Forums → Forum Games → Count to 100: Mods Allowed To Count
| 78408 | 46548419 |
The original "This Thread is Currently About" is back! Yes, it's Count to 100!
HOW TO PLAY
1. Count by ones from 1 to 100 in 100 consecutive posts according to the Core Rules.
2. Restart the count from 1 after:
a. a Moderator (or an Administrator) makes a stopping post (post without counting) if users and Knights are counting..
b. a user or Knight or Warden makes a stopping post (post without counting) if Moderators and Administrators are counting.
c. breaking a core rule, spamming, or cheating.
d. reaching 100.
3. Announce why you restart the count so other counters don't get confused.
NOTE: For the time being, Moderators are allowed to help Users count, so as long as the other rules are observed you do not need to restart the count if you see a mod count. However, if a Moderator makes a stopping post, i.e. a post without counting (not the same as a non-count post since they're technically different teams), it is considered an interruption and the count will restart.
CORE RULES
No mistakes. A count must start from 1 and increase by ones up to 100, save for exceptions noted.
No double-counting. No counter may count two consecutive numbers.
No back-to-back counting. No two counters may alternate for more than three consecutive numbers.
Okay: P1 P2 P1 P3
Not Okay: P1 P2 P1 P2
Okay: P1 P2 reset P1 P2
No editing. No counter may edit their post. If an edit tag shows on a count, the attempt is forfeit.
ADDiTiONAL RULES
No "spamming". Please don't post only the number and please don't post gibberish, either.
Multiple one- or two-word counts may also disqualify a count.
No "cheating". This shouldn't need to be said. Counting to 100 doesn't count if you cheat.
This is an exercise in teamwork, not rule bending.
No "spoiling". Don't mess with the count. Posts should start with the correct number.
Posts with no numbers should be ignored. See also: No non-counts.
Posts with intentional mistakes should be ignored.
No "spilping". If this is your first post in this thread, please post "I'm new and here to count to 100!"
No non-counts. No counter may post without a counting number or make a post without bolding that number if that counting number is not at the start of the post.
COMPLETE SET OF RULES
Please refer to the complete set of rules for additional information and examples of what is valid or invalid.
DiSCUSSiON THREAD
Please also check out the discussion thread for new gameplay or rule proposals or general discussion on the gameplay and rules of "Count to 100".
END GAME
Once you reach 100, you start this Sisyphean task all over again back at 1. Users should notify the Commissioner of the Count (HahiHa) that the count reached 100 and the Commissioner will review it to make sure there were no mistakes or cheating. If there were no mistakes or cheating, then the users who took part in the successful count to 100 will get a shiny new Quest!
SCOREBOARD
bold = counted 100, italics = previous winning participant, [#] = # of total wins, (#) = # of times counted 100
FULL SCOREBOARD
MODS - 2 WINS
Highest Count: 15!
1. 9! - 3865 (2533) pages / 286 days, Feb 13, '15 at 5:49pm, 3 users, 6 minutes.
Gantic, Ferret, weirdlike
Note: Earned by handicap.
2. 14! - 2135 pages / 937 days, Sep 08, '17 at 1:25pm, 3 users, 6 mins.
Moegreche, nichodemus, UnleashedUponMankind
Note: Earned by handicap.
USERS - 51 WINS
1. 100! - 537 (355) pages / 94 days, Aug 6, '14 at 9:28pm, 16 users, 14 hrs 33 mins.
apldeap123, Azywng, Crickster, Chryosten (as Darkfire45), Darktroop07, evilsweetblock, JACKinbigletters, kalkanadam, Loop_Stratos, MPH_Complexity, Omegap12, Patrick2011, R2D21999, Snag618, Tactical_Fish, Voyage2
LAST TWO WINS
50. 100! - February 12, '24, 11 users, 52 days.
sciller45 (5)[17], HalRazor [5], saint_of_gaming [5], JimSlaps (1)[2], TheMostManlyMan (1)[14], Solas128 [3], nichodemus (2)[9], Widestsinger [5], SirLegendary (2)[22], skater_kid_who_pwns, disastermaster30 (3)[5]
51. 100! - March 17, '24, 11 users, 35 days.
JimSlaps (1)[3], sciller45 (5)[18], saint_of_gaming [6], TheMostManlyMan (1)[15], Strop, skater_kid_who_pwns [2], GhostOfMatrix [4], WidestSinger (1)[6], HalRazor [6], SirLegendary (2)[23], Solas128 [4]
- 78,408 Replies
12. @kalisenpai I disagree, math is not a human construct. It is everywhere, you yourself said that math is in nature. If this is true, then mankind simply discovers it. Humans cannot "invent" new math, they simply find it other places.
1. Restarting due to the edit...
The Golden Ratio is EVERYWHERE!
