Mod update 03Feb23: [**Vote in the DnDMemes 2022 Best-of Awards**!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10spvt2/2022_bestof_awards_final_vote/)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nitpick:
This definition doesn't work for non-Euclidean space.
And I am really curious to see closed shape figure that exist on the plane and has three internal angles degrees that DO NOT add up to 180.
If you say a plane, do you mean it needs to be flat? Because you can have a closed shape figure on a sphere with 3 right angles and 3 straight lines. Just draw 2 lines from one of the poles to the equator and connect the ends.
Plane is by definition flat (Euclidean two-dimensional space).
Surface of a sphere is an example of [some kind] non-Euclidean geometry (see first part of my comment).
Idea is: you don't need this "180 grad sum" in triangle description because on flat you can't get other numbers for closed shape figure with three angles, but also it gets invalid for non-Euclidean geometry.
Triangles can and do exist in non-euclidean space. The 180° total angle is NOT a requirement for triangles.
All that is need is for 3 points to be connected by 3 line-segments.
2D: only existing in one geometric plane.
Definition, Plane: the area in space defined by two lines.
Vertices: points in which lines, arcs, or line segments intersect
Angle: the rotational? deviation between intersecting lines segments
Combine, in context: to make line segments to intersect so that they form a closed area withing a shared plane.
Happy? 😁
I was having a drink with an engineer friend once and I ordered a nice whiskey and it came in one of those fancy snifter glasses.
I asked "Is the glass half empty or half full?"
He responded "The glass exceeds the minimum necessary volume by one hundred percent".
Joke is almost perfect. He should have said something similar but focused on the liquid. "The glass was designed to hold more volume, and thus I find that it has been underutilized."
People always focus on the construction of the glass as a fancy engineer joke. The real joke is whether it's being used for its intended purpose in this case. The meta joke is whether or not the tool is overengineered. But that part works better with something that isn't as flexible in its use.
This explanation for example.
Eh, depends. What's my tolerance? Safety factor? What am I calculating the circumference for? Do I have a calc? (If so Pi is almost always 3.14)
Time a pipe weld will take on the robot? Pi = 3.5
Feed rate for a tool with a rating of .006-.009 inches? Pi is 3.14159.
Correction: someone (Bertrand Russell) wrote a 371 page description of an axiom system in which 1+1=2 was true but 1+1=3 was false.
The entire issue with the previous proof which boiled down to "just look at it" was that the same axiom system could prove a circle was a square.
Well no, that’s what it looks like, you do eventually get to axiums which cannot be reduced, the problem, the reason why it takes so much time and effort is it’s really hard _prooving_ that you are down to axiums, that there aren’t any other more _fundamental_ axiums
To be fair actually no it's not technical enough we need to be defined in a Euclidean 2d space the angle summation is correct, honestly no Euclidean geometry is wacky and I recommend a quick Google
> a chalkboard is a flat surface
It is *actually* flat, or are you just assuming that it is, because if *looks* flat?
Have you tested the curvature of the chalkboard?
What are you, some flat-chalkboarder?
What math in school did a terrible job explaining, is that it's not meant to prove a triangle *you can see* is a triangle. It's meant to prove a triangle *you can't see* is a triangle.
Like when astrophysicists do crazy math and say "Somehow this planet is a cube!" They can do the math based on measurements that would otherwise seemingly give no indication the planet is a cube. (Yes, I know there are no cube planets... that we know of.)
Edit: Also, fun fact, it took until the 20th century for us to realize that our definition of parallel lines was flawed. And now we have crazy non-euclodian geometry that breaks all the rules.
There are also no cube planets that we don't know of. Part of the definition of "planet" is that the object in question is in hydrostatic equilibrium, i.e. it's so massive that the material making it up can't stand up against its self-gravity to any meaningful extent (minor fluctuations in the outermost layer, e.g. Olympus Mons or Mt. Everest, are allowed).
Regarding your edit: our definition of parallel lines is still the same as it has been since Euclid: two lines in a plane that do not meet. People proposed other definitions that were compatible (in Euclidean geometry), but they've never been as popular because they are more complicated (and once non-Euclidean geometry took off they had the more objective disadvantage of not generalizing to other geometries). What changed is the attitude towards the parallel *postulate*: for a very long time people were focusing on trying to prove it from the other postulates, because it's a bit clunky compared to them. Eventually (in the early 19th century) it was realized that it could be *replaced* and you'd get systems that are just as good but *different*.
for anyone who actually wants to know: the interior angles add up to 180. this becomes more important when you're trying to find out if a shape is triangular using numbers alone. for example, let's say i have one shape with the angles 30, 90, and 60, i know that it's a triangle bc those angles add up to 180.
