Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2020
- Messages
- 145
Just escape the darn country lol, it's doomed either way
Suuji de Sukuu! Jyakushou Kokka - Vol. 1 Ch. 5
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Aggregator gang
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2018
- Messages
- 1,755
Thank you for translating this.
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2020
- Messages
- 78
Thanks for the Tranlsation!
i need more
i need more
Group Leader
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,036
Sounds like the best solution to solving all their problems is to take over the country and become a ruthless dictator with an iron fist...I mean, a mathematician.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 5
Cavalry is a mass noun - every instance of "cavalries" in this chapter should just be cavalry. I don't know why, but this specific mistake drove me nuts.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2019
- Messages
- 247
@FrackingBiscuit
The usage of "cavalries" is correct. Stating that there are "500 cavalry" means that there are 500 sets of cavalries, while this mentions individual units, in which case, it must be the countable form of the noun, which should thus be "cavalries."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cavalry
The usage of "cavalries" is correct. Stating that there are "500 cavalry" means that there are 500 sets of cavalries, while this mentions individual units, in which case, it must be the countable form of the noun, which should thus be "cavalries."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cavalry
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2019
- Messages
- 495
I like the theme, but it seems like this is going to have forced plots just to show his skills. Also, it will discarded all other considerations except applied mathematics too, as morality have become first victim in this. A lot of problems today caused by application of pure mathematic models with some unrealistic assumptions, usually disregard other aspects of the problem. In this chapter they hinted about disregarding reputation of Royal family, which might end up as losing legitimacy eventually. It is barely better to survive a war just to face a civil war.
@icekatze
Yes, also a lot of discrepancies between their and our medieval. You're right about invaders cost, which is the reason why they usually pillage on the ways. I bet MC didn't consider that, and author will probably handwave it or used it as another stage.
@icekatze
Yes, also a lot of discrepancies between their and our medieval. You're right about invaders cost, which is the reason why they usually pillage on the ways. I bet MC didn't consider that, and author will probably handwave it or used it as another stage.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 5
@AlexEliot
Look again at the definition you're using. It doesn't say what you think it does. "Unit" in military parlance does not refer to an individual soldier - it refers to a group or set, as you put it. That's why you hear soldiers ask each other what unit they're from - their "unit" is the group of fellow soldiers that they train and fight together with. You do not call a single soldier who rides on horseback a cavalry, nor do you call him a unit (outside of an RTS or other game where "unit" has a different meaning). When talking about the number of soldiers you have who fight on horseback, they are collectively referred to as cavalry (or the cavalry) and not as a group of cavalries.
"The cavalries of medieval Europe" would refer to the many cavalry arms across Europe (definition #2).
"We have 500 cavalry" would mean we have five hundred individual soldiers who fight while riding horses (definition #1).
"We have 500 cavalries" would mean we have 500 separate armies that fight on horseback (definition #2).
Look under derived terms on the page you linked, specifically cavalryman. Its definition is "a soldier in the cavalry" - if you were correct, it would instead just say "a cavalry". See also the countless scenes where one group of characters is in danger and a second group shows up to help them, and somebody exclaims "The cavalry has arrived!" It's not "The cavalries have arrived!"
Look again at the definition you're using. It doesn't say what you think it does. "Unit" in military parlance does not refer to an individual soldier - it refers to a group or set, as you put it. That's why you hear soldiers ask each other what unit they're from - their "unit" is the group of fellow soldiers that they train and fight together with. You do not call a single soldier who rides on horseback a cavalry, nor do you call him a unit (outside of an RTS or other game where "unit" has a different meaning). When talking about the number of soldiers you have who fight on horseback, they are collectively referred to as cavalry (or the cavalry) and not as a group of cavalries.
"The cavalries of medieval Europe" would refer to the many cavalry arms across Europe (definition #2).
"We have 500 cavalry" would mean we have five hundred individual soldiers who fight while riding horses (definition #1).
"We have 500 cavalries" would mean we have 500 separate armies that fight on horseback (definition #2).
Look under derived terms on the page you linked, specifically cavalryman. Its definition is "a soldier in the cavalry" - if you were correct, it would instead just say "a cavalry". See also the countless scenes where one group of characters is in danger and a second group shows up to help them, and somebody exclaims "The cavalry has arrived!" It's not "The cavalries have arrived!"
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2019
- Messages
- 247
@FrackingBiscuit
You're half correct. In my opinion, "cavalries" would be better changed to "cavalrymen," to avoid confusion. But...
I can't seem to understand how you took definition #1 as "individual soldiers." Maybe, you know, because it's wrong. Definition #1 clearly states: "A military arm of service that fights while riding horses." At no part of the sentence is it implied that it refers to an individual soldier ("arm of service" being in singular has nothing to do with it).
