# Thread: Grand Unified Theory Of Wuxia Fiction

1. Originally Posted by IcyFox
For now I will not dispute any parameters submitted to me for calculations. I will just compute them accordingly and release the results.
Well, here's some results. Recreating the YG (8/8/5/4) vs. XF (8/8/4/3) scenario mentioned earlier, your program spits this out:
YG wins: 13%
YG loses: 11%
Draw (implied): 76%

...which is what you posted earlier. But if YG's second stat gets bumped up to 9 (so he's 8/9/5/4), your program gives:
YG wins: 16%
YG loses: 13%
Draw: 71%

I can understand YG being more likely to win, but why is he also more likely to lose or draw? Trying other numbers, it seems to be a basic 'feature' of your equations that relatively high Win probabilities also mean relatively high Lose probabilities, which sounds strange to me. Perhaps you could explain.

2. Originally Posted by owbjhx
I can understand YG being more likely to win, but why is he also more likely to lose or draw? Trying other numbers, it seems to be a basic 'feature' of your equations that relatively high Win probabilities also mean relatively high Lose probabilities, which sounds strange to me. Perhaps you could explain.

Well I already said that I feel the equation is not very balanced. I need to tweak the constants of the divisors. Anyway, P(Win) is so close to P(Lose) is because the stats are very close; i.e. they are almost on par. Try to use exponents whose stats are further apart to see the difference.

3. Originally Posted by IcyFox
Anyway, P(Win) is so close to P(Lose) is because the stats are very close; i.e. they are almost on par. Try to use exponents whose stats are further apart to see the difference.
The closeness of P(Win) to P(Lose) is not the point. Rather, it is that an increase in Fighter A's stats somehow makes him/her more likely to lose.

Originally Posted by IcyFox
Well I already said that I feel the equation is not very balanced. I need to tweak the constants of the divisors.
Looking at your equations, it'll take more than tweaking the constants. You say that probability of loss is proportional to Ψ2. But considering the Ψ1 > 0 scenario, Ψ2 gets larger the more inferior Fighter B is to Fighter A. This is what's causing the issue.

In my opinion, the only way this take on 'quantitative wuxia' is going to transcend mere intellectual exercise and influence the endless X vs Y debates in this forum is if your model is well-specified enough to predict the outcome of a large proportion of the fight scenes Jin Yong wrote, thereby 'explaining' the dataset and verifying your model. In that situation, nobody could criticise you for being subjective. But I bet that quantifying a large enough sample of those fights will be much less fun than theorising. Good luck with that.

4. I think your equation will mess up if you use try to input TSTL. She and LQS was at Lvl 1 for philosophy.

5. For every theory there 101 possibilities in finding an error. Therefore I urge all who have opinions to write them down and hopefully let Icyfox to do more research on it(would be better if you can provide as well). Icyfox is currently serving his nation so he would be most likely MIA for minimum 1 month.

6. Originally Posted by owbjhx
The closeness of P(Win) to P(Lose) is not the point. Rather, it is that an increase in Fighter A's stats somehow makes him/her more likely to lose.

Looking at your equations, it'll take more than tweaking the constants. You say that probability of loss is proportional to Ψ2. But considering the Ψ1 > 0 scenario, Ψ2 gets larger the more inferior Fighter B is to Fighter A. This is what's causing the issue.
Good. One point for you. You just pointed out a flaw in the equation. Thanks. I'll try to deal with that after we have debated on the theories.

Originally Posted by owbjhx
In my opinion, the only way this take on 'quantitative wuxia' is going to transcend mere intellectual exercise and influence the endless X vs Y debates in this forum is if your model is well-specified enough to predict the outcome of a large proportion of the fight scenes Jin Yong wrote, thereby 'explaining' the dataset and verifying your model. In that situation, nobody could criticise you for being subjective. But I bet that quantifying a large enough sample of those fights will be much less fun than theorising. Good luck with that.
Hmmm, I think I'm going to have to hire a few guys to help with that. Are you interested?

7. Originally Posted by Humplewumps
I think your equation will mess up if you use try to input TSTL. She and LQS was at Lvl 1 for philosophy.
Well if everything turns out as expected but TSTL is an exception then it might mean we have been overestimating TSTL all this while.

As for the categorization of Neigong vs Qigong, I'm inclined to agree with Wu Xing. I've always thought of 'Nei Gong' as a counterpart of 'Wai Gong'.

'Nei gong' translates as 'internal skill', related to martial arts that focus on 'soft' techniques or 'nei jia'. 'Wai gong' translates as 'external skill' or martial arts that focuses on 'hard' techniques such as emphasis on physical strokes and stances.

