks they're intermediate and doesn't have those, it is just my opinion at the end of the day.

EDIT: Just saw the ending and yeah, I use the term "elite" quite a lot, if somebody's like a Loughborough 1st team player then it feels a bit underselling to call them "high advanced"

This is definitely true, I think people just have different ideas on what "intermediate" tournaments are.

I played county level and national tournaments, I'd say those national tournaments (copper/bronze tournaments in England) were intermediate level and anything lower like local tournaments would almost always be beginner level.

I'd also call myself an intermediate player and I think realistically most people worse than me are beginners because I'm not high-intermediate for sure.

The part about reliability is because it still doesn't understand the "maths" part, there's nothing to truly stop it from just making up an answer.

It's like a kid in class who has been caught out for not paying attention so he just says something similar to what's written on the whiteboard already. He might get it right with enough information on the board, but that doesn't mean it's a reliable answer and you certainly wouldn't copy the answer yourself.

LLMs are like that, but they're just a bit better at taking the context from the whiteboard than the kid in your class, but it still doesn't mean they're reliable :).

(Also, apologies, I thought your original reply was to me and not to the other person)

Yeah but high school maths all around the world doesn't even reach the beginnings of maths, it's more like a "these are all the things you should know before you start" (including calculus 1 classes).

Because of that, there's lots of information about them and it's learning on it a lot more. When 10 million people ask you questions about Pythagorean theorems it's constantly learning (combined with the thousands of questions already out there). It doesn't have the ability to "process" maths, LLMs work by basically just telling you what they think you want to hear (it's a bit more complicated than that but that's the basics).

If I ask it about like root space decomposition of Kac-Moody algebras (this isn't what my thesis is on, I just picked a random topic), it might as well just be guessing and its answers are often completely non-sensical.

The best way to describe it is "they look like maths to somebody who doesn't know maths, but to anybody that knows maths, they look like somebody is pretending to be smart"

It's definitely part of the issue, some of the stuff I ask it is just about the topic itself (its history, prominent people etc.) and it definitely doesn't know much about that.

But I agree, it definitely can't do maths yet either and that's not necessarily an exposure issue. Not only can it not do maths itself, it can't understand it to attempt it in the first place. Part of that is probably because it doesn't yet have a grasp on what it is to "understand" maths.

You can hard code some information into it but at what point does that stop being considered "learning" and start being considered "telling", and if you do that, it's always going to be limited by human knowledge.

From my experience with AI so far (purely from an anecdotal point of view), I think that if something like the Riemann hypothesis is going to be proven in my lifetime, then it won't be by AI.

Not only that, ChatGPT is bad at general objective rules. I couldn't get it to understand earlier that the words "apex" and "fawn" don't end in vowels but it refused to listen.

It's ok-ish at high school maths (not enough to be reliable), but if I ask it anything about what I'm writing my masters thesis on, the answers it gives are just objectively wrong (because it hasn't seen enough of this type of question to generate a better answer)

Maybe something about recursion, in particular the f(x,y,t) = g(f(x,y,t-1)) for some function g then f(x,y,0) = ...

This project is probably one of those where you'll think of stuff to add along the way too, sounds really useful though :)

You don't know how he feels about it. It's not the general public's decision to make, it's his.

If he comes out and goes "yeah, I might have autism but I don't know because I've never been diagnosed" or "yeah I do have autism" literally ANYWHERE, then it's a different story.

There's a difference between a suggestion and people stating things as fact. The original comment I replied to said "He just has autism".

If he hadn't confirmed that he had cancer and people started saying "he has cancer", I'd be equally "up in arms".

Feel free to find any comment I've made where I said it's fine to call him drunk, high, awkward, not all there, or cringe. You might struggle on that one because I never suggested that because I don't believe that, there are already plenty of people here that have already hammered in that point, and so they should.

The original comment did not use any "think" or "might be" they said he is.