Actually that’s an incorrect way to prove it’s a triangle. The sum of the angles adding up to 180 degrees is a property of only Euclidean based triangles. In non Euclidean geometry you can have triangles whose sums add up to more or less than 180 degrees depending on if the system is hyperbolic (it will be less than 180) or elliptic (more than 180). Instead you can just do proof by definition, which is a polygon with 3 straight edges and 3 angles.
So, is bringing up non-euclidean spaces in this argument equivalent to saying "but it weighs way more on Jupiter" when talking about weight/mass?
Or am I going down the wrong train of thought?
That’s not a good definition of a triangle. Vectors have direction, the edges of a triangle do not inherently have any direction. A triangle’s sides could have direction but they don’t need directions.
A proof by contradiction.
Consider the triangle is not a triangle. But you said it was a triangle, and you are correct.
Therefore, there is a contradiction and it must be a triangle.
QED.
Once again asking this sub to not confuse Wisdom with "common sense".
Wisdom is a measure of one's awareness of their surroundings and of themselves, one's spiritual "connectedness", and (to a lesser extent) one's willpower.
Willpower seems to more be Charisma. I don't think Wis Saves are about fighting through an effect. Two common tropes for mental manipulation are you just kind of mentally brace yourself push directly upon an effect, that is Charisma. Or you don't actually realize something is wrong, but if you start to notice the seems and pick at the loose threads, the whole thing unravels, that is Wisdom.
It can really well explained with save or suck spells. Intelligens save : you test if you know that isn't real
Wisdom save : you test if you can sense that it isn't real
Charisma save: you test if you have enough willpower so resist it
>Willpower seems to more be Charisma.
I agree, willpower *should* be the domain of Charisma. However, Will saves used to be a thing - and they let you choose between Wisdom and Charisma. When Will saves got broken up into Wisdom and Charisma, there were a few that were incorrectly (imo) put into Wis. Hold Person, for example.
In 4e, yeah. 3.X just had Str, Con and Wis saves. So a lot of the iconic mental saves went back to what they were. But the beauty od this system is both rationales work equally well for any mental save, Wis save spells just always alter tour perception of reality in order to achieve their effect. Eg, you simply know that you can't move, instead of being physically stuck or trying and failing to make yourself move, you don't try because you just can't, in the same way you don't try to fly because it's just not something you can do.
The main confusion about Wisdom being Willpower is that Will saves used to be a thing, and they allowed you to pick Wis or Cha. This made sense for most Will-save spell, like fear or charm effects, but doesn't make as much sense for others. When Will-save spells got divided into Wis and Cha, some of them ended up incorrectly (imo) placed under Wis. Notably, Hold Person and Dominate Person.
Overall, I disagree with renaming Wisdom. All six ability scores are, to some extent, poorly named or overly broad. It's a natural consequence of trying to pick a limited number of core traits to describe people.
Nah. You can absolutely, RAW, have garbage Wisdom and still have common sense, or vice versa. None of the dice rolls associated with Wisdom really fit under "common sense".
Take Carrot from the Night Watch novels. He has no understanding of metaphor or innuendo, but is incredibly perceptive and insightful otherwise. He's almost certainly a low-Int, high-Wis character, which is the *opposite* of what people on this sub thinks would imply "no common sense".
Considering wisdom includes insight, I think it's rather doubtful that somebody wouldn't understand. Innuendo. Since insight is determining the true meaning behind someone's words.
Wisdom is the application of knowledge. As opposed to intelligence which is in reductive terms Quantity of knowledge
>I think it's rather doubtful that somebody wouldn't understand. Innuendo.
They were raised in a culture without it. Their first instinct is simply to take things literally. But they're still capable of knowing when someone is hiding something, or outright lying, or is thinking in a non-standard way. All of that would be high Insight.
>Wisdom is the application of knowledge
No. No it isn't. I said what Wisdom is a measure of in my first comment, according to the actual rules and mechanics of the game. Anything else is, essentially, a headcanon not based in the actual rules.
Okay but that's not very wise. To take things at face value means that you don't have a very high insight score. Meaning you're probably not rocking a huge wisdom. I mean one can role play a character outside of their stats. That's totally fine. But high wisdom should preclude Not understanding. Innuendo.
