Player is out of character and refuses to play her character correctly [closed]

A player in my campaign (I am the DM) is going way out of control-by not playing her character.

Whenever I point this out, she says that it is something her character would do, but a look at her character sheet proves her wrong.

She also lies about her dice rolls.

On top of that, she has looked through the monster manual and points out monster stats in-game, along with other things.

She is a meta-gamer that has gone out of control. I don’t know what I want to do about this. One thing that happened was when we saw a magical object, nobody knew anything about it. In this world, her character does not know what it is. It was described as:

a bag that was very dark inside and when the npc told them it was a way to get rid of things forever.

She then immediately burst out with:

That is a bag of devouring. We can put things in it and they will be destroyed.

What do I do about this?

Am I correctly calculating the damage of this build?

Books of D&D 3.5:

  • Player’s Handbook (PHB)
  • Tome of Magic (ToM)
  • Complete Adventurer (CA)
  • Complete Psionic (CP)
  • Expanded Psionic (EP)

My character is a fighter 2/shadowcaster 1/scout 1/ardent 1. He had his hand nibbled off so he is one-handed, but can use the stump to cast spells like dust arrow (from ToM, which is a super-natural ability). He also has an “off-hand” bite attack that does 1d4 damage.

I have a plan to do this:

  • Skirmish 2d6 (+2d6 Improved Skirmish) = 4d6
  • Psionic Shot + Improved Psionic Shot = 4d6
  • Dust arrow = 2d4

If I use dimension hop to trigger Skirmish, and shoot with two rays, then it will do 4d6 (Skirmish) + 4d6 (Skirmish) + 4d6 (Psionic Shot) + 2d4 + 2d4 = a maximum of 88 damage.

Are my calculations right?

Cannot calculate Conv1D backprop gradients correctly

I’m a beginner trying to understand the backpropogation for Conv1D. I’m implementing it and comparing my gradients with pytorch’s gradients. However, the backprop step seems to be wrong. I have posted the full implemented class.

class Conv1D:     def __init__(self, input_channel, output_channel, kernel_size, stride):         self.input_channel = input_channel         self.output_channel = output_channel         self.kernel_size = kernel_size         self.stride = stride         self.W = np.random.normal(0, 1, [output_channel, input_channel, kernel_size])         self.b = np.random.normal(0, 1, [output_channel])         self.dW = np.zeros(shape=self.W.shape)         self.db = np.zeros(shape=self.b.shape)         self.dx = np.zeros(shape=self.b.shape)         self.input = np.array([])      def forward(self, x):         output_width = int(np.floor(len(x[0][0])-self.kernel_size)/self.stride) + 1         y = np.zeros(shape=[len(x), self.output_channel, output_width])         self.input = np.copy(x)         for i in range(len(x)):             for j in range(self.output_channel):                 k_ = 0                 for k in range(output_width):                     input_piece = x[i, :, k_:k_+self.kernel_size]                     y[i][j][k] = np.sum(np.multiply(input_piece, self.W[j])) + self.b[j]                     k_ += self.stride         return y      def backward(self, dl):         output_width = int(np.floor(len(dl[0][0])-self.kernel_size)/self.stride) + 1         self.dW = np.zeros(shape=self.W.shape)         self.db = np.zeros(shape=self.b.shape)         self.dx = np.zeros(shape=self.input.shape)         for i in range(len(dl)):             for j in range(self.output_channel):                 k_ = 0                 for k in range(output_width):                     input_piece = self.input[i][:, k_:k_+self.kernel_size]                     self.dx[i][:, k_:k_+self.kernel_size] += dl[i][j][k] * self.W[j]                     self.dW[j] += dl[i][j][k] * input_piece                     self.db[j] += dl[i][j][k]                      k_ += self.stride         return self.dx        def __call__(self, x):         return self.forward(x) 

I would really appreciate if someone could find my mistake.

Is Mathematica calculating Lagrangian correctly?

The following Lagrangian is available: Lagrangian

Here $ \omega(t)$ is the angular velocity of the body; $ J(t,\theta(t))$ – a variable moment of inertia of the body, depending on $ t$ and on $ \theta(t)$ ; $ m(\omega(t))$ – a hypothetical change in body weight (does not have a physical meaning, this is necessary to study the equation);$ G_g$ -acceleration of gravity;$ P$ -vector of the center of mass, depending on the time and angle of rotation of the body in space.

The question is as follows. When we draw up the Euler-Lagrange equation, we fit the Lagrangian into the following structure:

Euler-Lagrange equations

In Mathematics, there is a code that, in theory, should calculate the Euler-Lagrange equation according to the Lagrangian:

L = \[Omega][t]^2 J[t, \[Theta][t]] - (m[\[Omega][t]]) (Subscript[G, g]) P[t, \[Theta][t]]     D[D[L, \[Omega][t]], t] - D[L, \[Theta][t]] 

What confuses me is that the second term in the last formula contains the derivative with respect to the generalized coordinate, which also changes in time, and the generalized coordinate and its speed also enter into the term of kinetic energy and potential energy.

