Hello all,

I am merrowMania, aka MerfolkMan. I began my Magic-al journey with a friend's mono-blue merfolk deck, the predecessor/'inspiration' for Them Fishies Will Kill You.

I like to think of myself as a serious Magic player, which, for the most part, is true. That's the Spike in me. I enjoy proving myself through how well I play (regardless of whether I win).

I am also a DCI-certified Rules Adviser. (Edit: the Rules Adviser program was discontinued)

I am also a Melvin, someone who appreciates how all the pieces of Magic fit together to make this great game what it is, both at a card level (like with Primal Command and Firemaw Kavu ) and a macroscopic level (like with the rules for Layering). I am the person who reads the competitive rules in his spare time, thereby allowing him to delve as deep into the game as his mind desires.

But Magic is a game to be played with others, particularly friends. I sometimes find myself at odds with them when: I start to make a deck too controlling, I take too long trying to maximize my turns/actions, or I point out how a rule is being ignored or 'correct gameplay' is not enforced. These are some of the things I need to work on and hope to overcome.

If my comments or responses reflect what I have said, I apologize in advance.

You can find me on PucaTrade under the name Merrow (https://pucatrade.com/profiles/show/49547) or browsing the Rules Q&A; here on TappedOut.
(Edit: I am now more likely browsing the cEDH list as it is more discussion-based than answer-based.)

Best T/O Rank: 15 <--This is me being a tad too competitive :P

The following are my Magic Personality Results, in order of accuracy (all still represent me, but some are expressed more than others):

I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green

I am both rational and instinctive. I value self-knowledge and understanding of the world; my ultimate goal is self-improvement and improvement of the world around me. At best, I am focused and methodical; at worst, I am obsessive and amoral.
I am Red/Blue
I am Red/Blue
I are both rational and emotional. I value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, I'm innovative and intuitive. At worst, I'm scattered and unpredictable.
I am Black/Green
I am Black/Green
I am both selfish and instinctive. I value growth and community, as long as they favor my own objectives; I enjoy nature, and I particularly enjoy watching parts of nature die. At best, I am resilient and tenacious; at worst, I'm uncontrollable and destructive.

I do not really know where I came across this, but here is the result of the Nodiatis RPG Personality Test:

Please login to comment

@SynergyBuild - Computability refers to how (and whether) a recursive definition can be defined rather than if it is physically possible.
Graham's Number is just a power of three (a very large one, but a power nonetheless). Its recursive definition follows from how Knuth's Up-Arrow notation is recursive exponentiation, which is recursive multiplication, which is recursive addition, which finally is a recursive successor function (the "plus one" function), defined axiomatically to be a primitive recursive function and thus computable.
TREE(3) is the maximum number of entries into a sequence of trees with ever-increasing numbers of nodes (and a bunch of other stuff). We can prove that the sequence does end, but we cannot prove that we can calculate it recursively. We can potentially solve for it by drawing seemingly infinite sequences of trees, but we would have no way of knowing if we found the longest sequence. That is why TREE(3) is not computable.
An example I know better is the busy beaver function. The busy beaver function, abbreviated as BB(n), is the classic example of a noncomputable function. Its solutions (though proved to be defined on all inputs of n) are proven that, for any output of a computable function f evaluated at n, BB(n)>f(n), no computable function can be used to solve (and therefore recursively solve) for any value (technically I skipped a point of the n being above a certain size, but it is not relevant to the point). Hence, only lower bounds can be found for any value of BB(n).

March 14, 2019 4:36 p.m.

@SynergyBuild - While I love me some TREE[3], it is not computable, and would thus not be valid in a tournament setting. While we know it is finite, we have no way (at the moment) of knowing anything about it. We do not even know its parity. We can compute Graham's Number, as evidenced by the recursive up-arrow notation we use to define it. Thus, it can be computed and even explained, making it allowable in a tournament setting.

March 14, 2019 11:34 a.m.

@n0bunga - I use Graham's Number since no pragmatic finite process will reach that magnitude. Just remember that it is a power of three, so you are working with an odd number of stuffs.

March 13, 2019 12:03 p.m.

Decks

The Bones To Build Your Tribal Deck

Casual* merrowMania

SCORE: 537 | 109 COMMENTS | 59088 VIEWS | IN 451 FOLDERS

Them Fishies Will Kill You

Casual merrowMania

SCORE: 4 | 5 COMMENTS | 717 VIEWS | IN 2 FOLDERS

Finished Decks 150
Prototype Decks 49
Drafts 0
Playing since Gatecrash
Points 60
Avg. deck rating 35.71
T/O Rank 1708
Helper Rank None yet
Favorite formats Pre-release, Commander / EDH, Limited
Good Card Suggestions 86
Venues Critical Hit Games, Dream Wizards, First Turn Games
Last activity 1 week
Joined 5 years