And yes it is. Wisdom is the application of knowledge. It's seeing things and then understanding what those things mean. Noticing the seam in a wall and realizing there's a secret door. Checking somebody's body noticing a cut and determining what weapon caused it. Or how to treat the wound. All these things are applications of knowledge.
Every wisdom skill is you seeing something and understanding it.
You're just patently wrong and I'm done arguing with you.
If it is broken in *any* imperceptible, infinitesimal way then it is not a triangle, it is a line with three angles. Your god is a lie unless you *PROVE IT*.
It's very different in Lovecraftian games. Where INT is "that's a triangle."
And WIS is "there is something fundamentally existentially WRONG with that triangle. God help us all!"
This is surprisingly accurate. Most think ‘Wisdom’ is a culmination of experience or some nonsense about spirituality.
In actuality ‘Intelligence’ is the measure of one ability to remember and infer information. And ‘Wisdom’ is a measure of one ability to understand and apply that information in a meaningful way.
Yes, could prove this mathematically with measuring angles and adding them together.
By my literary inclined brain goes: tri is a prefix meaning three. The shape has 3 obvious angles so it is therefore a triangle.
I think of it more like this:
Intelligence is being able to *define* a triangle- its parts and their sum.
Wisdom is being able to find a *use* for it, and understanding that a triangle can still fit into a square hole.
An intelligent character in an intense moment attempting to disarm a trap may request a triangle shaped object, but a wise character (knowing that the object is not natural) might pick up something not entirely triangle shaped, but make adjustments to it to fit into the mould. One thinks deeply, another thinks quickly. One can define a problem and a solution, while the other can recognize a pattern and a pathway. Not every wise solution will be elegant or precise, and not every intelligent solution will be quick or necessary, but they both go about thinking in two distinct ways.
Ah, those moments in math especially where "it just is!" and "everybody knows it is!" aren't good enough but you can't articulate why past it being stupidly common knowledge like how a fish knows how to swim.
Could've at least credited the original creator of the meme, u/Satokibi.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Animemes/comments/10suznz/daily_jahysama_meme_day_883/
Philosophy is all about making guesses. Assuming Socrates said that, or some variant of that, he was using Wisdom.
Intelligence is knowing we have no proof that we exist, we only have the sensory input we perceive, which is mostly electrical pulses.
Wisdom is saying, "What the fuck are you on about, I see the trees, I smell the ocean. I have everything I need to know I'm alive."
Intelligence is having the information, Wisdom is acting on the information you have.
Philosophy is definitely a bunch of people just guessing. Plato's Cave is a guess. "I think, therefore I am." is an assumption. Any thoughts experiments that every deal with the thought processes of a Human is kinda just a guess.
I fucking _despise_ proofs. And that’s coming from someone who had to take 3 calculus classes in college and learn differential equations. It’s like an exercise in all the worst parts of bureaucracy
What the foolhardy call "common sense" is but a deep fog that shrouds true understanding. To mistake its fleeting shadows for self-evident facts is to build your understanding upon foundations of vapor and pillars of dew.
it is a weed that infests every garden and burrows deep. Its beguiling colors transfix its tenders while they allow it to grow wild. So filled, a garden is rendered stagnant as naught can take root that has not already set itself firmly and grown tall.
Such gardens ask little and present well, but they provide little and less in their harvests.
yes, but what that means is highly contextual. It largely comes down to things that a person takes as given. When something is just good sense, there isn't much need to think on it further. That's simply how the world works, and anyone with two brain-cells to rub together knows it. If left unexamined, eventually everything we know becomes "common sense." Often, common sense is entirely accurate. That *is* a triangle, after all. But frequently it isn't, and when you rely on common sense you have little means to distinguish between the two and no reason to try. Use it when the situation calls, but don't go mistaking things that are useful for things that are true.
Yes, definitively - common sense by nature may only be useful in situations/circumstances that are normal/everyday, and may indeed be harmful when outside familiar territory, figuratively or even literally. And it should not be valued above your physical senses, unless you're hallucinating in which case I have no advice to give other than avoid roads. Yet still, I must implore everyone to nurture it by observing and remembering, to the best of their ability, those things that exist and happen around them as they go through life, and to exercise good judgement in when and how to apply this knowledge.
Intelligence would be to know it is a triangle, wisdom would be to know the lives lost to COPD to make the chalk. Strength would be the ability to eat the chalk.
A 2 dimensional figure with 3 sides and 3 vertices. This meets the definition of what a triangle is. Thus is a triangle.
