p3t3r: I tested that to a great extent, using several elaborate arrangements of digits.
I even used Avagadro's Number!! Avagadro, whose name I care not to even spell right, could not aim, apparently.
But seriously in the case this randomly chosen set of numbers didn't work. Aiming was horrid and discouraging. I didn't use it long enough to form a picture or a way of explaining, it was just messed up.
Jesco: I am aware that you cannot answer to me why this works. Neither can I. It is a mystery to us both.
There are different ways to show the Golden Ratio for the purpose of examination or manipulation: As a picture, as a number, in algebra with the formula I gave a link to in the beginning, which of course contains all this about the Golden Ratio, and etc. Here's a question: Suppose I need to jump to another level of math? And what if the essential level of mathematics required is in terms that I am just not familiar with? I can't even try to explain it accurately, but only form images using subjective language.
In order to understand that what I'm proposing works to improve your aim, we might need to understand calculus more in-depth. I'm not saying that we necessarily do. I do not understand calculus at this time.
People will use this method, and instantly, or at least over a period of about an hour of play, will be sure that it is an incredibly effective way to set the aim. I expect that with a well-developed dexterity a person using this would find the game almost too easy. They would be subject to verbal stoning on coming here to say it works. They are likely enjoying themselves though. But to me that notion is mildly unfair, which is why I hoped to encourage more people to do it, or to at least spend time adjusting your sensitivity until you aim the way you can using my method . . . because you won't consistently beat certain people who use it.
Can I beat you every with my method? I can't be sure. If I use this method, and you, you being anyone is the world, uses just something like 6, I will be superior in aim. You would essentially be handicapped in the gaming world.
Try using a whole number close to your present sensitivity with no decimal numbers after, if it is that your present sensitivity has say perhaps 2 or more digits after the decimal, just something close. Say for example you use 5, 6, 10, 1, 2, 50, whatever.See if you can adjust! On the whole number, getting the crosshair to the target becomes unreliable. No one can aim properly with a whole number, and it is time for such people to find another pastime, because they aren't even trying to be good at the thing they are doing, nor will they ever be capable if they are too lazy to experiment with different sensitivity.
Consider how easy it is to just move the slider, and already a decimal appears on it due to the way the slider moves. That's convenient. But should you force a whole number point "uh-oh"!, you can't aim anymore. I, and certainly everyone using .04 will have superior aim to you.
Surely there is an explanation that can be given using mathematics at some level, because it is this sequence of numbers that will always work, whereas if you pick another random bunch out of your head, there is only a chance that it will work. By watching the crosshair I have then characterized a pattern which can be described in a way that matches the nature of the number I chose: With a whole number and nothing after the decimal it gave a flat feel, With pi it was a round feel, with random digits it was a strange and sometimes uncomfortable feel, with Mr. A's number it was for whatever reason not good, and with Phi it was an absolutely natural feel.
Any reader of this thread is free to try, and they will see this same exact behavioral pattern of the crosshair.
Could it be that you just don't want to try something that you don't understand for the purposes of perhaps expanding your understanding? Are you a little bit apprehensive about understanding more, which also forces you to admit that you don't know as much as you believed you did?
I am in no way convinced that my result is an illusion.