2. @the_arkenstonians well, you can't deny that numbers are a human construct. And also, you can't make any progress in maths (that's why there isn't a Nobel Prize for them). That means that we humans can't discover new math-related things, as we can discover them in other fields (for instance a new virus). And yes, human "invent" new methods to play with numbers; the only thing is that these new methods are restricted to some rules you have to follow (for instance 2+2=4, no matters what). You should also stick to the rules of this game, though...
@armorplayergc You really like the Golden Ratio, huh? It's wonderful to find people who actually like maths
3. I agree with you Kali that it is a human's construct in that way:
Individuals discovered it - they have seen that it is everywhere, they have seen the need of it. But then they needed to describe, explain it in a way, that as many people as possible could understand. When people understood they could verify if it is reasonable. And this approved description, interpretation of something that always existed in the nature which was done by many generations of thinkers and researchers which is MATH is in my opinion a human's construct. I understand that you meant something similar with the methods of playing with numbers
But I'm afraid you are not right that there can't be any progress in math - of course there are many undiscovered things and mysteries awaiting for a solution. Here's an example:
@Majestic_Fish Off the top of my head: weapons of mass destruction. I don't see any development in those.
@Awesome751 Yeah! I wanna more riddles!
4. @PLGuy I see your point there, but I think it's matter of perception. For me, those things aren't a discovery, but a mathematical demonstration (I'm not sure that's the right word, I just translated it from Spanish). I mean, you can always write an ecuation, and then make the necessary operations in order to prove it, but you don't discover anything or progress in the field. If you discover a new molecule, then you could create a drug to cure an illness; that's progress. In Maths, you just verify if something it's true or not, possible or not; and, if it is, then you may find it in the nature in any form.
5. What's this!? I didn't even bother to read, way too long for someone like me! (Even though I read LN every day)
6. @Majestic_Fish It's our little debate
@kalisenpai
First millenium problem was defined in 1822, there are seven. Only one of them have been solved by this day and I believe there were thousands of professors who tried. There is a possibility that every possible method had been used by this day. Maybe these problems can't be solved with the math that we already know?
In Maths, you just verify if something it's true or not, possible or not; and, if it is, then you may find it in the nature in any form.
There are exceptions: Name an existing object that can be enumerated in negative number Negative numbers are a part of math and yet they don't truely exist around us. But they are used in calculations, so let's move on.
Imaginary numbers which are a part of complex numbers don't exist, they don't even describe a process existing in the nature and yet they are useful, (f.e. in quantum mechanics). They were accepted in XVIII Century. They weren't accepted before because it was just something different. Not another method of solving, but a completely new approach and insight into our "construct". That look from outside the box is just an example of "the other math". That's why I think that there still might be undiscovered fields that could shape math anew.
If you still claim that math development is only about inventing new equations and other methods, then I'm afraid that we have to agree to disagree
7. Hmmm, maybe I haven't explained myself properly (that happens to me a lot, especially when discussing sth in English XD).
Maybe these problems can't be solved with the math that we already know?
Well, this leads us again to Newton and Leibniz, and I think we agree on that regard.
Regarding, negative and imaginary numbers, it's true that they don't exist per se in nature (you don't have -1 apple, lol). But they can be used in the real Science (I believe Maths is above Science, it's the only thing that can say if sth is true or not the 100% of cases): we can see negative numbers as subtractions and, if I remember correctly, imaginary numbers are used in electricity (?).
That's why I think that there still might be undiscovered fields that could shape math anew.
Well, as I said before, Maths is a logic game. You can create a new rule, as long as the previous rules aren't broken. What I mean, is that you can't "create/discover" something new (you can't create/discover the sixseven: a new number between six and seven. I know it's a silly example, but still XD). But it's true you can create new methods to play with numbers, can't disagree with that
9. @Majestic_Fish We are probably in a wrong place to even lead a debate, let alone win or loose one.
@kalisenpai I have an impression, that you narrow your perspective on math too much. Logic and algebra are just small parts of math. F.e. there is also geometry where are undiscovered things like rules of 4 Dimensional, 5 Dimensional objects and well... worlds. And also different divisions of math are integrated with eachother, like it is integrated with other branches of science. F.e. people who invented integrals, differentials and derivatives were working with Cartesian Coordinate System. But it is only 3D.
You can create a new rule, as long as the previous rules aren't broken.
If you prove to everyone that previous were wrong, then why not? It's normal thing in science. And you mentioned the digit between six and seven. I would not say that you can't - would mess too many things up. You could imagine sixseven (another name for 6,5) and throw it between those digits, but nobody would do like you, because it's just not purposeful and you should do that between every two digits.
To sum up: It is not just the mafter of perception. After all we wrote I can assume that we can't agree with each other I am fully aware with the potential of developement of math. I know well my opinion on that matter and I didn't tell all of that off the top of my head.
10. Yep, I think we have reached a dead end, I'm afraid XD. But, anyway, it was fun discussing with you
@Majestic_Fish, this was just a friendly debate, so I don't think you're in the right place. Maybe you should ask MDC?
11. Was the debate fun for both of you? I was the only spectator, lol.
You must be logged in to post a reply!