3 ms·
On top of this there's a negative feedback loop. The ball whose territory gets smaller has less distance to travel between hits. This means that even if there
by praptak 3y ago
On top of this there's a negative feedback loop. The ball whose territory gets smaller has less distance to travel between hits.
This means that even if there was anything resembling a "win" condition it would be hard to achieve.
- mrec 3y agoYou'd think, but I'm currently looking at a 161/863 split which has been pretty stable for a while now. I thought at first that ball speed is being scaled by territory size to cancel out the negative feedback, and the "winning" ball is moving noticeably faster than the losing one, but I can't see that being deliberate in the code. (There is some randomization of speed on a bounce, but it ought to be pure noise.) EDIT: 120/904 now.
- yellowapple 3y agoOne possible win condition would be a ball reaching the opponent's side. That happened in my case, with "night" eventually breaking through to the left-most edge.
- geor9e 3y agoThat just explains why it tends towards balance. It's just like all the air molocules in a room reliably bouncing around where you can inhale them. There's no hard law of nature saying all the air wont move to one side, suffocating you. It's just statically extremely improbable. But they asked for proof for or against a possibility at all, not whats probable.