'Qigong' translates as 'breathing skill', and I believe it is exactly that, a set of breathing techniques taught in martial arts. According to wikipedia, this style of training is common in 'nei jia' martial arts, or martial arts that focus on cultivation of 'nei gong'.

Semantically, 'nei gong' seems to refer to the category of martial arts (the other category being 'wai gong'). 'Qigong' seems to refer to the training method used by certain schools who focus on 'nei gong'.
You are free to interpret "Neigong" and "Qigong" in any way you wish. Different people practise differently. There's no one way that is suitable for every single martial arts exponent. Just a word of advice, if you're actually training "Neigong" and "Qigong" in real life, you may want to consult a qualified instructor to see if your interpretation is suitable for you.

9. Notice

I've been conscripted for military service and I'm reporting for duty today (9 March 2006). I will not be able to reply to any comments until next week (earliest). Please do not let my absence hinder your desire to post any comments. Thanks.

I hope that when this project is completed, we can focus more on meaningful situational questions instead of thousands of pages of YG vs. GJ debates which doesn't seem to get us anywhere. (No offence meant.)

As for factual questions, there's always WUXIAPEDIA.

Oh yes... I almost forgot... If my PM Inbox is full, you can contact me at [email protected] . Thanks.

10. Originally Posted by IcyFox
Notice

I've been conscripted for military service and I'm reporting for duty today (9 March 2006). I will not be able to reply to any comments until next week (earliest). Please do not let my absence hinder your desire to post any comments. Thanks.
Recruit its 2 weeks confinement.... u wont be out so early

11. Originally Posted by Noisulli
Recruit its 2 weeks confinement.... u wont be out so early
Like you said he future RSM got special treatment for him. He tell his CO ROCH on YesAsia so must get out of camp to order, then his CO will say okay let you go first.

12. Originally Posted by Excelsior
Like you said he future RSM got special treatment for him. He tell his CO ROCH on YesAsia so must get out of camp to order, then his CO will say okay let you go first.
You have a kind and caring heart Excelsior. In reality, they're going to bust his butt for the first while and then turn him into a soldier. He'll be a changed man by the time he gets out.

13. Thank you IcyFox for inviting to read your essay. It was very good and informative and opened up a lot of new perspectives. All in all it was very insightful. My compliments.

However, I do have a few reservations especially on the formula to calculate the outcome of two experts. Some of my points have already been addressed by Han Solo and others.
It is true that you have taken a number of variables into account, but those variables, in my opinion, are not totally decisive.

For instance having reached a particular level of attainment does not necessarily mean that one could defeat people with a "lower" martial arts insight.
Fan Yao, Linghu Chong*, reverend Chongxu had a higher insight in the art of the sword. However, when or if faced when the following people Fang Dongbai, Ren Woxing it would be unlikely that they would win.

Duan Zhengchun is able to "glue" his stances together, like the way Feng Qingyang taught Linghu Chong when Linghu was fighting Tian Baguang. However, it would be most unlikely that Duan Zhengchun could actually defeat someone like Zuo Lengchan.
Another example if I remember correctly Xiao Feng had a higher percentage if he were to fight Tonglao, that was a bit surprising. Her martial arts equal and sister Li Qiushui throws long distance attacks of 18 metres. Xiao Feng can only manage 10 metres. I am not saying that I am 100% sure that Tonglao and Li Qiushui are superior to Xiao Feng, but that particular factor was decisive to me why I rank Tonglao and her equals higher than Xiao Feng and his equals.

All this calculating reminds me of (what I said before to you) the lost Taishan sword technique [袋宗如何]. It was said that this technique needed the user to calculate almost anything of his adversary (martial arts school, height, weapon, how long was the weapon, etc. etc.) and then attack. But this technique seemed rather "off" because how could you obtain all that information of your opponent.
The same goes for your formula, the descriptions in the novels are sketchy at best. Most of us (actually talking about myself now) muddle my way through when discussing levels, making comparisons etc., the points, the comparisons I bring up are highly speculative. I could be miles of and probably I am. I have read Jin Yong novels quite accurately in fact very accurately, but even I cannot say:"my assessments are precise and correct."
By asking the opinions of the public (other forum members) is also not a good method. Look at the survivor games, A Qing was voted out quite early in the game along with Tianshan Tonglao and in the end Ren Yingying won. Hello?!? A Qing is a girl who defeated thousands and thousands of soldiers with a bamboo stick! She is a goddess. A thousand of Ren Yingyings are no match for A Qing.
Giving numbers to the particular variables is just guesswork, so in the end nothing has changed. We are still guessing away, but using mathematics now. Which more or less takes away the joy in debating, discussing Jinyonglogy martial arts comparisons.