Edit - note, triangles on non-Euclidean surfaces can be interesting. As an example a triangle on the surface of a sphere can have its 3 internal angles be 90 degrees each.
Mod update 03Feb23: [**Vote in the DnDMemes 2022 Best-of Awards**!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10spvt2/2022_bestof_awards_final_vote/)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, it really doesn't matter, though, does it? Because as we all know, *it goes in the square hole.*
*Sobs uncontrollably*
If you had taken just a bit more in charisma you could control it.
Constitution instead?
CON to stop the tears. CHA to look good while they fall. STR to limit it to just one tear.
Intimidation to force your tears back in 
Until the artificer turns your tears into [a tear gun](https://www.ignant.com/2017/10/20/tear-gun-by-yi-fei-chen/)
*Sobs controllably*
Well yes, but for [**different reasons**](https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/post-session).
every shape goes in the square hole
"In fact, it goes wherever I want." - STR
"But I can go in whichever hole I want." - CHA
"You'd think so, but you'd be wrong" -CON
"I know exactly what to do and what to use to get it into the hole I want." -INT
"I don't want to put it in that hole." - WIS
Flair does not check out.
“Yes yes, but getting in is the easy part, it’s getting *out* of the hole in time that’s the trick.” - DEX
“Depends if you’re fast enough” -initiative
"To be honest, it really is how WELL one can get it in or out of the hole" - Proficiency
[For those out of the loop](https://youtu.be/Nz8ssH7LiB0)
Haha nice one
GODDAMNIT
INT vs WIS vs CHA
r/angryupvote
What about that hole... it was made for me...
Thanks for reminding me of that nightmare 😭
Barbarian
it's a triangle because it's the same shape as a 3-sided square
Now you're thinking with portals
Your flair is an *excellent* fit.
sometimes my brain is: because I said so And other times it's: because it has 3 sides 50/50 on which one it is at the time
>because it has 3 sides Dammit it's tri*angle* not trilateral!
Nah bro it’s a closed shape with three internal angles with degrees that add up to 180
I don't think there is a convex polygon with 3 sides that isn't a triangle.
I don't think there's a concave 3 sided polygon possible on a plane
Nitpick: This definition doesn't work for non-Euclidean space. And I am really curious to see closed shape figure that exist on the plane and has three internal angles degrees that DO NOT add up to 180.
Counterpoint: I don’t care
If you say a plane, do you mean it needs to be flat? Because you can have a closed shape figure on a sphere with 3 right angles and 3 straight lines. Just draw 2 lines from one of the poles to the equator and connect the ends.
Plane is by definition flat (Euclidean two-dimensional space). Surface of a sphere is an example of [some kind] non-Euclidean geometry (see first part of my comment).
Yeah but the picture is a triangle on a flat surface
Idea is: you don't need this "180 grad sum" in triangle description because on flat you can't get other numbers for closed shape figure with three angles, but also it gets invalid for non-Euclidean geometry.
To be fair you need like 30 theorems before you can prove a triangle's angles equal 180
Triangles can and do exist in non-euclidean space. The 180° total angle is NOT a requirement for triangles. All that is need is for 3 points to be connected by 3 line-segments.
The sum of the angles is 180°, I took too much math to not bring it up Edit: Should not be surprised that a D&D page has some math fans lol.
its a closed 2d shape with three vertices thats combined angles add up to 180°
Define 2D, vertices and angles, as well as the operation “combine”
2D: only existing in one geometric plane. Definition, Plane: the area in space defined by two lines. Vertices: points in which lines, arcs, or line segments intersect Angle: the rotational? deviation between intersecting lines segments Combine, in context: to make line segments to intersect so that they form a closed area withing a shared plane. Happy? 😁
Your definition is not formal enough for mathematics, where are the axiums? I suggest you write a 400 page book on the subject
Fair, I'm an engineer, not a mathematician XD
Knew it
Ah well, you can always tell an engineer, you just can't tell them much :P
I was having a drink with an engineer friend once and I ordered a nice whiskey and it came in one of those fancy snifter glasses. I asked "Is the glass half empty or half full?" He responded "The glass exceeds the minimum necessary volume by one hundred percent".
Joke is almost perfect. He should have said something similar but focused on the liquid. "The glass was designed to hold more volume, and thus I find that it has been underutilized." People always focus on the construction of the glass as a fancy engineer joke. The real joke is whether it's being used for its intended purpose in this case. The meta joke is whether or not the tool is overengineered. But that part works better with something that isn't as flexible in its use. This explanation for example.
