Talk:Experience: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:42, 24 July 2010

Erratic (600000) E = -1/50*l^4 + 2*l^3 for level<=50

http://www.math.miami.edu/~jam/azure/forum/tuff/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001260

It's mentioned in the thread that level 45 does not work for that. Level 45 is 100273, not 100237. Sheep 16:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind the previous message, I figured it out myself. Sheep 18:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Simplify the formulas

Was that copied from matlab or something? It can be simplified...

((0.814 - 0.02*(((n - 69) / 3) - (((n - 69) / 3) modulo 1)) - ep(((n - 69) modulo 3))(n^3)

((0.814 - 0.02*(((n - 69) / 3) - float_part((n - 69) / 3) ) - ep(((n - 69) modulo 3))(n^3)
((0.814 - 0.02*( int((n - 69) / 3) ) - ep(((n - 69) modulo 3))(n^3)
((0.814 - 0.02*( int(n/3 - 23) ) - ep(((n - 69) modulo 3))(n^3)
((0.814 + 0.46 - 0.02*( int(n/3) ) - ep(((n - 69) modulo 3))(n^3)

int(  (  1.274 - 0.02*(int(n/3)) - ep(n%3)  ) * (n^3)  )
That would be easier to read.

2*(1 - 0.01n)*(n3)
= int( 2n3 - 0.02n4 )

(  1 - ((n - 50)*0.01)  ) * (n^3)
= int( 1.5n3 - 0.01n4 )

(1.6 - 0.01n) * (n3)
= int( 1.6n3 - 0.01n4 )

Qgpr03:05, 01 Mar 2005

I really want to avoid using expressions that are not standard math notation. I don't even know if there's a way to represent some integer rounding using standard math notation, just some pseudo-code, that's why I stuck mod 1 subtraction in there. My plan was to simplify/clean it up once TeX was implemented on bulbapedia.

In the meanwhile you can simplify them. Just keep "mod" or "modulo" instead of "%" and avoid "int()." Sheep 20:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The big problem is that when I first read that I got confused. No person that would bother to understand that formula wouldn't know how to program anyways, to represent that rounding you use ||x|| I think, maximum integer, unless I got the symbol wrong, long time I don't touch math. I'll leave that formula but also add the simplification for anyone that wants someting simplier to read. I will also simplify your standard math formulas, but won't add the ||x|| because I am not sure if its the right symbol, those - 69 can be taken out of modulo since they will be equal to zero. Qgpr 20:03, 5 Mar 2005 (GMT-5)

|x| is modulus - gives the absolute value of function, i.e. |-0.5| = 0.5. Modulo is simply represented as mod in mathematics. Anyway, while we do not have TeX at the moment, you can try this instead - leave the original math formula as a , and copy the image from Wikipedia (it will generate the image on preview, so you can download that and reupload it here. Don't overdo it of course.)

||x|| ( double | ) is what I was taught here at college, but I guess is not an standard, however I found what it seems is the standard, and used the UTF code to show it. However <*pre> is not happy with <*sub>, you should find a way around because mine doesn't look that good. By the way it was "greatest integer" not maximum, problems for using a direct translation. Qgpr 22:16, 5 Mar 2005 (GMT-5)

First shot at a TeX markup image. Using

\begin{math}
b \star x \rightarrow \frac{b}{x} - (\frac{b}{x}\;mod\;1)
\end{math}

\addvspace{.2cm}

\begin{math}
e(n) = \left\{
\begin{array}{clrr}
n^3(\frac{100 - n}{50}); & 0 < n \leq 50 \\*
n^3(\frac{150 - n}{100}); & 51 \leq n \leq 68 \\*
n^3(1.274 - \frac{1}{50}(n\star3) - p(n\;mod\;3)); & 69 \leq n \leq 98 \\*
n^3(\frac{160 - n}{100}); & 99 \leq n \leq 100 \\*
\end{array}
\right\}
\end{math}

\addvspace{.2cm}

\begin{math}
p(x) = \left\{
\begin{array}{clrr}
0.000; & x = 0 \\*
0.008; & x = 1 \\*
0.014; & x = 2 \\*
\end{array}
\right\}
\end{math}

