Discuss Scratch
- Discussion Forums
- » Things I'm Reading and Playing
- » Geometry Dash Topic
![[RSS Feed]](//cdn.scratch.mit.edu/scratchr2/static/__5b3e40ec58a840b41702360e9891321b__//djangobb_forum/img/feed-icon-small.png "[RSS Feed]")
![[RSS Feed]](http://cdn.scratch.mit.edu/scratchr2/static/__5b3e40ec58a840b41702360e9891321b__//djangobb_forum/img/feed-icon-small.png "[RSS Feed]"){kind=icon}
- GDTidalWave
-
Scratcher
52 posts
Geometry Dash Topic
i have an obsession with this level (you can probably tell by my username)HOWi have like 6 percent (idk how many clicks that is)GUESS WHAT I MADE IT PAST THE FIRST CLICK IN TIDAL WAVE IS ANYBODY PROUD OF MEI made it past the first 3
- TheUltimateHoodie
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Geometry Dash Topic
…it took me 261 attempts hbui have an obsession with this level (you can probably tell by my username)HOWi have like 6 percent (idk how many clicks that is)GUESS WHAT I MADE IT PAST THE FIRST CLICK IN TIDAL WAVE IS ANYBODY PROUD OF MEI made it past the first 3
- co0lcr34t10ns
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Geometry Dash Topic
I just unlocked Deadlocked. Since it was an Easy Demon, and I had beaten two of those, I thought this wouldn't be that hard to practice.
This level HUMBLED me.
It took me 310 attempts from zero to beat in IN PRACTICE. For context, that is a similar range of attempts to my practice run of FUTURE FUNK, ON MOBILE, WITH THE PRACTICE MODE XL BUG.
This level HUMBLED me.
It took me 310 attempts from zero to beat in IN PRACTICE. For context, that is a similar range of attempts to my practice run of FUTURE FUNK, ON MOBILE, WITH THE PRACTICE MODE XL BUG.
- DifferentDance8
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Geometry Dash Topic
WITH THE PRACTICE MODE XL BUG.“Practice Mode XL Bug”? Never heard of that one
- TempestWinds
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
Geometry Dash Topic
I just unlocked Deadlocked. Since it was an Easy Demon, and I had beaten two of those, I thought this wouldn't be that hard to practice.
This level HUMBLED me.
It took me 310 attempts from zero to beat in IN PRACTICE. For context, that is a similar range of attempts to my practice run of FUTURE FUNK, ON MOBILE, WITH THE PRACTICE MODE XL BUG.
deadlocked is that one level where it’s really hard at first but gets consistent easily imo
- unrealalex
-
Scratcher
45 posts
Geometry Dash Topic
CBF Detected, Loser! CBF is illegitimate and will not be allowed for use on Scratch. Please disable the mod to continue.
- co0lcr34t10ns
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Geometry Dash Topic
The game has a lag spike every time you die, making it very difficult to time jumpsWITH THE PRACTICE MODE XL BUG.“Practice Mode XL Bug”? Never heard of that one
I think 2.2 fixed it because it made XL levels really hard to practice
Also NCS Gauntlet Contest results 4PM ET today!
- NotYourTypicalBean
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Geometry Dash Topic
I just beat my first insane demon!Congrats! Which level did you do?
- The_Real_Coderdash
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
Geometry Dash Topic
hi I'm new to this topic. been a part of the fandom for almost 4 years now, but haven't actually played since 2022. 'sup?
- NotYourTypicalBean
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Geometry Dash Topic
/\/\/\
This is a triple spike, or at least that's what most people call it. To most people, that's the most accurate and simultaneously most convenient way to refer to it. The word “triple” means that there is three times as much of something or that something has happened three times. For example, you getting a triple kill means that you've performed a kill three times. In the context of Geometry Dash, a triple spike means that there exist three spikes or that there are three times as many spikes. When you look at the picture, the description is logically accurate, but the problem with the nomenclature arises in its assumed constraints.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that there exist two propositions: H and T. H: the object group has three spikes. T: the object group is a triple spike. Under the most common interpretation of the given constraints, H implies T. If the object group has three spikes, then it is a triple spike. You can see from these various examples that only the group shown in the rightmost image satisfies the proposition H, and thus T. So, we know that it is, in fact, a triple spike and everything else isn’t. But since we only need to make H true so that T becomes true, then by that logic, all of these are also triple spikes.
