MTG Salvation

Quote from NoNeedToBragoBoutIt »

Can anyone tell me what the maximum image size in px for the signature is?
I can recall that it will scale the image down, if it's unproportionally big, but i haven't found any details in the forums.
Reason is, i'd like to craft a farewell sig for when MTGS goes to read only.

Quote from cryogen »

The name of the new site is not public info yet.

What do you mean by a "build your deck" feature?

Quote from Tartaras »

With the announcement that the site is closing down, we should try and find another place to congregate and keep discussions going. It would be a shame to lost contact with all of you wonderful people.

Quote from cryogen »

I promise two things: first that as long as I am a part of the new site I will strive to make it at a minimum what we had here, and secondly that based on what we have discussed so far I think it will be even better in the long run.

Quote from Airithne »

Quote from cryogen »

I promise two things: first that as long as I am a part of the new site I will strive to make it at a minimum what we had here, and secondly that based on what we have discussed so far I think it will be even better in the long run.

Cyrogen and I will quite literally give up the EDH forums over our dead bodies.

Quote from Airithne »

ISBPathfinder has stepped down as a mod of this sub. We're grateful for all the time he's put in here, and wish him the best going forward.

Quote from arrogantAxolotl »

So recently, I've become interested in a question: given a list of n random numbers between 1 and 10, how many additional numbers between 1 and 10 would I need to add to this list on average in order to find the greatest possible average of numbers on the list? Provided that I 1.) always start by adding the greatest number possible and 2.) can add the same number as many times as I like, the answer to that question is fairly straightforward. I would add '10s' forever, and the average would always eke closer towards 10 without ever reaching it. The number of additional numbers I would need to add to maximize the average would be infinitely long.

Say something changes though. What if, after using the greatest possible number (10), I couldn't use 10 again? What if I could now only use the next greatest number? If I wanted to only use whole numbers, that would be 9, but there's really no reason I couldn't use rational numbers, so let's just say the next biggest number is 9.9, and every subsequent number decreases by 0.1 after that. Now something interesting happens. As I add more and more numbers to this list, eventually the average of all the listed numbers exceeds the value of the next greatest number I can possibly add. At that point, I've reached the maximum, and any number added past that point will only decrease the average.

Now, the "number of numbers" needed to reach this maximum depends upon a number of things, namely what the random starting numbers are, how many there are, and how fast I set the decay rate, but despite these dependencies, it's interesting seeing how these numbers relate to one another.