araver

I was following a hunch and hoped to verify it by the time I get MONTANA. Did not work as planned though, it just blew in my face EDIT: Still worth a try, though. Here's what I would have tried: EESTXDFR

I'd like NORTHDAKOTA, MONTANA, TENNESSEE.

I understand that you're expending a more logical/intuitive solution. However I felt inclined to solve it as an (amateur) engineer would. I agree, I made a lot of errors yet managed to narrow it down to 6 possibilities. which yields n = 106.4696152. Since n is clearly an integer, we conclude that ending position does not get over the starting position in the n-th circle. So there are 106 full circles and an incomplete outer circle, n = 107. From Eq4 we get x=0.081805973 cm. From Eq1 we get r=3.164954869 cm. From Eq2 we get m=80.37710919 cm, which means 80 full circles around the origin point and then an incomplete circle. The same length formula (as in Eq5) for m consecutive circles gives: Not sure how to narrow it further, but I will think further on this.

reality - XO zoology - X regally - OO dullish - O erasers - XO planned - XXXX cranked - XXXO

Thank you for the puzzle. I liked the cycle-3 alternator very much. Made it different from any other problem I've seen so far. I pondered for a little while if you can narrow down the alternator too at the same time. Probably not, but still pondering.

thanks. It's 20.4. Can't believe I missed changing that after wolfgang's response that there is a space there. But it's not enough - it doesn't save the whole thing.

Consistent means lack of contradiction. Which is exactly why I used the word. From a logical point of view I'm saying it's independent - you get a consistent theory with and without it. Bother? Well assuming non-determinism in different sciences can actually lead to improvements in every-day life. You think computers came from people trying determinism? They were more likely trying to experiment a way to *do* non-determinism themselves (Turing and such). Hmm ... that's a tough question. In an infinite universe/infinite time, probably yes. Finitely, probably no. Au contraire, mon ami. Logic points in all ways - it does not praise determinism alone. I'm also agnostic on most matters (mostly infinite ones) because of logic. Logic just says there are things we may never know. Godel said it first.

I was not directly stating that non-determinism is true. Just sayin' it would be a shame if it weren't. And I'd personally be sad about it. Plus a couple of crazy generation of physicists believing in the uncertainty principle (well, some dead now). And a couple of crazy generations of CSs believing P is not equal to NP. A thing may exist and not be controllable. These are different things. And who says the arms should behave differently? (Is medicine a completely mapped-out science and I haven't heard about it? Strange, I'd rather think the end of Physics is nearer than the end of Medicine). And what is wrong with the theory that the brain is actually that specialized part of your body that navigates non-determinism making it look like determinism? Keeping time and all

Addendum: my CS background is in theoretical computer science mostly. Which might better explain my views on the matter. About my belief in nondeterminism: Existing, yes. Touchable/reachable, doubtly. About a nondeterministic computer being "written": Well, bound by the few laws of the universe we're able to manipulate right now, no. But we're so lame at programming as a species as opposed to theoretical limits, I would not take that as an everlasting argument. Plus I wouldn't count on "writing" a NonD computer first as much as I'd count on (re)discovering a NonD computing model in the universe. Agreed. I'm not saying deterministic equations aren't not enough for my finite lifespan. They are. But it's not a matter of complexity. I don't believe (again, faith is more involved than logical thinking) that it's enough for the universe. Again existing / touchable. Not the same. Existing - How about a global theory that is nondeterministic and looks deterministic when observed locally? Does it really sound that far-fetched? Touching - Who says we're able / should be able to detect non-determinism? I agree on one thing though. You can indeed live without nondeterminism and probably be content. About random vs. non-determinism. Not exactly the same thing IMHO. Probability is not non-determinism. Here's a thought - non-determinism usually hides where you're not looking. And it's impossible to catch without looking. Consistent enough?

No clue so far... Can we get the little ones? UTAH, IOWA, OHIO? (If there's no one around that is). EDIT: If anyone has other choices, please do

Adding it to the list 21 *|* 7 = 11 17924 *|* 10751 = 851 1089 *|* 121 = 2069 10 *|* 23 = 6 1 *|* 0 = 2 999 *|* 909 = 1359 14 *|* 14 = 14 2 *|* 1 = 0 1 *|* 1 = 1 a *|* b = b *|* a a *|* a = a 3 *|* 0 = 6

Since we're resurrecting this debate, I thought I'd toss my opinion too. As a computer science researcher, I was always amazed by how nedeterminism provides so much more than determinism in almost all areas (except for finite automata). Accepting that determinism shapes us (and the universe around us) would mean that we (as a universe) miss out on the great opportunities, limiting ourselves. Hence, my conviction that nedeterminism (which sometimes manifests as free will) is indeed out there. You could always choose determinism and remain consistent as a whole, but it would be so much fun for the universe to be (entirely) nedeterministic

It is generally accepted, although strictly not true. - As I said, Beth numbers are defined like so: powerset of Beth_n is Beth_n+1; Beth_0 is countable infinity (natural numbers). - Aleph's are defined as "consecutive" cardinal numbers (i.e. there's no cardinal number in between) with Aleph_0=Beth_0 (natural numbers). If one believes there's nothing between Beth_0 (natural numbers) and Beth_1 (real numbers) then Beth_1 is the next in the sequence so Beth_1=Aleph_1. But it's not necessarily true. It's called the Continuum Hypothesis and it cannot be proved or disproved by the current accepted set theory (which resembles the set theory we teach since kindergarden). So, strictly from this point of view, one should use Beth numbers when reasoning with powersets and cardinal numbers. EDIT: So, my previous post, was again, biased towards accepting the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis (Aleph_n=Beth_n), like bonanova's OP.

Well, powerset of an Aleph_2 :-) E.g. sets of functions of real numbers.

reality - XO zoology - X regally - OO dullish - O erasers - XO planned - XXXX

I'm forced to stop as I feel it's way beyond my powers to prove a 40-year old open problem. I lack both the mathematical skills and the stubbornness required for that. Your question is both nice and devilish, phillip!

Reason I asked if it is symmetrical is because I can find no solution with that symmetry in mind. which yields n = 106.6923591. Since n is clearly an integer, we conclude that ending position does not get over the starting position in the n-th circle. So there are 106 full circles and an incomplete outer circle, n = 107. From Eq4 we get x=0.082103459 cm. From Eq1 we get r=3.132826395 cm. From Eq2 we get m=79,31411444 cm, which means 79 full circles around the origin point and then an incomplete circle. The same length formula (as in Eq5) for m consecutive circles gives:

Just to clarify: 1) A full roll has 12 cm radius, 500 stickers, 2 stickers surrounding the carton cylinder in the center. Do the stickers in the center actually touch on the other side or there is a 2mm space between them on both sides? (making it rather symmetrical) 2) The unknown partially used roll that has 6 stickers on the outside: sticker 1 and sticker 6 actually touch or there is a 2mm space between them? (again, making it symmetrical).

Adding another hint to the list: 21 *|* 7 = 11 17924 *|* 10751 = 851 1089 *|* 121 = 2069 10 *|* 23 = 6 1 *|* 0 = 2 999 *|* 909 = 1359 14 *|* 14 = 14 2 *|* 1 = 0 1 *|* 1 = 1 a *|* b = b *|* a a *|* a = a

Welcome to BD! The first way is how maurice said - Find the blue button. The second way is to write before your text: [spoiler] and then end the spoiler area with: [/spoiler] And it's always a good idea to check you post first using the Preview Post button (just right of the "Add Reply" button) otherwise you'll have at most 10 minutes to edit your post (after which it will remain for eternity). Hope you'll enjoy BD! Ah, my good friend, but this is perfect see ... we can perform a good-cop/bad-cop routine this way

reality - XO zoology - X regally - OO dullish - O erasers - XO

16x16 Music ... Tone Matrix And a great way to encode it E.g. paste 198340,82176,2048,33348,65536,17408,2,98560,65668,86024,65568,516,2050,16672,98304,82440