So, how can we make sure that only these particular setups can be called triple spikes? We can add more propositions to the statement of H implies T. Let's start by adding a new proposition, O, stating that the only objects in the object group are spikes. Let's also modify the proposition H so that it becomes: the object group has only three spikes. The new statement becomes H and O implies T. This already eliminates a bunch of object groups from satisfying the statement, but we can do better, as these ones still satisfy the statement and we don't want to refer to them as triple spikes.
Let's add another proposition, A: every object in the object group is adjacent to at least one other object in the same group. We do not need to specify how far apart the objects have to be since overlapping spikes share some part of the same space and thus cannot be considered adjacent. Our statement then becomes H and O and A implies T. That eliminates a bunch more groups from satisfying the statement, but we can do better, as these ones still satisfy the statement. Instead of adding a new proposition, however, let's modify proposition A. Instead of simply stating that each object is adjacent to at least one other object in the same group, we can rewrite it to be more specific with the adjacency bit: each object is horizontally adjacent to at least one other object in the same group. But we can do better, as these ones still satisfy the statement, and it feels awkward calling them triple spikes.
Not only that, it prevents actual triple spikes from being called triple spikes. Let's add yet another proposition, R: every object in the object group is facing the same direction. It eliminates any funky-looking group from being called triple spikes, but we need to be clear on the rotation bit because these could still be deemed triple spikes. It is tempting to modify R to: every object in the object group is facing directly upwards, but that, in conjunction with proposition A, allows these groups to still be called triple spikes.
Let's focus less on the rotation of the spikes and more on the structure of the spikes themselves. We can observe that the bases of the spikes in these pictures are in contact with each other. Therefore, we can add a new proposition, B: the base of each spike is in contact with the base of another spike in the same object group. We can also revert proposition A to its original form. Now our statement becomes H and O and A and R and B implies T. This reads as: if the object group has only three spikes, and the only objects in it are spikes, and every object is adjacent to at least one other object in the same group, and they all face the same direction, and the base of each spike is in contact with the base of another spike in the same group, then the object group is a triple spike.
You’d think that with all these new constraints we've added to the statement, we'd be done. Not quite, because these still satisfy the statement as well, and I don't like calling them triple spikes due to the hitbox differences. So let's modify proposition O: every spike in the group is the same, and then add one last proposition, S: all spikes in the group are of the same scale. Our final statement becomes H and O and A and R and B and S implies T. That is, if the object group has only three spikes, and all the spikes in the group are the same, and every object is adjacent to at least one other object in the same group, and they all face the same direction, and the base of each spike is in contact with the base of another spike in the same group, and all of them are of the same scale, then the object group is a triple spike.
That’s it. See you.
This is a triple spike, or at least that's what most people call it. To most people, that's the most accurate and simultaneously most convenient way to refer to it. The word “triple” means that there is three times as much of something or that something has happened three times. For example, you getting a triple kill means that you've performed a kill three times. In the context of Geometry Dash, a triple spike means that there exist three spikes or that there are three times as many spikes. When you look at the picture, the description is logically accurate, but the problem with the nomenclature arises in its assumed constraints.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that there exist two propositions: H and T. H: the object group has three spikes. T: the object group is a triple spike. Under the most common interpretation of the given constraints, H implies T. If the object group has three spikes, then it is a triple spike. You can see from these various examples that only the group shown in the rightmost image satisfies the proposition H, and thus T. So, we know that it is, in fact, a triple spike and everything else isn’t. But since we only need to make H true so that T becomes true, then by that logic, all of these are also triple spikes.