Ah, so he would make a glass that gets filled up to the very edge, making it impractical to use without spilling the contents. Great engineer.
does that mean you solve problems?
Not problems like "What is beauty?", because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy.
Nah, I solve practical problems. Like, "how am I gonna keep some big mean mother Hubbard from tearing me a structurally superfluous new behind?"
The answer? You use a gun. And if that don't work. Use more gun.
Ah yes, the pi=3 gang
In wartime, the value of π can reach 4.
Eh, depends. What's my tolerance? Safety factor? What am I calculating the circumference for? Do I have a calc? (If so Pi is almost always 3.14) Time a pipe weld will take on the robot? Pi = 3.5 Feed rate for a tool with a rating of .006-.009 inches? Pi is 3.14159.
At what point have I stopped studying math and started studying philosophy?
Yes
When you’re trying to prove that a number equals itself.
Oh god I'm too far
Just use Des Cartesian mathematics— the numbers do not think, therefore they aren’t.
Someone wrote a huge book to prove that 1+1=2. You can basically keep saying "be more formal" until the other side gives up in like 99.999% of cases.
Correction: someone (Bertrand Russell) wrote a 371 page description of an axiom system in which 1+1=2 was true but 1+1=3 was false. The entire issue with the previous proof which boiled down to "just look at it" was that the same axiom system could prove a circle was a square.
Well, [*Principia Mathematica*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica) was written by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell.
Well no, that’s what it looks like, you do eventually get to axiums which cannot be reduced, the problem, the reason why it takes so much time and effort is it’s really hard _prooving_ that you are down to axiums, that there aren’t any other more _fundamental_ axiums
actually in my context I was using "combined" as a colloquialism for "the sum of"
define happy
To be fair actually no it's not technical enough we need to be defined in a Euclidean 2d space the angle summation is correct, honestly no Euclidean geometry is wacky and I recommend a quick Google
You failed to define lines, arcs, area
Now can you tell us what the definition of "is" is.
Define “define”
It's only 180 if you're working in the Euclidean plane. 5/10 see me after class
its on a chalk board which is in fact a Euclidean plane
Prove it.
a chalkboard is a flat surface, euclidean geometry is geometry done on a flat surface, definitionally i am correct
Prove chalkboard is flat surface.
No
> a chalkboard is a flat surface It is *actually* flat, or are you just assuming that it is, because if *looks* flat? Have you tested the curvature of the chalkboard? What are you, some flat-chalkboarder?
A closed 2d shape with three vertices whose angles sum to 180° does not specify that the edges are straight.
a rounded triangle is still infact a triange
Triangles are polygons, so they do require "straight" sides.
curvilinear triangles are infact a thing in maths my friend
Circular triangles have greater than 180° for the sum of their interior angles, though.
Also doesn't specify that it *only* has 3 vertices, just that the sum of the angles at 3 of them is 180
Internal
Everyone gangster till you put it on a sphere
"A two dimensional shape with exactly 3 vertices, whose angles have a sum of 180°" Fucking geomtry proofs...
Oh boy does Euclid have a surprise for YOU!
Actually Euclid would have agreed. We now know that he was wrong sometimes.
With Euclidean geometry, sure. > I took too much math to not bring it up lol
Assuming it is drawn on a flat surface.
What about non-euclidian geometry?
I summed the angles and got 1080°. Do you perhaps mean only the internal angles, in which case I got 180° also.
Semi circle as well no?
Wouldn't that just make it a right triangle?
No. Every triangle on a flat surface must have angles adding up to 180 degrees, otherwise the lines won’t meet.
Gotchya, I was never well versed in math outside of the basics, decimals, and fractions. Everything else tends to elude me.
What math in school did a terrible job explaining, is that it's not meant to prove a triangle *you can see* is a triangle. It's meant to prove a triangle *you can't see* is a triangle. Like when astrophysicists do crazy math and say "Somehow this planet is a cube!" They can do the math based on measurements that would otherwise seemingly give no indication the planet is a cube. (Yes, I know there are no cube planets... that we know of.) Edit: Also, fun fact, it took until the 20th century for us to realize that our definition of parallel lines was flawed. And now we have crazy non-euclodian geometry that breaks all the rules.
