3 ms·
Given how the article is laid out, I think it would be more appropriate to view the game from the lens of when we teach the operations in school, as opposed to
by jesterswilde 2y ago
Given how the article is laid out, I think it would be more appropriate to view the game from the lens of when we teach the operations in school, as opposed to what are fundamental or elementary operations / functions in math.
Though I also think square root is cheating, it has an implicit 2 inside of it, where as raising to the power of 2 and log 2 are explicit.
You could also argue for only infix operators.
A good game must be somewhat challenging or else it is not really a game. Anything that makes the game trivial ought be omitted for it to be a game.
- Karellen 2y agoYeah, thinking of the puzzle as a game, rather than a competition, allows for a different perspective. If I think of a competition, then I'd expect the rules to be determined ahead of time according to some pre-imagined criteria. If someone manages to find a clever hack within the rules that allows for trivial "breaks", then that's good for them and they just get to beat everyone else at it. But if I think of a game, then it's much more natural for the rules to adapt over time as people realise that some types of "play" make the game less fun, or straight-up boring. They don't have to be self-consistent, or logical. They're essentially arbitrary, and just whatever they need to be to make the game "better".