this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
1246 points (98.8% liked)

Science Memes

11464 readers
321 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sas@beehaw.org 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I feel they might've left something out. If you're at base value still an additive 100% increase (1+1=2) is better than a multiplicative 25% (1×1.25=1.25) increase but in games where bonuses stack another additive 100% increase would raise the effective value by 50% instead (1+1+1=3) whereas another multiplicative 25% would still raise the total by that much (1×1.25×1.25=1.56) so if you're stacking a lot of bonuses, eventually the multplicative ones are more effective. As for how many steps it would take to be equal in our example... 1+1×X=1×1.25^X I'm not gonna do this in my bed on my phone but that equation should already tell you that the right side grows faster when X -> infinity

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 2 points 4 weeks ago

It'll become greater after 12 applications:

  1. For 11 times 1.25¹¹ ≈ 11.64 < 12 = 1+ 1×11
  2. For 12 times 1.25¹² ≈ 14.55 > 13 = 1 + 1×12

There's no need for a precise solution since it's integers anyway.