I came up with

File:Texerratic.png

Kind of cramped. Does it meet the approval of you two? Looking for revisions before I even post it. Especially since I forgot how to properly represent a custom operator (\star). Is that how? Sheep 03:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This seems better:

\begin{equation}
E(n) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{n^{3} \left(100 - n\right)}{50}, & \textrm{if $0 < n \leq 50$} \\
\frac{n^{3} \left(150 - n\right)}{100}, & \textrm{if $51 < n \leq 68$} \\
n^{3} \left(1.274 - \frac{1}{50}\left\lfloor\frac{n}{3}\right\rfloor -p\left(n \bmod 3\right)\right), & \textrm{if $69 < n \leq 98$} \\ 
\frac{n^{3} \left(160 - n\right)}{100}, & \textrm{if $99 < n \leq 100$}
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
p(m) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
0.000, & \textrm{if $m = 0$} \\
0.008, & \textrm{if $m = 1$} \\
0.014, & \textrm{if $m = 2$}
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}

File:Erratic experience levels equation 1.png
File:Erratic experience levels equation 2.png But when I tested it on Wikipedia, there were a few problems, so if we do get around to installing Texvc, we'll have to go hammer those problems out. Also, I'd appreciate it if we could find the exact fractions for those decimalised numbers - after all, the computer works in binary, not decimal - hence we won't have 0.008, we might instead have 523/65536 (or maybe 8/1000, but the result would still be stored as a binary fraction) - 刘 (劉) 振霖 07:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I updated texerratic.png up there with something that looks more like yours. I didn't use Wikipedia for mine, I was using TeXnicCenter. I think the decimals are all right how they are, because they actually are more correct. I don't know exactly how the games handle decimal arithmetic, but it appears that the formulas use values accurate to 3 decimal places. (525/65536) or (523/65536) are not exactly 0.008, and if you put in those values, you'll get numbers that are off (I got about 6 points off for level 70). Sheep 13:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mmm. Since the experience points have to be accurate to about 7sf - I think the fractions should therefore be accurate to 7sf as well. But it might well be that they did use integer multiplication + division (× 8 ÷ 1000) rather than a simpler constant floating point multiplication (× (1 + 402653/2²⁴) × 2^-7) - which is approximately how accurate a single-precision IEEE 754 binary fraction is. Funnily enough, IEEE 754 single-precision fractions are accurate to approx 7sf (without exponentiation) by defintion (this one is 0.008 correct to 11sf)). - 刘 (劉) 振霖 14:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I just learned from Meowth that the game simply stores the values for these as constants in the game, so the fractions are just best-fit and the formula is not used in-game - 刘 (劉) 振霖 14:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So we need to reach a conclusion. There will be a note added that says these values are stored in the game as constants, not calculated. The formulas, I guess, do not have to be specific to any system of number storage now, so are we saying that the decimal constants are acceptable? Sheep 15:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

quick question

Why does Level redirect here? An even better question is, why does this page link to Level, thus linking back to itself? --greengiant

Sorry my reply is formatted wrong, I don't know how to do it normally yet. Anyway, the last time I checked, Level is its own, seperate article. Maybe they fixed the problem you saw before. {{SUBST:Superbreeder]] What's up? 23:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Modify this!

Can someone modify the erratic and the fluctuating part of experience? I want to understand it like all the other ones!

I think those formulas should be explained. It would help quite a lot of people who want to understand those formulas but haven't seen them before.Dullstar 02:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Color-Coded

I color-coded the exp type descriptions to more-or-less match the colors used on the graph. I did this to make it easier to distinguish them from eachother. I wonder where I can find the look-up table in the game, I bet I can simplify those two honking large piecewise formulas. Twigpi 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

See http://www.upokecenter.com/games/rs/guides/exptable.html. The "1,050,000" in one of the top columns is a typo (should be "1,059,860"). At Level 1, the Experience is always "0" (here, they have it at "1"). Ultraflame 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Organize Pokémon

I really think there should be either a list of Pokémon by experience types or a category for each type. You can find out on each particular Pokémon's page, but there is no way to find Pokémon based on their experience type. Cheesus Is Lord 13:23 23 January 2008

Here is the whole list. Someone could modify it and put it into the main article.