"The cavalry" refers to all of the individual soldiers belonging to an army or a unit. "The cavalry" is thus a military arm of service. And a unit is a team or a group of it, or just one cavalryman.
Unit is a word that you can define as you wish. You can refer to a group, or to just one object. While in the context of war and armies, "unit" is more often used to refer to a group or team of soldiers, it can also refer to just one. Check definition #6 of "unit."
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/unit
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/cavalry#:~:text=A%20cavalry%20is%20a%20group%20of%20soldiers%20who%20fight%20on%20horses.&text=Traditionally%2C%20a%20cavalry%20is%20a,that%20can%20be%20quickly%20deployed.
Oh, a note, there's no need to replace a word in a dictionary just because there are other words that can describe the same thing (like you suggest at the final paragraph). Otherwise... you know, synonyms wouldn't exist.
You're half correct. In my opinion, "cavalries" would be better changed to "cavalrymen," to avoid confusion. But...
I can't seem to understand how you took definition #1 as "individual soldiers." Maybe, you know, because it's wrong. Definition #1 clearly states: "A military arm of service that fights while riding horses." At no part of the sentence is it implied that it refers to an individual soldier ("arm of service" being in singular has nothing to do with it).
"The cavalry" refers to all of the individual soldiers belonging to an army or a unit. "The cavalry" is thus a military arm of service. And a unit is a team or a group of it, or just one cavalryman.
Unit is a word that you can define as you wish. You can refer to a group, or to just one object. While in the context of war and armies, "unit" is more often used to refer to a group or team of soldiers, it can also refer to just one. Check definition #6 of "unit."
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/unit
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/cavalry#:~:text=A%20cavalry%20is%20a%20group%20of%20soldiers%20who%20fight%20on%20horses.&text=Traditionally%2C%20a%20cavalry%20is%20a,that%20can%20be%20quickly%20deployed.
Oh, a note, there's no need to replace a word in a dictionary just because there are other words that can describe the same thing (like you suggest at the final paragraph). Otherwise... you know, synonyms wouldn't exist.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 5
@AlexEliot
You’ll note that definition of unit is informal, and that I already said such exceptions exist. The way unit is used in the definition of cavalry that you linked is obviously not meant to be the informal usage. End of the day, in a military context “unit” does not refer to a single person (even the informal example you use doesn’t refer to individual soldiers, but individual tanks, each of which would be crewed by multiple soldiers).
Yes, unit is a word with multiple definitions. But the context in which that word is used tells us which definition we're meant to be using - we can't simply define words as we wish when other people are the ones using them. When reading the dictionary definition of a word, I'm going to assume the dictionary is using formal language. Hence when the word "unit" appears in the definition of the word cavalry, I'm going to assume the dictionary is using the formal definition of unit, and not the informal one (which the same dictionary lists as the sixth definition in unit's own entry, which should tell you a few things).
You also seem to be confused as to what I mean by individual soldier. A cavalryman would not describe himself as "a cavalry." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry lists several ways to refer to a single cavalryman. But 500 individual cavalrymen would be 500 cavalry. I don't know if your confusion was willful or not, but hopefully this post clarifies.
As I said before, when referring to the number of cavalry that a specific army has, cavalry is an uncountable/mass noun. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun - regardless of how many of them there are, they are always "treated as an undifferentiated unit, rather than as something with discrete elements" (in this case a "discrete element" would be an individual soldier). For example, no matter how many pieces of advice you give someone, they are collectively referred to as advice - not advices. An no matter how many chairs you have, together they are furniture, not furnitures. Sometimes an uncountable noun can be countable in certain contexts (“a school of fish” vs “schools of fishes”), but this isn’t one of those cases. A group of cavalrymen are cavalry, not cavalries. If your army has 500 cavalrymen, you have 500 cavalry.
Here's some examples of what I'm talking about. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo (emphasis added):
"The French army of around 69,000 consisted of 48,000 infantry, 14,000 cavalry, and 7,000 artillery with 250 guns." Saying the French army has 14,000 cavalry means they have 14,000 individual soldiers who fight on horseback. They do not have 14,000 cavalries, as your usage would suggest.
"The French army formed on the slopes of another ridge to the south. Napoleon could not see Wellington's positions, so he drew his forces up symmetrically about the Brussels road. On the right was I Corps under d'Erlon with 16,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry, plus a cavalry reserve of 4,700. On the left was II Corps under Reille with 13,000 infantry, and 1,300 cavalry, and a cavalry reserve of 4,600. In the centre about the road south of the inn La Belle Alliance were a reserve including Lobau's VI Corps with 6,000 men, the 13,000 infantry of the Imperial Guard, and a cavalry reserve of 2,000." The same as above. If I Corps has 1,500 horsemen, then I Corps has 1,500 cavalry, not cavalries. If II Corps has 1,300 cavalrymen, they have 1,300 cavalry, not cavalries.