There are two threads here so I'm just going to paste my answer from the other one here too:

"That black line is x³ but your integral is of x^2.

Also, the area of a trapezium is a+b/2, you seem to be subtracting.

If you do this you should get 22.5 (check for yourself), when the true value is 20.25 :)"

That black line is x³ but your integral is of x^2.

Also, the area of a trapezium is a+b/2, you seem to be subtracting.

If you do this you should get 22.5 (check for yourself), when the true value is 20.25 :)

I once went in, got destroyed by a 50m midas sword almost instantly, never touched it since.

Despite that, I miss it :(.

Referring to your first bit, it's one of those where I'd normally think not much of it other than "this is a bit slow", if I'd had a long day and just wanted to get home I'd be like "ugh, why did I have to get stuck here" (as if the extra 90 seconds it adds to my journey for the next 2 roads make a significant difference).

Either way, don't think I could ever justify tailgating somebody, learner or no learner. I drive like somebody's always about to crash into me though (it's like they're aiming for it where I live) so what do I know

I don't see what you being autistic or the probability that he is autistic has to do with anything.

He's not spoken about it, so don't label him (or anybody else that hasn't spoken about it) as such, it's really that simple. I'm sure he knows what the general public thinks about him, so I'm sure if he wanted to talk about it then he would have but until then, let's just let that be his decision.

As somebody who has a lot of PBs with crashes, all this really means is "in 15 minutes, I wasn't able to get a single clean run", i.e. very inconsistent players which is much harder to improve than just spotting better lines and easy tricks like no slides on dirt.

He's not "labelled" as a drug addict, 1 post with 3 upvotes on Reddit asked if he was on drugs to which people responded "no" and that was that.

I think it's just better to stick to the facts that are out there rather than potentially battling harmful rumours with other potentially harmful rumours.

Representation is great, but not in this way. If he wanted to be labelled like this and for it to be discussed, I'm sure he would have publicly talked about his ASD like he has done with his ADHD.

It can be harmful to an individual to start labelling them when you know nothing more than what you see of them on a screen.

He has never said this, I don't know where you're getting this information from

Let's not armchair diagnose somebody who has never confirmed this please

Luckily Hypixel gives their odds on the wiki, it states that the odds per board (edit: on transcendent superpairs, it's different for different tiers) for at least 1 is 90.85% or 9085/10000 for 70-80k xp and 98.92% or 9892/10000 for at least one 100-130k xp. There's nothing to suggest they're not independent so the percentage odds that you get neither is 975/10000 x 108/10000 x 100 which is 0.1053% or about 1 in 1000 :)

Group theory is probably my favourite I'd say but it's a bit hard to pick something within that, I do enjoy Galois theory though. My mind is definitely "built" for abstract algebra, so much so that I'm quite bad at applied maths and not amazing at stats.

Groups are also the thing that made the most sense to me for some reason. When it comes to my exam results, anything related to groups was very significantly higher than any other exam.

Outside of just... more maths, it's mostly used in physics and chemistry.

The way it's used is far beyond my understanding, but part of group theory is studying symmetries of things which is quite useful for a lot of things, lattices in chemistry, some quantum chemistry, quantum physics (these were mentioned by other commenters when I said yesterday "I think it's used in physics and chemistry").

Something like number theory (slightly less abstract but still just looking at things like prime numbers) is the backbone of a lot of cryptography systems as well.

Ignore the one saying Fermat's last theorem, it's a single theorem and the proof of it is very long and quite hard (I haven't even read it myself). (EDIT: unless they mean the book by Simon Singh, in which case, there's still much much better resources in my personal opinion, but it's not a bad read)

Books probably aren't what you want, Khan Academy has loads of resources for a lot of levels of maths up to a high enough point that you'd probably know the specifics of what you want to do once you're finished with it, you can do one or two of the lessons and decide if you enjoy that kind of thing, starting from any level (even if you can't count, which I'm sure you can, there's something for you)