So, how can we make sure that only these particular setups can be called triple spikes? We can add more propositions to the statement of H implies T. Let's start by adding a new proposition, O, stating that the only objects in the object group are spikes. Let's also modify the proposition H so that it becomes: the object group has only three spikes. The new statement becomes H and O implies T. This already eliminates a bunch of object groups from satisfying the statement, but we can do better, as these ones still satisfy the statement and we don't want to refer to them as triple spikes.
Let's add another proposition, A: every object in the object group is adjacent to at least one other object in the same group. We do not need to specify how far apart the objects have to be since overlapping spikes share some part of the same space and thus cannot be considered adjacent. Our statement then becomes H and O and A implies T. That eliminates a bunch more groups from satisfying the statement, but we can do better, as these ones still satisfy the statement. Instead of adding a new proposition, however, let's modify proposition A. Instead of simply stating that each object is adjacent to at least one other object in the same group, we can rewrite it to be more specific with the adjacency bit: each object is horizontally adjacent to at least one other object in the same group. But we can do better, as these ones still satisfy the statement, and it feels awkward calling them triple spikes.
Not only that, it prevents actual triple spikes from being called triple spikes. Let's add yet another proposition, R: every object in the object group is facing the same direction. It eliminates any funky-looking group from being called triple spikes, but we need to be clear on the rotation bit because these could still be deemed triple spikes. It is tempting to modify R to: every object in the object group is facing directly upwards, but that, in conjunction with proposition A, allows these groups to still be called triple spikes.
Let's focus less on the rotation of the spikes and more on the structure of the spikes themselves. We can observe that the bases of the spikes in these pictures are in contact with each other. Therefore, we can add a new proposition, B: the base of each spike is in contact with the base of another spike in the same object group. We can also revert proposition A to its original form. Now our statement becomes H and O and A and R and B implies T. This reads as: if the object group has only three spikes, and the only objects in it are spikes, and every object is adjacent to at least one other object in the same group, and they all face the same direction, and the base of each spike is in contact with the base of another spike in the same group, then the object group is a triple spike.
You’d think that with all these new constraints we've added to the statement, we'd be done. Not quite, because these still satisfy the statement as well, and I don't like calling them triple spikes due to the hitbox differences. So let's modify proposition O: every spike in the group is the same, and then add one last proposition, S: all spikes in the group are of the same scale. Our final statement becomes H and O and A and R and B and S implies T. That is, if the object group has only three spikes, and all the spikes in the group are the same, and every object is adjacent to at least one other object in the same group, and they all face the same direction, and the base of each spike is in contact with the base of another spike in the same group, and all of them are of the same scale, then the object group is a triple spike.
That’s it. See you.
- The_Real_Coderdash
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
Geometry Dash Topic
UHHHH…
bro wrote a whole 5 paragraph essay about triple spikes ☠
bro wrote a whole 5 paragraph essay about triple spikes ☠
- DifferentDance8
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Geometry Dash Topic
In the context of Geometry Dash, a triple spike means that there exist three spikes or that there are three times as many spikes.It also means you're gonna have to time it perfectly otherwise you die.
- co0lcr34t10ns
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Geometry Dash Topic
This man needs to watch Too Much Thinking by SciPred
- NotYourTypicalBean
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Geometry Dash Topic
yeah huh(#2977)isn't this just a scipred video (“the definition of a triple spike”)
/\/\/\
snip
- co0lcr34t10ns
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Geometry Dash Topic
Oh so it WAS SciPred. That's why it reminded me of Too Much Thinking.(#2977)isn't this just a scipred video (“the definition of a triple spike”)
/\/\/\
snip
- IGNITEstudios
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Geometry Dash Topic
I've been working on my level for 6 months now and it's almost done 
- Witherplayz
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
Geometry Dash Topic
CBF Detected, Loser! CBF is illegitimate and will not be allowed for use on Scratch. Please disable the mod to continue.GET OUT