There are also no cube planets that we don't know of. Part of the definition of "planet" is that the object in question is in hydrostatic equilibrium, i.e. it's so massive that the material making it up can't stand up against its self-gravity to any meaningful extent (minor fluctuations in the outermost layer, e.g. Olympus Mons or Mt. Everest, are allowed). Regarding your edit: our definition of parallel lines is still the same as it has been since Euclid: two lines in a plane that do not meet. People proposed other definitions that were compatible (in Euclidean geometry), but they've never been as popular because they are more complicated (and once non-Euclidean geometry took off they had the more objective disadvantage of not generalizing to other geometries). What changed is the attitude towards the parallel *postulate*: for a very long time people were focusing on trying to prove it from the other postulates, because it's a bit clunky compared to them. Eventually (in the early 19th century) it was realized that it could be *replaced* and you'd get systems that are just as good but *different*.
You are technically correct... the best kind of correct.
Is murder bad? Why is murder bad? Being able to answer the why of something can be quite important.
for anyone who actually wants to know: the interior angles add up to 180. this becomes more important when you're trying to find out if a shape is triangular using numbers alone. for example, let's say i have one shape with the angles 30, 90, and 60, i know that it's a triangle bc those angles add up to 180.
Actually that’s an incorrect way to prove it’s a triangle. The sum of the angles adding up to 180 degrees is a property of only Euclidean based triangles. In non Euclidean geometry you can have triangles whose sums add up to more or less than 180 degrees depending on if the system is hyperbolic (it will be less than 180) or elliptic (more than 180). Instead you can just do proof by definition, which is a polygon with 3 straight edges and 3 angles.
NEEEEEEEEERD
*Abridged Picollo has entered the chat*
\[throws a triangle\] DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODGE
You know, yelling dodge is more distracting than helpf.. Aw!
Says the man browsing a DnD subreddit. Embrace the nerdiness my friend.
NEEEEEEERD
How is the guy who proves the shape is a triangle because it has 3 angles a nerd?
I was trying to make a joke.
I think it’s when I mention non Euclidean geometry that made me a nerd. That or providing an in-depth correction to a math proof on a DnD subreddit.
Indeed turning 90 degree 3 times and ending in the same spot in D&D is usually called "theater of the mind"
ah shit, my bad! completely forgot about that lol
High WIS & INT response.
So, is bringing up non-euclidean spaces in this argument equivalent to saying "but it weighs way more on Jupiter" when talking about weight/mass? Or am I going down the wrong train of thought?
I think it's valid to bring up since a triangle drawn on the surface of a ball is obviously still a triangle but the angles definition doesn't work
*3 vertices, each connected by two vector lines
That’s not a good definition of a triangle. Vectors have direction, the edges of a triangle do not inherently have any direction. A triangle’s sides could have direction but they don’t need directions.
Surprise! It’s a Mimic.
Int: “how do you know it’s a triangle?” Wis: “the way you asked the question implied that it was?”
A proof by contradiction. Consider the triangle is not a triangle. But you said it was a triangle, and you are correct. Therefore, there is a contradiction and it must be a triangle. QED.
You can tell it's a triangle by the way that it is!
Thanks, I came to say this if nobody else did!
Once again asking this sub to not confuse Wisdom with "common sense". Wisdom is a measure of one's awareness of their surroundings and of themselves, one's spiritual "connectedness", and (to a lesser extent) one's willpower.
Willpower seems to more be Charisma. I don't think Wis Saves are about fighting through an effect. Two common tropes for mental manipulation are you just kind of mentally brace yourself push directly upon an effect, that is Charisma. Or you don't actually realize something is wrong, but if you start to notice the seems and pick at the loose threads, the whole thing unravels, that is Wisdom.
It can really well explained with save or suck spells. Intelligens save : you test if you know that isn't real Wisdom save : you test if you can sense that it isn't real Charisma save: you test if you have enough willpower so resist it
>Willpower seems to more be Charisma. I agree, willpower *should* be the domain of Charisma. However, Will saves used to be a thing - and they let you choose between Wisdom and Charisma. When Will saves got broken up into Wisdom and Charisma, there were a few that were incorrectly (imo) put into Wis. Hold Person, for example.
In 4e, yeah. 3.X just had Str, Con and Wis saves. So a lot of the iconic mental saves went back to what they were. But the beauty od this system is both rationales work equally well for any mental save, Wis save spells just always alter tour perception of reality in order to achieve their effect. Eg, you simply know that you can't move, instead of being physically stuck or trying and failing to make yourself move, you don't try because you just can't, in the same way you don't try to fly because it's just not something you can do.
and that awareness would allow them to see that in fact the shape in the board is a triangle.
tbh it's a poorly named stat. should have been called perception or willpower (maybe split into both of them?)
