Fun stuff -- word related or not, ramblings, junk, whatever.

[crazykate]

Why thank you sir! It's the easiest promotion I've ever had One of the things that I love the most is that 2 and I have, for years, had a competition regarding who loves who the most, both trying to end each coversation with, "I love you more". I'm not sure if its a biological imperitive/hormonal thing, but each time I've made a person it's felt like the meaning of life was revealed, and there is no love quite like it. I tried to explain that to them all, particularly when they have been angling for "favourite child" status.

2 said to me, "I love you", I said, "I love you more"....2 said, "I know". She gets it.

I love that!
You also described the feeling perfectly, like the meaning of life was revealed... I remember when I made my second person, my heart was already full with my first, and I was worried about whether my love would be divided up now there'd be two of them... But as soon as baby no 2 arrived, it felt like a new dimension opened up and I had twice as much love to give. It's also why I'm not getting into a "favourite child" debate, because it feels like I love each of them 100% of their own pocket dimension. (That made no sense, did it?)

[floppers]

Why thank you sir! It's the easiest promotion I've ever had One of the things that I love the most is that 2 and I have, for years, had a competition regarding who loves who the most, both trying to end each coversation with, "I love you more". I'm not sure if its a biological imperitive/hormonal thing, but each time I've made a person it's felt like the meaning of life was revealed, and there is no love quite like it. I tried to explain that to them all, particularly when they have been angling for "favourite child" status.

2 said to me, "I love you", I said, "I love you more"....2 said, "I know". She gets it.

[lalatan]

floppers, congratulations on your promotion from M1 to GM1 (Mum1 to Grandma1).

[floppers]

So, maybe S1 for the second born's first. S2, S3, S4 for their siblings.

O for one, or U for uno gives Offspring 1 O1, O2, O3, O4. Or U1, U2, U3.

T for 3.

Q for 4.

Thank you for your kind input, I think I'm going here for now...it provides a bit of a mystery for all of the Offspring, one which they may not be able to solve unless the provide themselves, or each other for further clues, by way of making more people. I think 4 will be particularly pleased with the Q.

[Spike1007]

The mathematical notation would be the first derivative at the value 2: f'(2). Subsequent offspring would be the second derivative, etc. When my first daughter was born, the math department (I was in grad school at the time) was given birth announcements noting that she was our first derivative.

I like the derivative. For brevity though, 2' could just be used.

[Naboka]

Totally not word related...perhaps a mathematical dilemma..also not junk but fun stuff. You may be aware that whilst the people I made have names, and nicknames, I generally refer to them by birth order number. Offspring 1, 2, 3, and 4. SO...Offspring 2 made a person of her own (yaay!). He has been named (Joey Loyal), but I am at a loss as to the number he should be allocated. As many of you are gifted in this area, I seek your learned suggestions.

Perhaps you've boxed yourself in with numbers

which prevents imagination from taking flight.

Secundogeniture has to do with rights of the second born.

But, that's just awkward... and definitely not quirky.

Yet, historically applicable.

So, maybe S1 for the second born's first. S2, S3, S4 for their siblings.

O for one, or U for uno gives Offspring 1 O1, O2, O3, O4. Or U1, U2, U3.

T for 3.

Q for 4.

[bwt1213]

The mathematical notation would be the first derivative at the value 2: f'(2). Subsequent offspring would be the second derivative, etc. When my first daughter was born, the math department (I was in grad school at the time) was given birth announcements noting that she was our first derivative.

[floppers]

hmmm.....definitely worth consideration...I was thinking that he could be gifted a power ? H, Offspring2, "2er" is the base, then Joey could be represented with an exponent, which leaves room for all the Offspring to have more...I'm concerned that it could make things complicated though...maybe the factor should be represented with a letter....sigh...where is coffee when you need it?

[Spike1007]

How about 2.1?

[floppers]

Totally not word related...perhaps a mathematical dilemma..also not junk but fun stuff. You may be aware that whilst the people I made have names, and nicknames, I generally refer to them by birth order number. Offspring 1, 2, 3, and 4. SO...Offspring 2 made a person of her own (yaay!). He has been named (Joey Loyal), but I am at a loss as to the number he should be allocated. As many of you are gifted in this area, I seek your learned suggestions.

[jeepiegirl]

These crazy new words are not for me. 16-letter words? Obviously engineered and while I don't find that wrong, and I suppose I understand, that stuff isn't for me. Same with all the emphasis from some players on winning and setting records, only playing a puzzle to find the longest word, getting 600 words or 1000 points a game, etc.

I played real word games with my mother, both of us word freaks, for many years. She gradually lost her abilities and died in 2005. When I found this game in 2009 or 2010 I was overjoyed! The early game was not much attended to so that sometimes there would be more than 300 plays on a single puzzle! I played just to play so while it was frustrating, I was always measuring myself against myself- inexact of course but that's what I enjoyed. It's still what I enjoy. I choose puzzles based on how I'm feeling at the moment, and if I see my name on a puzzle already I play it to see if I can beat the score. Otherwise, I just do the best I can in all categories.

Word games are just plain fun and stimulate the brain, and that's all I'm looking for. No judging or ranting here- everyone should play games however they choose. I just wanted to put my thoughts out there and share my love of word games. LOVE WordTwist- that's for sure.

[Naboka]

Think moving the recycle threshold to 700 points on 4x4 is proving to be advantageous. (Probably so for the 1,000 point 5x5 also.)

Gives us a chance to steal unusual words from the exotic lands of the ultrahigh ASPG players.

Of course, those are intended words. There have always been those mistyped or randomly typed letters that produced unintended but unusual words.

[Spike1007]

I "discovered" my own share of things too. I was always a big fan of reinventing the wheel.

[bwt1213]

I've never rediagonalized anything, or even remember seeing or hearing it. I've been waiting for years to see REORTHONORMALIZATION though. bwt, you could make the same comment for that. If you do it once, why do it again? In my case, it was part of a larger iterative process, where I'd do something else to the matrix in between orthonormalization steps, hence the RE-.

That's interesting. I always did diagonalization as a part of matrix inversion. I created a way of generating a set of orthogonal vectors from any given non-null vector when I took my first linear algebra class, and picky little stuff like that always fascinated me. I always felt guilty that it did. It's like being the guy who created long division or the thing that looks like long division for doing square roots. In my own mind, I will always be famous for independently discovering LaGrange interpolation, two centuries late. It's more of that fiddly kind of stuff. Perhaps it's why I like this game so much. Note for non-mathematicians here: LaGrange interpolation will create a polynomial that will exactly fit any set of data points. If you had ten data points, there is a ninth degree (or less) polynomial that will go precisely through every one of them. Yeah, there are other uses, but that will remain between me and Spike.

[Spike1007]

I've never rediagonalized anything, or even remember seeing or hearing it. I've been waiting for years to see REORTHONORMALIZATION though. bwt, you could make the same comment for that. If you do it once, why do it again? In my case, it was part of a larger iterative process, where I'd do something else to the matrix in between orthonormalization steps, hence the RE-.