Again, I think you've done a wonderful job. But the formula, in my opinion, needs to be re-evaluated.

14. Originally Posted by Athena
All this calculating reminds me of (what I said before to you) the lost Taishan sword technique [袋宗如何]. It was said that this technique needed the user to calculate almost anything of his adversary (martial arts school, height, weapon, how long was the weapon, etc. etc.) and then attack. But this technique seemed rather "off" because how could you obtain all that information of your opponent.

...

Again, I think you've done a wonderful job. But the formula, in my opinion, needs to be re-evaluated.
I agree with Athena in most part and I want to share one true story, that I have read long time ago, with your guys here. I learn this story when I took a linear algebra class years ago. In fact, I will refer to my linear algebra book "Linear algebra and its applications", 3rd edition, by Gilbert Strang (an MIT professor). In page 106, the topic is about applying the linear algebra to "the ranking of (american) football teams", this section start with the following statement,

At the end of the season, the polls rank college football teams. It is a subjective judgement, mostly an average of opinions, and it becomes pretty vague after the top dozen colleges. We want to rank all teams on a more mathematical basis.

The first step is to recognize the graph. If team j played team k, there is an edge between them. The teams are the nodes, and the games are the edges. Thus there are a few hundred nodes and a few thousand edges--which will be given a direction by an arrow from the visiting team to the home team. .....
so on and so on in linear algebra method & application. If you are interested in the method or details, please refer to the book I mentioned. But my point is in the following statement (in page 108 in the book),

...
Note added in proof. After writing that section I found the following in the New York Times:

"In its final ranking for 1985, the computer placed Miami (10-2) in the seventh spot above Tennessee (9-1-2). A few days after publication, packages containing oranges and angry letters from disgruntled Tennessee fans began arriving at the Times sport department. The irritation stems from the fact that Tennessee thumped Miami 35-7 in the Sugar Bowl. Final AP and UPI polls ranked Tennessee fourth, with Miami significantly lower.

Yesterday morning nine cartons of oranges arrived at the loading dock. They were sent to Bellevue Hospital with a warning that the quality and contents of the oranges were uncertain."
Then the author (Strang) end this section with the statement,

So much for that application of linear algebra.

OK, my opinion is that what IcyFox is doing right now is interesting and his formula could be fun to see what happen. Although it seems to be a bit more "systematic" way to "decide" who is better than who, this calculation might not be that meaningful as you want it to be.

Basically, we are all biased since we don't have enough information. In detection/estimation theory (pretty complex mathematics), even though we try our best to make the best decision based on a well-established mathematical criteria, once we have "noise" in our environment/system, we always have an error in our decision (more noise = more error). Nevertheless, we may have a "theoretical bound" of the error (for a particular level of noise) using the best possible detection/estimation method (which might not be feasible to implement, btw).

In other words, even with the best algorithm of the considered criteria, it could be useless or very inaccurated if the noise is reasonably large. And, I'm talking about a quite-resonable ideal situation which the system model can be set up more-or-less accurately (mismatch in the modeling could cause the accuracy problem depending on how robust the model is).

Although re-evaluation on the formula may be good but I doubt that it is gonna work well. This is because we all have different biases in our idea. But, if we all have the same bias, then our calcution could be totally wrong, right?

Cheers.

15. Reading this thread has made me feel like a trekkie...Still, I applaud the ambition and scope of this grand work of systematic analysis on a highly irregular system.

16. Shouldn't we make this informative thread sticky? And wait for IcyFox to come back ffom his military duty before we discuss these theories again?

17. Hello... I just got out of camp.
Still quite 'blur'.
Will try to answer some of the issues tomorrow.

18. Originally Posted by IcyFox
Hello... I just got out of camp.
Still quite 'blur'.
Will try to answer some of the issues tomorrow.
wat the... its a Thursday and ur out?? i tot it shld be a sat or fri??... u chao keng ar??
ohh yea how u like ur new hair style??

19. Originally Posted by Noisulli
wat the... its a Thursday and ur out?? i tot it shld be a sat or fri??... u chao keng ar??
ohh yea how u like ur new hair style??

The Camp CO decided to give us a long weekend after the 2-week confinement period.

I didn't even Attend B or Attend C once and everyone has the same hairstyle so it's quite OK.

20. Hey, IcyFox, glad to see you back!

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts