That's really interesting. It looked so weird I went to check it out, and indeed, it is correct.
Archangel's Staff sells for 2170,
Seraph's Embrace sells for 2100.
Guess Seraph's Embrace doesn't get its gold worth value per the basic 0.7 coefficient for mythical/legendary items. Leaves only the question, whether this is on purpose, or if somebody was too lazy to look up the correct value.
I appreciate your concern over the complexion of the formula but I honestly think that you need to discuss it with an administrator or a moderator before making a decision like this. While both formulae are simplified, the edit you made to the first formula is not very accurate. Here in the wiki, all of us strive for accuracy so I hope you understand.
Alas, if your edit is granted permission from either of them, feel free to revert my undo and make the first formula correct. Thank you.
The first formula is exactly the same as the second. All I did was factorizing it and replacing the fractions with decimal presentations. You can convert both equations into each other.
Sanitiy wrote:
The first formula is exactly the same as the second. All I did was factorizing it and replacing the fractions with decimal presentations. You can convert both equations into each other.
Therefore, you are not entirely wrong in the first formula, but putting $ n $ instead of $ n+1 $ at the end is not correct. Also, whilst I appreciate the simplicity of the formulae, I just do not think this is the way to display them. Omitting the <math></math> , which is here to highlight the most important formulas in the entire page does not seem right.
All in all, I really think you should consult an administrator or a moderator before making significant (yet optional) changes like this.
Edit: I added the <math></math> to the page and corrected your first formula. I didn't make any changes to your simplifications, but still this is not permanent until you ask for consent from an administrator/a moderator.
I agree that the equations have to be highlighted. At the same time it'd be nice though to be able to copy & paste it. That this isn't possible in case of fractals and such (unless there's a template that allows one to copy & paste) is clear to me.
To highlight the formula I put it in white text. But you're propably right, that alone might not be enough to highlight it. Maybe with increased text size?
On my calculation, the formula I put is correct. Here I equated the original with mine:
You're right, you first get when expanding the formula
b + g·(n - 1)·(0.6675 + 0.0175·(n+1))
But the 0.0175(n+1) = 0.0175 + 0.0175n, and as such can be further simplified, with final result being
b + g·(n - 1)·(0.685 + 0.0175·n)
That'd be <big> <span style="color:white;font-family:Courier;"> </span> </big>
Sanitiy wrote:
I agree that the equations have to be highlighted. At the same time it'd be nice though to be able to copy & paste it. That this isn't possible in case of fractals and such (unless there's a template that allows one to copy & paste) is clear to me.
To highlight the formula I put it in white text. But you're propably right, that alone might not be enough to highlight it. Maybe with increased text size?
On my calculation, the formula I put is correct. Here I equated the original with mine:
You're right, you first get when expanding the formula
b + g·(n - 1)·(0.6675 + 0.0175·(n+1))
But the 0.0175(n+1) = 0.0175 + 0.0175n, and as such can be further simplified, with final result being
b + g·(n - 1)·(0.685 + 0.0175·n)
That'd be <big> <span style="color:white;font-family:Courier;"> </span> </big>
Alright, you are right on this one, but still, ask an administrator about this change because it is really significant.
In terms of clarity, I still think the old formula does a better job because both of the $ n^2-1 $ and $ n-1 $ share the same denominator. That's just me, but I feel like it's more comprehensible in terms of how the formula is formulated. Though for the second formula, it doesn't matter whether it is expressed in decimals or fractions.
I saw you had some trouble creating the Dft redirect. In the future, it's #REDIRECT [[page]], so a space between the redirect tag and the link and two pairs of brackets.
If you have trouble with figuring something out I'd suggest looking at existing examples (like DFG) and just substituting things. I can also recommend my editing cheat sheet, even if it is a little basic.