600000
Nincada/Ninjask/Shedinja
Volbeat
Swablu/Altaria
Zangoose
Lileep/Cradily
Anorith/Armaldo
Feebas/Milotic
Clamperl/Huntail/Gorebyss
Cranidos/Rampardos
Shieldon/Bastiodon
Finneon/Lumineon

800000
Cleffa/Clefairy/Clefable
Igglybuff/Jigglypuff/Wigglytuff
Happiny/Chansey/Blissey
Ledyba/Ledian
Spinarak/Ariados
Togepi/Togetic/Togekiss
Marill/Azumarill
Aipom/Ambipom
Misdreavus/Mismagius
Snubbull/Granbull
Corsola
Delibird
Smeargle
Skitty/Delcatty
Mawile
Spoink/Grumpig
Spinda
Lunatone
Solrock
Shuppet/Banette
Duskull/Dusclops/Dusknoir
Chingling/Chimecho
Luvdisc
Glameow/Purugly

1000000
Caterpie/Metapod/Butterfree
Weedle/Kakuna/Beedrill
Rattata/Raticate
Spearow/Fearow
Ekans/Arbok
Pichu/Pikachu/Raichu
Sandshrew/Sandslash
Vulpix/Ninetales
Zubat/Golbat/Crobat
Paras/Parasect
Venonat/Venomoth
Diglett/Dugtrio
Meowth/Persian
Psyduck/Golduck
Mankey/Primeape
Ponyta/Rapidash
Slowpoke/Slowbro/Slowking
Magnemite/Magneton/Magnezone
Farfetch'd
Doduo/Dodrio
Seel/Dewgong
Grimer/Muk
Onix/Steelix
Drowzee/Hypno
Krabby/Kingler
Voltorb/Electrode
Cubone/Marowak
Tyrogue/Hitmonlee/Hitmonchan/Hitmontop
Lickitung/Lickilicky
Koffing/Weezing
Tangela/Tangrowth
Kangaskhan
Horsea/Seadra/Kingdra
Goldeen/Seaking
Mime Jr./Mr. Mime
Scyther/Scizor
Smoochum/Jynx
Elekid/Electabuzz/Electivire
Magby/Magmar/Magmortar
Ditto
Eevee/Vaporeon/Jolteon/Flareon/Espeon/Umbreon/Leafeon/Glaceon
Porygon/Porygon2/Porygon-Z
Omanyte/Omastar
Kabuto/Kabutops
Sentret/Furret
Hoothoot/Noctowl
Natu/Xatu
Bonsly/Sudowoodo
Yanma/Yanmega
Wooper/Quagsire
Unown
Wobbuffet
Girafarig
Dunsparce
Qwilfish
Teddiursa/Ursaring
Slugma/Magcargo
Remoraid/Octillery
Phanpy/Donphan
Poochyena/Mightyena
Zigzagoon/Linoone
Wurmple/Silcoon/Beautifly/Cascoon/Dustox
Wingull/Pelipper
Surskit/Masquerain
Nosepass/Probopass
Meditite/Medicham
Plusle
Minun
Numel/Camerupt
Torkoal
Barboach/Whiscash
Baltoy/Claydol
Castform
Snorunt/Glalie/Froslass
Bidoof/Bibarel
Burmy/Wormadam/Mothim
Pachirisu
Buizel/Floatzel
Cherubi/Cherrim
Shellos/Gastrodon
Buneary/Lopunny
Stunky/Skuntank
Bronzor/Bronzong
Spiritomb
Croagunk/Toxicroak
Rotom

1059860
Bulbasaur/Ivysaur/Venusaur
Charmander/Charmeleon/Charizard
Squirtle/Wartortle/Blastoise
Pidgey/Pidgeotto/Pidgeot
Nidoran-F/Nidorina/Nidoqueen
Nidoran-M/Nidorino/Nidoking
Oddish/Gloom/Vileplume/Bellossom
Poliwag/Poliwhirl/Poliwrath/Politoed
Abra/Kadabra/Alakazam
Machop/Machoke/Machamp
Bellsprout/Weepinbell/Victreebel
Geodude/Graveler/Golem
Gastly/Haunter/Gengar
Mew
Chikorita/Bayleef/Meganium
Cyndaquil/Quilava/Typhlosion
Totodile/Croconaw/Feraligatr
Mareep/Flaaffy/Ampharos
Hoppip/Skiploom/Jumpluff
Sunkern/Sunflora
Murkrow/Honchkrow
Gligar/Gliscor
Shuckle
Sneasel/Weavile
Celebi
Treecko/Grovyle/Sceptile
Torchic/Combusken/Blaziken
Mudkip/Marshtomp/Swampert
Lotad/Lombre/Ludicolo
Seedot/Nuzleaf/Shiftry
Taillow/Swellow
Whismur/Loudred/Exploud
Sableye
Budew/Roselia/Roserade
Trapinch/Vibrava/Flygon
Cacnea/Cacturne
Kecleon
Absol
Spheal/Sealeo/Walrein
Turtwig/Grotle/Torterra
Chimchar/Monferno/Infernape
Piplup/Prinplup/Empoleon
Starly/Staravia/Staraptor
Kricketot/Kricketune
Shinx/Luxio/Luxray
Combee/Vespiquen
Chatot
Riolu/Lucario
Shaymin

1250000
Growlithe/Arcanine
Tentacool/Tentacruel
Shellder/Cloyster
Exeggcute/Exeggutor
Rhyhorn/Rhydon/Rhyperior
Staryu/Starmie
Pinsir
Tauros
Magikarp/Gyarados
Lapras
Aerodactyl
Munchlax/Snorlax
Articuno
Zapdos
Moltres
Dratini/Dragonair/Dragonite
Mewtwo
Chinchou/Lanturn
Heracross
Swinub/Piloswine/Mamoswine
Mantyke/Mantine
Skarmory
Houndour/Houndoom
Stantler
Miltank
Raikou
Entei
Suicune
Larvitar/Pupitar/Tyranitar
Lugia
Ho-Oh
Ralts/Kirlia/Gardevoir/Gallade
Slakoth/Vigoroth/Slaking
Aron/Lairon/Aggron
Electrike/Manetric
Carvahna/Sharpedo
Tropius
Relicanth
Bagon/Shelgon/Salamence
Beldum/Metang/Metagross
Regirock
Regice
Registeel
Latias
Latios
Kyogre
Groudon
Rayquaza
Jirachi
Deoxys
Gible/Gabite/Garchomp
Hippopotas/Hippowdon
Skorupi/Drapion
Carnivine
Snover/Abomasnow
Uxie
Mesprit
Azelf
Dialga
Palkia
Heatran
Regigigas
Giratina
Cresselia
Phione
Manaphy
Darkrai
Arceus

1640000
Shroomish/Breloom
Makuhita/Hariyama
Illumise
Gulpin/Swalot
Wailmer/Wailord
Seviper
Corphish/Crawdaunt
Drifloon/Drifblim

Ultraflame 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea and think it would be useful. Anyone else agree? Eric the espeon 19:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know if it belongs on this page. We could create categories, but I think I like the idea of another page better, like List of Pokémon by experience requirement, or something. — Laoris _(Blah) 19:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, and link to that list from here? Eric the espeon 18:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

???

If the formula returns a decimal, is the result rounded up or down? --S^hi_ny ^No_ct^ow_l 15:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Always rounded down, I believe. Ultraflame 22:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...

Does anyone else think that a chart that lists the experience needed to reach each level in an experience group would be a good addition to this page? TTEchidna 05:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

yes MathijsP 07:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the charts, but, as I had a computer program generate them, I haven't been able to check the piecewise ones yet. It would be good if someone else could check the piecewise functions ("erratic" and "fluctuating") to make sure they're correct. --S^hi_ny ^No_ct^ow_l 00:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

the "Erratic" one is messed up. lvl 98 is 1.2 million, and lvl 99 is under 600,000. also, thats a lot of text, so, i added the show/hide ability. -- MAG NE DETH 00:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's still messed up. Can you fix it please? --S^hi_ny ^No_ct^ow_l 00:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

i dont know how to fix it, i just added the show/hide things. im just noting its not right. you said you had a computer do it. try again? -- MAG NE DETH 00:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The formula for Level 98 comes out to 583539, which is correct. Ultraflame 23:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

well thats fine, but currently it says lvl 98 is 1185901, which it wrong. -- MAG NE DETH 23:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon Gold/Silver Version ROM - Hack-O-Matic - "Secret" Experience functions