"Bodies of infantry and cavalry were pouring down on us," - Once again, it is not "Bodies of infantries and cavalries," but "Bodies of infantry and cavalry." Both infantry and cavalry are uncountable.
In all of these cases, the text is describing a number of individual cavalrymen. And in all of these cases, "cavalry" is treated as an uncountable noun. This is what Wiktionary's first definition of cavalry is referring to, and is the way you should be using it as well.
You’ll note that definition of unit is informal, and that I already said such exceptions exist. The way unit is used in the definition of cavalry that you linked is obviously not meant to be the informal usage. End of the day, in a military context “unit” does not refer to a single person (even the informal example you use doesn’t refer to individual soldiers, but individual tanks, each of which would be crewed by multiple soldiers).
Yes, unit is a word with multiple definitions. But the context in which that word is used tells us which definition we're meant to be using - we can't simply define words as we wish when other people are the ones using them. When reading the dictionary definition of a word, I'm going to assume the dictionary is using formal language. Hence when the word "unit" appears in the definition of the word cavalry, I'm going to assume the dictionary is using the formal definition of unit, and not the informal one (which the same dictionary lists as the sixth definition in unit's own entry, which should tell you a few things).
You also seem to be confused as to what I mean by individual soldier. A cavalryman would not describe himself as "a cavalry." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry lists several ways to refer to a single cavalryman. But 500 individual cavalrymen would be 500 cavalry. I don't know if your confusion was willful or not, but hopefully this post clarifies.
As I said before, when referring to the number of cavalry that a specific army has, cavalry is an uncountable/mass noun. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun - regardless of how many of them there are, they are always "treated as an undifferentiated unit, rather than as something with discrete elements" (in this case a "discrete element" would be an individual soldier). For example, no matter how many pieces of advice you give someone, they are collectively referred to as advice - not advices. An no matter how many chairs you have, together they are furniture, not furnitures. Sometimes an uncountable noun can be countable in certain contexts (“a school of fish” vs “schools of fishes”), but this isn’t one of those cases. A group of cavalrymen are cavalry, not cavalries. If your army has 500 cavalrymen, you have 500 cavalry.
Here's some examples of what I'm talking about. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo (emphasis added):
"The French army of around 69,000 consisted of 48,000 infantry, 14,000 cavalry, and 7,000 artillery with 250 guns." Saying the French army has 14,000 cavalry means they have 14,000 individual soldiers who fight on horseback. They do not have 14,000 cavalries, as your usage would suggest.
"The French army formed on the slopes of another ridge to the south. Napoleon could not see Wellington's positions, so he drew his forces up symmetrically about the Brussels road. On the right was I Corps under d'Erlon with 16,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry, plus a cavalry reserve of 4,700. On the left was II Corps under Reille with 13,000 infantry, and 1,300 cavalry, and a cavalry reserve of 4,600. In the centre about the road south of the inn La Belle Alliance were a reserve including Lobau's VI Corps with 6,000 men, the 13,000 infantry of the Imperial Guard, and a cavalry reserve of 2,000." The same as above. If I Corps has 1,500 horsemen, then I Corps has 1,500 cavalry, not cavalries. If II Corps has 1,300 cavalrymen, they have 1,300 cavalry, not cavalries.
"Bodies of infantry and cavalry were pouring down on us," - Once again, it is not "Bodies of infantries and cavalries," but "Bodies of infantry and cavalry." Both infantry and cavalry are uncountable.
In all of these cases, the text is describing a number of individual cavalrymen. And in all of these cases, "cavalry" is treated as an uncountable noun. This is what Wiktionary's first definition of cavalry is referring to, and is the way you should be using it as well.
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2023
- Messages
- 66
With your first result you failed to follow the order of operations. You get 35,000 if you evaluate each operation left to right. But, multiplication comes before addition, so when you separated out the multiplications and then added them together at the end you got the right answer. Most scientific calculators will do this automatically, but a basic 4-function calculator won't.see the last page
oh god, one of my many weakens.......math!!!
i really start to hate math and myself for not solving it i need a bit of help here
when i see the math problems i want to try if i get the same total cost
2000*1.5+8000*1+1000*0.5+100*5 =16000
the first time i did a calculator i did in one go 2000*1.5+8000*1+1000*0.5+1000*5 = but the result 35000 i was wtf that is not right D:
2nd try i try to calculator one at the time
2000*1.5 = 3000
8000*1=8000
1000*0.5=500
1000*5 = 5000
after i have done i add and get a result of 16500
3000+8000+500+5000=16500???
i ask myself where i do go wrong? did i become so dumb for not solving what it look like a simple math problem?? this really hit my self-esteem
