Gah, I'm a hypocrite. I ask for extended discussion to move to chat, and then I immediately join the discussion.

@murgatroid99 The expected number of coin flips required to get n heads in a row is 2 ^ (n + 1) - 2 according to codechef.com/wiki/tutorial-expectation

So 2 ^ n was a good guess

@Rainbolt In retrospect, with the calculations I had, I should have had the n + 1. But I wouldn't have gotten the - 2 that way

Minor points. You got on the right order of magnitude, which is the important thing IMO

I wonder why this answer got a downvote :(

Maybe the downvoter will leave an explanatory comment soon. I stopped asking for them, because they always end up being answered by someone totally different.

@Rainbolt If I were you, I would remove everything below the horizontal line

I hate to say this after the arguments I've had with you, but your conclusion about Devotion does not logically follow from the point you make in those paragraphs

@murgatroid99 You're right. "If turning an object colorless removes devotion, then giving it color should add devotion, right?" does not follow

@Rainbolt exactly

I don't know if that's the motivation for the downvote, but either way, it doesn't contribute to your point

Removed

I have a feeling that there's a stronger argument in the rules for that conclusion than either answer currently has.

Really? What rule would support a stronger conclusion?

I encourage you to post. I will certainly upvote any conclusion I think is stronger.

I don't know. It's just that nothing in those answers actually says that changing color doesn't affect mana symbols

I wrote a meta post about this. I don't really want to repeat it here.

If you feel like you can prove something that the rules don't say, then go for it.

I'm not saying that. I'm looking through the rules right now.

Yea, if you do find a rule that says it, I am going to encourage the OP to accept yours and then delete my answer.

Oh well, I can't find anything. I guess it's as simple as "mana cost determines color, but the converse is not true, because nothing says that it is"

Hah. And you thought my logic was a non sequitur.

"the converse is not true, because nothing says that it is"

Now I am actually going to start digging up old comments.

@Rainbolt that is generally how the rules work

If nothing says that you change the mana cost, you don't change the mana cost

@murgatroid99 Some very irritating people would disagree with you (and me) on that point.

@Rainbolt Those are generally players who are new to magic to be fair.

@Waterseas I think he's talking about site regulars.

@Murgatroid99 Fair enough

@Rainbolt And just to be clear (assuming you're talking about what you deleted in your devotion answer), I thought it was denying the antecedent, not a non sequitur.

That makes sense.

Anyway, a few months ago I posted a question on meta about why logic is treated so harshly. Consider the fact that we just failed to find a rule that says it doesn't work that way. The next best step is to use logic to attempt to prove that it doesn't work that way. The basis of this logic is that the MTG rules are permissive. A lot of people didn't agree with me on that point, and they were very vocal about it in the comments.

So right now, we have my answer, which only works because of the assumption that the rules are permissive.

If you take that away from me, then my answer doesn't work at all.

I would actually say that your argument works because the rules aren't permissive. Because you do exactly what they say, and nothing more, and they don't say that changing the color affects the mana cost.

That's what permissive means. The rules state what you can do. Everything else, you can't do.

Restrictive would be if the rules stated all the things you can't do, and everything else is totally allowed.

That's silly that people disagreed with that, although perhaps tis because of how you worded it?

And then there is a middle ground. The rules cover everything.

Anything not covered is a flaw in the rules

@Rainbolt OK. That's not how I would have used the word

I did explain this in my meta post, but like you, people were more concerned with how they would use the word than how I was using it.

And so the post degraded into a pedantic battle and my point was lost.

I flagged it for deletion and mod rejected my flag.

To be fair, starting a post with the implication that people downvoted you because you used logic is not a good way to start a constructive dialogue

It was an implication born from observed behavior.

And to be fair, it was "Here is what I think." not "Here it what is true." I thought I was being downvoted for what others found to be convoluted logic.

True, but explicitly stating that as your opinion isn't going to result in a constructive conversation. There are better ways it could have been worded that would've made it not sound like a personal attack.

OK, I don't want to rehash this argument, but I cannot agree with that being the most reasonable conclusion

I wanted everyone to understand that my convoluted logic was actually a necessary evil that forms the basis of so many answers on the site.

And you're right. There's no point in rehashing that argument. It wasn't even the point of the post.

In any case, I think the answer we were talking about is basically right, but i think it would benefit from pointing out that there's nothing in the rules that says that changing color has any effect on mana cost

anyway, about to be AFK for a couple of minutes

+1

@Rainbolt I meant that since devotion does depend on mana cost, it's worth mentioning that mana cost does not depend on color. That way, it's clear that there isn't even an indirect effect.

@murgatroid99 Well there's a lot of things that don't depend on a lot of things. It seems rather arbitrary which ones I decide to list out.

The question was "Does devotion depend on color." The answer is "No, devotion does not depend on color."

If I say "Devotion does not depend on mana cost, and mana cost does not depend on color." then that's another way of saying it.

I might also say "Devotion does not depend on Elephants. Elephants do not depend on Spoons. Spoons do not depend on Color." It just doesn't matter.

It's more like "Devotion does not depend on color because mana cost does not depend on color". It's not arbitrary; devotion is a direct function of mana cost.

You are confusing what is and what isn't.

@Rainbolt what?

The because in your sentence is false.

why is it false?

Devotion doesn't depend on color because the rules don't say it does (directly or indirectly).

@Rainbolt Right, and the only reasonable "indirectly" would be by way of mana cost. That's the point I'm making

Oh, you are implying that if devotion was dependent on color, then it would be because mana cost depends on color?

@Rainbolt yes

Well, it isn't.

And that doesn't make any sense.

Because the only rule regarding devotion says that it's a function of mana cost

But a new rule could directly affect devotion, not mana cost.

A new rule could even introduce Spoons and Elephants and draw a totally new line.

The fact remains that these rules are all imaginary, they don't exist, and the "lack of a line" that I draw is totally arbitrary.

OK, how about "Devotion is a function of mana cost. There is no rule saying that color affects devotion, and there is no rule saying that color affects mana cost. Therefore, color does not affect devotion, directly or indirectly"

You are just trying to force your point while rejecting mine.

@Rainbolt What is your point?

My point is that my answer is equally as fine the way it is as it would be if I made the change you suggest.

And after you accept that, I will point out that your version is slightly longer.

@Rainbolt OK, I disagree

But if you don't accept the first point, then the second seems relatively minor and insignificant.

that's why I suggested this in the first place

So forgive me for not making it first.

Hi @John

Hello. (My name is also John.)