I'm sure someone else has noticed that if you use the ROM hack tool Hack-O-Matic to open a Pokémon Gold/Silver ROM and edit Pokémon, there will be eight "experience gradient" choices for each Pokémon as opposed to the four that were actually used in Generation II. I've figured out three of the four "secret" functions, and due to a glitch in Hack-O-Matic I can't examine the fourth one.
Hack-O-Matic displays the eight experience functions as eight "types" (the numbers go from Level 2 to 100):

1

Formula is 0.25n^3 + 15n^2 + 205n – 107

2

Same as Fifth Type

3

0.75n^3 + 10n^2 – 30

4

0.75n^3 + 20n^2 – 70

5

First Type

6

Fourth Type

7

Sixth Type

8

Unknown due to glitch in Hack-O-Matic. Hack-O-Matic provides graphs for each experience function, but they may not be accurate. Do you want me to upload that graph's picture anyway?
Are these "hidden" experience functions notable enough to be added to the article somewhere? Thanks. Ultraflame 20:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand any of this? Could you make it clearer for the average user to be able to read, if an average person sees that they wont be able to understand it, only smart people will --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010

When a Pokémon gains experience it levels up. Different Pokémon level up at different rates, and take different amounts of experience to gain each level. Some Pokémon level up faster than others. The amount of experience a Pokémon needs to gain a level is determined by one of eight possible formulas. That's really the premise of the whole article. — Laoris _(Blah) 18:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

oh ok thank you, it was that last line "The amount of experience a Pokémon needs to gain a level is determined by one of eight possible formulas." I didnt really get till you explained it. I just thought they made the pokemon that way, i wasnt aware there was a formula, if this is in the article, can we have the easier to understand version, your version, underneath the complicated bit. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010

I'll add some clarification to the article later. — Laoris _(Blah) 18:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

List of base experence yeald

Can someone add this in as a hide able table?- unsigned comment from Eric the espeon (talk • contribs) ; massive amount of data hidden by trom.

Already in List of Pokémon by effort value yield. Ultraflame 00:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that is EV yield.. The list I provided was base EXP yield. Quite a major difference there. Eric the espeon 17:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the article, there's a column marked "Exp.", which contains exactly the same data that you have provided. Confusing, I know. Ultraflame 19:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. This article should probably link to that list then, no? Eric the espeon 21:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Negative EXP

According to the "medium slow" formula, the EXP for level 1 should be -54. This is exploited in the Pokémon Blue TAS. However there's no sign of this in the article. Was it fixed in later games? - unsigned comment from Gyorokpeter (talk • contribs)

It was fixed as of Generation III at the latest, I believe. According to the article, "Due most likely to the issue of speed when using these formulas, the GBA games will simply use a lookup table for each value of any type instead of computing them. Because of this, these formulas are not actually part of the game mechanics." Ultraflame 05:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Experience gain in battle

The section on the experience gained in battle only mentions the total experience gained, and not how experience is spread throughout multiple participants in the battle. That information seems like a useful mechanic and should be appended by someone who can add it. --Naokohiro 19:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It is divided evenly among participants, unless some participants have EXP share or whatever. In this case, they receive their share plus the bonus from the held item. —darklordtrom 03:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it divided among arbitrary amounts of Pokémon involved in the battle, and Pokémon with Exp. Share, including cases where Pokémon have both an Exp. Share and participated in the battle? There are many different cases. For example, when some Pokémon have Exp. Share and some don't, but some of the Pokémon with Exp. Share participated and some didn't, but also some Pokémon without Exp. Share that did participate, etc. --Naokohiro 04:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how experience is divided among multiple Exp. Share holders (does each Pokémon with Exp. Share receive (1/(number of Exp. Shares + 1))*(total experience), or does each receive (1/2)*(total experience)*(1/number of Exp. Shares), or something else?), but the experience that is not allocated solely as a result of Exp. Share being held is always divided evenly among the participants of the battle, regardless of whether or not those participants hold Exp. Share. Ultraflame 06:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Switching???

I'll give an example.