Is the result obtained in the Mathematica by this code correct?

Correctly connecting Web App with MySiteHost in case of multiple mapping

Current situation:

  • there is a classic SP application (site collection created eg according to Team Site template) – default AAM is https: //
  • there is an application for MySite (created from MySiteHost template) – default AAM is https: //
  • there are 2 applications exactly like this, so when user goes to https: // and clicks eg. to the SharePoint heading (top left corner), redirecting it to https: //

Required functionality:

  • it is necessary to extend the application, because it should also be accessible from the Internet
  • the “normal” SP application will then be available for example. on url – https: //
  • if the user goes from intranet, then https: //, the link to “mysite” should be https: //
  • if the user goes from internet, then https: //, the link to “mysite” should be https: //


  • I understand correctly that it is enough to extend the wep app https: // and https: // and when I go from the Internet I will have correctly displayed URLs https: // and https: // Or is there anything else to be adjusted?
  • Do I need additional Search Service settings when I use search?

How to correctly negate a predicate bounded by some quantifiers?

this is a problem which was asked in GATE CS 2010.

This is question statement:
Suppose the predicate F(x, y, t) is used to represent the statement that person x can fool person y at time t. which one of the statements below expresses best the meaning of the formula ∀x∃y∃t(¬F(x, y, t))?

A: Everyone can fool some person at some time.
B: No one can fool everyone all the time.
C: Everyone cannot fool some person all the time.
D: No one can fool some person at some time.

According to my solution:
If F(x): person x can fool person y at time t.
$ \forall$ x $ \exists$ y $ \exists$ t ( ¬F( x, y, t ) )
is same as “Not all person x can fool some person y at some time t. which can be rewritten as “No one can fool some person at some time”.
Hence Option D must be the correct one.
However I am wrong.

How to approach these type of problems.

Correctly differentiate wrt product of variables

I have a function f(x) for which I would need to differentiate and then evaluate it to some product x = y*z. Naively, Mathematica does not accept:

D[f[y z], y z] 

Now, I can somewhat force it by using a rule like so:

D[f[x], x] /. x -> y z 

Now, the problem is that the substitution, for example

rule = f[y z] -> y z D[f[x], x] /. x -> y z /. rule 

is not performed at all. Here, I would of course expect the answer to be 1. How can I make this work as intended?

Is my notion of Topology correctly encoded in Agda?

Here, I’m trying to encode the notion of Topology. I was wondering if it’s correctly done via a “Propositions as Types” interpretation.

module Topology where  open import Data.Product public using (Σ; Σ-syntax; _×_; _,_; proj₁; proj₂; map₁; map₂) open import Data.Sum  -- Goal: encode the notion of Topology: -- -- Let X be a non-empty set. A set τ of subsets of X -- is said to be a topolgy on X if: --  -- 1. X and the empty set, Ø, belong to τ -- 2. The union of any (finite or infinite) number of sets -- in τ belongs to τ -- 3. The intersection of any two sets in τ belongs to τ -- -- The pair (X,τ) is called a topological space.  -- We can express a notion of a subset `{ x : A | P(x) }`  -- as `Σ[ x ∈ A ] (P x)` (with notion that P is mere  -- proposition in mind).  subset : (X : Set) → (P : (X → Set)) → Set subset X P =   Σ[ a ∈ X ] (P a)  -- If subset is described by a predicate that's describing an -- inhabited proposition for every **element** in X, a set of subsets -- must describe a predicate that's describing an inhabited -- proposition for every **predicate** on X setOfSubsets : (X : Set) → (ℙ : (X → Set) → Set) → Set₁ setOfSubsets X ℙ =   Σ[ P ∈ (X → Set) ]   (ℙ P)  data Ø : Set where data ⊤ : Set where   ⋆ : ⊤  -- Identity predicate P-id : {X : Set} → (X → Set) P-id = λ{_ → ⊤}  -- Zero predicate P₀ : {X : Set} → (X → Set) P₀ = λ{_ → Ø}  isTopology : (X : Set) → (τ : (X → Set) → Set) → Set₁ isTopology X τ =   Σ[ P ∈ (X → Set) ]   Σ[ _ ∈ τ P ]   Σ[ _ ∈ τ P-id ]   Σ[ _ ∈ τ P₀ ]   Σ[ _ ∈ (∀ (A B : X → Set) → (τ A) → (τ B) → (τ (λ x → A x ⊎ B x))) ]   Σ[ _ ∈ (∀ (A B : X → Set) → (τ A) → (τ B) → (τ (λ x → A x × B x))) ]   ⊤ 

Active Directory Import not working correctly

I have configured AD Import on 2013 instance, but it seems that it doesn’t work correctly. New entries in specified OUs are not imported into UPS. I have checked the logs and there are no errors thrown by profile sync. Below is an example:

Active Directory UPS

As you can see everything seems to be correctly configured, yet the profile is not created in UPS and workflow throws an error when being initiated by a user presented above:


Any ideas?