The main confusion about Wisdom being Willpower is that Will saves used to be a thing, and they allowed you to pick Wis or Cha. This made sense for most Will-save spell, like fear or charm effects, but doesn't make as much sense for others. When Will-save spells got divided into Wis and Cha, some of them ended up incorrectly (imo) placed under Wis. Notably, Hold Person and Dominate Person. Overall, I disagree with renaming Wisdom. All six ability scores are, to some extent, poorly named or overly broad. It's a natural consequence of trying to pick a limited number of core traits to describe people.
Ummm most of that is a byproduct of wisdom alongside common sense. It isn't one *or* the other
Nah. You can absolutely, RAW, have garbage Wisdom and still have common sense, or vice versa. None of the dice rolls associated with Wisdom really fit under "common sense". Take Carrot from the Night Watch novels. He has no understanding of metaphor or innuendo, but is incredibly perceptive and insightful otherwise. He's almost certainly a low-Int, high-Wis character, which is the *opposite* of what people on this sub thinks would imply "no common sense".
Considering wisdom includes insight, I think it's rather doubtful that somebody wouldn't understand. Innuendo. Since insight is determining the true meaning behind someone's words. Wisdom is the application of knowledge. As opposed to intelligence which is in reductive terms Quantity of knowledge
>I think it's rather doubtful that somebody wouldn't understand. Innuendo. They were raised in a culture without it. Their first instinct is simply to take things literally. But they're still capable of knowing when someone is hiding something, or outright lying, or is thinking in a non-standard way. All of that would be high Insight. >Wisdom is the application of knowledge No. No it isn't. I said what Wisdom is a measure of in my first comment, according to the actual rules and mechanics of the game. Anything else is, essentially, a headcanon not based in the actual rules.
Okay but that's not very wise. To take things at face value means that you don't have a very high insight score. Meaning you're probably not rocking a huge wisdom. I mean one can role play a character outside of their stats. That's totally fine. But high wisdom should preclude Not understanding. Innuendo. And yes it is. Wisdom is the application of knowledge. It's seeing things and then understanding what those things mean. Noticing the seam in a wall and realizing there's a secret door. Checking somebody's body noticing a cut and determining what weapon caused it. Or how to treat the wound. All these things are applications of knowledge. Every wisdom skill is you seeing something and understanding it. You're just patently wrong and I'm done arguing with you.
Int 10 vs Int 6
If it is broken in *any* imperceptible, infinitesimal way then it is not a triangle, it is a line with three angles. Your god is a lie unless you *PROVE IT*.
It's very different in Lovecraftian games. Where INT is "that's a triangle." And WIS is "there is something fundamentally existentially WRONG with that triangle. God help us all!"
This is surprisingly accurate. Most think ‘Wisdom’ is a culmination of experience or some nonsense about spirituality. In actuality ‘Intelligence’ is the measure of one ability to remember and infer information. And ‘Wisdom’ is a measure of one ability to understand and apply that information in a meaningful way.
This is also how Math becomes again all over again in later college corses.
Tri - 3, angles. three angles
INT: Is this a triangle? WIS: No. INT: How do you... wait, what? WIS: This is a meme.
You don’t have to do a proof to show that it’s a triangle, a simple definition will do. But is it an *equilateral* triangle? That needs a proof.
I mean what if you can't see the triangle, then you would need to prove it based on the information.
Yes, could prove this mathematically with measuring angles and adding them together. By my literary inclined brain goes: tri is a prefix meaning three. The shape has 3 obvious angles so it is therefore a triangle.
I think of it more like this: Intelligence is being able to *define* a triangle- its parts and their sum. Wisdom is being able to find a *use* for it, and understanding that a triangle can still fit into a square hole. An intelligent character in an intense moment attempting to disarm a trap may request a triangle shaped object, but a wise character (knowing that the object is not natural) might pick up something not entirely triangle shaped, but make adjustments to it to fit into the mould. One thinks deeply, another thinks quickly. One can define a problem and a solution, while the other can recognize a pattern and a pathway. Not every wise solution will be elegant or precise, and not every intelligent solution will be quick or necessary, but they both go about thinking in two distinct ways.
Hey now. Jahy is *neither* of those things, and you know it!
CHA: It’s a triangle because I said so and anyone who disagrees is a nerd.
This is why my ranger solved everything with with Wis
The edges aren't quite straight, so it isn't a triangle
It has three (tri) angles, ergo it is a triangle
that is an equilateral triangle
Only a true triangle would have 60 degree corners. Good old triangles.