Say I have a Charizard out, and the opponent has Venusaur. The opponent switches to Blastoise, and later I switch to Raichu. If the opponent switches back to Venusaur, and I KO it, will my Charizard still gain exp? - ^Axxonn the _{Awesometrainer} 20:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, at least not in my experience. The Pokémon must face the Pokémon since it has last been sent out from its Poké Ball. Werdnae (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Tried it before. ^ht 14 21:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Errors with formulas?

I was just double-checking the erratic output based on the formula given, when I realized that the given formula is impossible, in programming terms. Specifically, the game would never output two values for levels 50, 68, and 98, as the current formula shows it does. So I checked to see what the correct distribution of the formulas was, and came up with the following: level 50 could go either way, as both formulas it is attributed to result in the same output, level 68 is calculated based on the second formula given, and level 98 is calculated on the final formula. In other words, the actual division of the formulas should be something along the lines of the first applying to levels below or equal to 50, the second applying to levels greater than 50 but less than or equal to 68, the third applying to levels greater than 68 but less than to 98 (or, to keep similar formatting, apply to levels greater than 68 but less than or equal to 97), and the final one applying to levels greater than or equal to 98 (or, to keep formatting, apply to levels greater than 97). Glitchfinder 03:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It would also appear that quite a bit has been left out of the fluctuating piecewise function. Specifically, it would appear that the formula used for levels one through 14 will change based on the level modulo 3, resulting in three different yet very similar formulas for these levels. The middle levels, from 15 to 34, remain with the same formula that is given. However, it would appear that there are two separate formulas used for levels 35 to 100, determined by the level modulo 2. Here is the code I was using to test the function, which is written in Ruby:

test.fluctuating[1] = 0
for i in 2...101
  if i >= 1 && i < 15 && i % 3 == 0
    val = ((i.to_f ** 3.0) * ((24.0 + ((i.to_f) / 3.0)) / 50.0))
  elsif i >= 1 && i < 15 && i % 3 == 1
    val = ((i.to_f ** 3.0) * ((24.0 + ((i.to_f - 1.0) / 3.0)) / 50.0))
  elsif i >= 1 && i < 15 && i % 3 == 2
    val = ((i.to_f ** 3.0) * ((24.0 + ((i.to_f + 1.0) / 3.0)) / 50.0))
  elsif i >= 15 && i < 35
    val = ((i.to_f ** 3.0) * ((14.0 + i.to_f) / 50.0))
  elsif i >= 35 && i <= 100 && i % 2 == 0
    val = ((i.to_f ** 3.0) * ((32.0 + (i.to_f / 2.0)) / 50.0))
  elsif i >= 35 && i <= 100 && i % 2 == 1
    val = ((i.to_f ** 3.0) * ((32.0 + ((i.to_f - 1.0) / 2.0)) / 50.0))
  end
  test.fluctuating[i] = val.truncate
end

Please note that the code is given as a demonstration of how the formulas are chosen, and does not include the necessary setup for the test variable. I don't know the Wikipedia math functions well enough to replace the image, so it would be a good idea for someone else to do it instead. Glitchfinder 05:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the modulo operator business is already covered in the formulas, using the floor function symbol (looks a little like square brackets). But I do agree that the erratic functions' domains should be clarified as you said. Ultraflame 05:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly explain the problem. There should probably be a note stating that those values are actually encased in a floor function, and not simply placed within brackets. (I had to look quite closely to see that they were in fact the floor function symbols, and not simply brackets, like I had assumed they were) Glitchfinder 05:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Understanding the formulas

Could anyone tell me what is ment with "N" in the formulas? I can't find it anywhere on the page. - unsigned comment from Ragnearoa (talk • contribs)

"n" generally means "number" when used in equations as a variable, in this case... I believe the "n" stands for the base experience given out by a Pokemon. ▫▫ティナ^♫★ 15:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"n" actually represents the level of the Pokémon. "e(n)" is therefore the number of Exp. Points a Pokémon needs to get from level 1 to level "n". Ultraflame 01:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Erratic formula

The erratic formula's piecewise functions are defined inclusively in all inequalities, and thus overlap.

