GǪexcept of course, that I'm still using the same formula as ever.

No. I've referred to a risk with zero probability as zero-risk, which contradicts nothing since at that point, it doesn't matter what the the other factor is. In this case, that factor is another risk equation, which turns out to be non-zero.

The risk RGéü = PGéü+ùRGéé is compounded with the risk RGéé=PGéé+ùCGéé. RGéü is a zero risk; RGéé is not.

Is that definition of compounded risks ISO-approved, or not? Simple question.

Yes. It's not magic GÇö just maths. The distributive rule still applies.
This is just a very simple case since the GÇ£outerGÇ¥ risk has no additional costs.

All of the results that I've looked up use compounded risks either in the sense

risk = (probabilityfactor1 + probabilityfactor2) * (cost), or

risk = (probability)*(costfactor1 + costfactor2).

I've yet to find any that use it in the sense you describe.

GǪand this is more of the latter (and can be expressed in the former form as well, although that makes it less clear what's going on), except that the cost factors are themselves risks. But sure, if you want to throw in a red herring about the use of GǣcompoundGǥ, do so. It doesn't particularly change anything (what with being a red herring and all).

So, your method of admitting that you can't provide said quotes, is to make a red herring post distracting from that fact, which itself consists of nothing but accusing me of making a red herring post?

So your method of using red herrings is to ignore the fact that the example discussed conform to one of the compound forms you posted.

Note the use of a period over a question mark.

Did anyone know that you can do the same thing to gankers that they do to others using the exact same tools the gankers use?

Ok, you concede the argument and refuse to back up your wild claims with evidence.

That would involve effort/learning how to do something and we can't have that.

Everyone know that gankers use some mystical exploit anyway. Can't compete with that.

Nope. You already provided the evidence.

Or are you now saying that the uses of compound risk you found and quoted do not denote compound risks?

You can't unconcede now, I already spent my victory ISK.

Of course I can't unconcede. I have to concede first, which is very hard since you provided the evidence you wanted.

At any rate, the fact remains: risk = probability +ù cost, and probability lies in the [0,1] span. Moreover, risk = 0 are occasionally risks worth calculating and including since they may have an impact on other risks. Same goes for 100%-probability risks, for much the same reason.

So what have you won so far seeing as how all of that remains undisputed?

Are you now saying that the uses of 'concede' you've used do not denote 'concede'?

No. I'm saying that before you can GÇÿunconcedeGÇÖ you have to concede. Not having done the latter, I can't do the former.

Meanwhile, the fact remains: risk = probability +ù cost, and probability lies in the [0,1] span. Moreover, risk = 0 are occasionally risks worth calculating and including since they may have an impact on other risks. Same goes for 100%-probability risks, for much the same reason.

So yes, gankers losing their ships is indeed a risk GÇö one of many they have to deal with.

Seems like instead of effort, it would involve a whole lot of waiting for gankers to autopilot around highsec with billions in their cargo hold? While you were waiting for that, you'd probably get bored and just gank a freighter with billions in the hold...hm, maybe that's where gankers came from in the first place. chicken and the egg dilemma.


Oh, you meant gank the gankers at a loss...that's not really exactly the same thing, is it? Just a similar but much worse thing. The OP should definitely have just said "Just become a ganker yourself if you think it's OP", much better argument.

So yes, gankers losing their ships is indeed a risk GÇö one of many they have to deal with.

Oh Tippia, seeing you reduced to this state

Totally meaningless, pure semantic bs. Gankers lose their ships, that is a fact.

I dont gank people, yet even i know that if you do something like that in hi sec, you ARE going to lose your ship

It's pretty common GÇö in fact, it happens every time a troll fails to respond with argumentation and instead have to rely on ad hominems, straw men and red herrings: keep repeating the core claim or question to see if they manage to actually respond to it rather than go off on a tangent. The result is the same as always: you failed.

So basically, what you're saying is

GǪthat the simple facts of risks GÇö that they are probability +ù cost, and that they don't necessarily go away just because you have the trivial cases of p=1 or p=0 GÇö remain unchallenged.

GǪand that is one of the risks the gankers have to face.

Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition or argumentum ad infinitum is an argument made repeatedly (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it any more. This may sometimes, but not always, be a form of proof by assertion

You apparently need to be educated on the finer points of the English language...

Good thing that what we have here is simply an attempt to remind you of the question at hand, in the hope that you'll manage to come up with some kind of proof or arguments against it rather than platitudes.

Your attempts at redefining the issue and divert attention away from your failure to produce anything of the sort and onto any one of a plethora of irrelevances does not fulfil that requirement.

This term is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as:

Tippia has a great way of teasing the "Argumentum ad I'm a Dumbass" out of people. (Why couldn't there be an elegant Latin way of saying it?)

risk (rsk)

The possibility of suffering harm or loss; danger....

If you are assured of losing something (which you are if you gank in hi sec), it is no longer a risk, its guaranteed. A risk is something that might happen, may even be likely to happen..