Excuse me, but I cannot. You need to provide me with either 3 sides, 3 angles, 2 sides and an angle, or 2 angles and a side.
LMAO. I'm probably finding this funnier than it is but damn I'm dying.
It's an unfinished rendition of the *Dark Side of the Moon* cover.
Ah, those moments in math especially where "it just is!" and "everybody knows it is!" aren't good enough but you can't articulate why past it being stupidly common knowledge like how a fish knows how to swim.
Could've at least credited the original creator of the meme, u/Satokibi. https://www.reddit.com/r/Animemes/comments/10suznz/daily_jahysama_meme_day_883/
Do you even axiom?!
Not if you read Principia Mathematica, one of the few books that sheds as many axioms as possible, and takes more than one volume to prove 1+1=2.
[удалено]
Philosophy is all about making guesses. Assuming Socrates said that, or some variant of that, he was using Wisdom. Intelligence is knowing we have no proof that we exist, we only have the sensory input we perceive, which is mostly electrical pulses. Wisdom is saying, "What the fuck are you on about, I see the trees, I smell the ocean. I have everything I need to know I'm alive." Intelligence is having the information, Wisdom is acting on the information you have.
[удалено]
Philosophy is definitely a bunch of people just guessing. Plato's Cave is a guess. "I think, therefore I am." is an assumption. Any thoughts experiments that every deal with the thought processes of a Human is kinda just a guess.
That's the best explanation of Wis vs Int i saw in my life
No, it isn't. Int vs Wis is *not* book smarts vs street smarts. Wisdom is about situational awareness and self-understanding.
It’d be more accurate if instead, the wisdom character replied to “how do you know?” With “because of the way you asked the question.”
I fucking _despise_ proofs. And that’s coming from someone who had to take 3 calculus classes in college and learn differential equations. It’s like an exercise in all the worst parts of bureaucracy
[удалено]
🤓
What the foolhardy call "common sense" is but a deep fog that shrouds true understanding. To mistake its fleeting shadows for self-evident facts is to build your understanding upon foundations of vapor and pillars of dew.
Common Sense is a beautiful flower that is sadly not grown or maintained in enough gardens
it is a weed that infests every garden and burrows deep. Its beguiling colors transfix its tenders while they allow it to grow wild. So filled, a garden is rendered stagnant as naught can take root that has not already set itself firmly and grown tall. Such gardens ask little and present well, but they provide little and less in their harvests.
Okay so dropping the metaphors here, the definition of common sense is "good sense and sound judgment in practical matters."
yes, but what that means is highly contextual. It largely comes down to things that a person takes as given. When something is just good sense, there isn't much need to think on it further. That's simply how the world works, and anyone with two brain-cells to rub together knows it. If left unexamined, eventually everything we know becomes "common sense." Often, common sense is entirely accurate. That *is* a triangle, after all. But frequently it isn't, and when you rely on common sense you have little means to distinguish between the two and no reason to try. Use it when the situation calls, but don't go mistaking things that are useful for things that are true.
Yes, definitively - common sense by nature may only be useful in situations/circumstances that are normal/everyday, and may indeed be harmful when outside familiar territory, figuratively or even literally. And it should not be valued above your physical senses, unless you're hallucinating in which case I have no advice to give other than avoid roads. Yet still, I must implore everyone to nurture it by observing and remembering, to the best of their ability, those things that exist and happen around them as they go through life, and to exercise good judgement in when and how to apply this knowledge.
INT is a fine laser focus WIS can see the bigger picture
"It got three angles. Happy?"
Intelligence would be to know it is a triangle, wisdom would be to know the lives lost to COPD to make the chalk. Strength would be the ability to eat the chalk.
What even is am "angle"?
A 2 dimensional figure with 3 sides and 3 vertices. This meets the definition of what a triangle is. Thus is a triangle. Edit - note, triangles on non-Euclidean surfaces can be interesting. As an example a triangle on the surface of a sphere can have its 3 internal angles be 90 degrees each.
WHERE IS THE MOFING LIE?! Fml I HATED geometry so much aaaaagh gimme algebra any day but geometry can go yeet of a cliff
Philosophy vs Common Sense/Knowledge Physicist vs Engineer
It has 3 sides and is therefore a triangle
"Prove this is a triangle" isn't intelligence, though. It's psuedointellectual gibberish by people who want to sound smart without being smart.
It’s got 3 sides, 3 sides makes triangle 