File:Math-formula5.png

File:Expcalc erratic.png

The left formula is how I believe it should be, the right is the current one. -- Pokey 07:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

At the overlaps, the values are equal. Ztobor 22:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Does Not Compute

The Trivia sections on the species pages for Arceus, Blissey and Chansey all state that they give 13,933 experience at level 100 when owned by a Trainer. But based on the way that the experience given in battle formula is written right now (with a being 1 plus an additional possible 1.2 depending on Trainer status, trade, and foreign language), it only equals 8,014, not 13,933.

a=2.2 b=255 L=100 a+b+L=56,100 56,100/7=8,014

Add a Lucky Egg (multiply by 1.5) onto that and you only get 12,021. The only way to get the 13,933 is to multiply 1.5 for the trade and 1.7 for the foreign language after the initial Trainer experience (with a being 1.5) has been calculated, not to add .5 and .2 to a. --Phantom Junkie 17:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We'd better look into that. Perhaps you don't add 0.5 to a, but multiply a by 1.5 instead. I'll see about it. Ztobor 02:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, you mean: if you calculate 1.5x for the Lucky Egg, 1.7x for the foreign language trade, and 1.5x for the Trainer battle as well.

If we're going by that logic, it might actually be that you multiply everything, instead of adding to the multiplier. In which case it would actually be 14,753 experience points. I'll still have to look into it. Ztobor 02:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I found out. I tried battling against a trainer's Level 28 Mime Jr. with a German-traded Gabite holding a Lucky Egg. The base Exp. is exactly 312, and it gained 1193, which is 1.5 x 1.7 x 1.5. So yes, you actually do need to multiply 1.5 twice, and the article as it stands now is wrong. Ztobor 03:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Ztobor 03:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor wording issue

I didn't want to just go in and edit this without asking. The section on the Experience Underflow glitch contains the following sentence: It is due to this bug that no level 1 Pokémon can be found in the wild without glitching or hacking the game, and why, even though level 2-4 Pokémon can be found wild, Pokémon hatched at level 5 in the first two generations. However, since breeding and, by extension, hatching eggs wasn't added until Generation II, shouldn't the sentence be changed to state that "Pokémon hatched at level 5 in the second generation"? The following paragraph refers to level 5 hatching in Generation III, so I don't feel it's necessary to add it here. --Phantom Junkie 08:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Changed to "Pokémon hatched at level 5 when eggs were introduced in Generation II." Ultraflame 01:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of asymptotic notation

It's not really appropriate to use asymptotic notation in the manner this article does currently: the notion is not really useful unless the functions tend to 0 or infinity, as we can write many statements that say equally true and unhelpful things. For example, all six functions in the article are O(1) at n=100, or O(n), or O(n^10) (using the lim sup definition in the Wikipedia article, for example), none of which show the detail we want.

In other words, the notation is effectively meaningless the way it is being used. Perhaps considering f(x)-f(100) would be better.

Small extra note: to be rather fussy, similar remarks could be made about the way the article used "continuous" before I removed it: these functions are defined on the integers, and since there is no way of talking about limits on a finite set of integers, you can't talk about continuity either. (The integers are called discrete or totally disconnected because of the way the topologies on them must be defined, if anyone wants more detail.) Of course, this also means you can't use asymptotic notation in this case at all... Chappers 00:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll remove that part. A friend of mine also said it was inappropriate too.

Also, about the "continuous" function part, I can see why it's notation abuse now. I just meant to say that it wasn't piecewise, and could be represented as one function. I guess "polynomial" is a good compromise if we can't really find a suitable word for it. Ztobor 19:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 1,499: / Line 1,499: @@
 Small extra note: to be rather fussy, similar remarks could be made about the way the article used "continuous" before I removed it: these functions are defined on the integers, and since there is no way of talking about limits on a finite set of integers, you can't talk about continuity either. (The integers are called discrete or totally disconnected because of the way the topologies on them must be defined, if anyone wants more detail.) Of course, this also means you can't use asymptotic notation in this case at all... [[User:Chappers|Chappers]] 00:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
-: Alright, I'll remove that part. A friend of mine also said it was inappropriate too. [[User:Ztobor|Ztobor]] 19:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
+: Alright, I'll remove that part. A friend of mine also said it was inappropriate too.
+:: Also, about the "continuous" function part, I can see why it's notation abuse now. I just meant to say that it wasn't piecewise, and could be represented as one function. I guess "polynomial" is a good compromise if we can't really find a suitable word for it. [[User:Ztobor|Ztobor]] 19:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)