voider
-
Posts
50 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Everything posted by voider
-
Whichever model is a better independent measure, impulse (force is roughly constant and effective throughout crunch) or energy (all energy is transferred into squashing distance and no energy lost to earth), I think all of you are calculating volume wrong. If log 1 is the base of the tree, I got 13th log and 23rd log respectively. Personally I find the latter assumption too much.
-
If you look closely all answers (including 4 which looks almost the same) have a strike through them regardless. What do you claim your correct answer for question 1 is?
-
Obviously stopping at the first discrepancy is just a hopeful snapshot of a representative discrepancy in the algorithm. This, the assumption of the offset being decremented by default, and ignoring the rest of the actual offset vector could mean that there are no clues in this data (the cost of assuming that first vowels' effects are mostly independent of other vowels' effects and positions.)
-
All answers to question 1 are wrong.
-
-
-
People who have done high school physics will know that collisions are associated with a finite period of time. It is not inappropriate (for general purposes) to model the fly's acceleration as constant during contact. The fly may end up sticking on the train, or bouncing off it. There are other complications with making use of the provided speeds. Either way, the "moment" in question is not an instant, so if you took "moment" as "period of time" then the most informative answer might be: v(t) = (vf - vi)/(Δt) * t + vi, 0 <= t <= Δt We know vi = 10 kph.
-
The five words corresponding to THOUGHT: 81:87 SHORTY 110:114 NEAR 250:253 SORE 211:215 REAR 228:232 HUNT Is there slang in this? If I had nothing else to go on, I would start looking for "near the", "is sore", "hunt the", "a thought", "thought of" "i thought", etc.
-
Each character can be decoded into one of 26. Even using a dictionary, the biggest problem is not speed (though it is a major issue anyway), but how to recognise words. The most commonly used dictionary has 250000 words, which is too many. If a search algorithm accepts words of any length, then the search would start off creating many trivial words like BA or CA, words that are virtually never used; there is no easy way to distinguish MEANINGFUL words. This might be faintly plausible if I could find a dictionary of common words only.
-
No, assuming the future isn't changed by time travel, you can't only have 2 instances of yourself going to the bank. If you only went twice, then you only had £100 + £3, yielding £106.03, which is clearly not infinite. If you claim to get infinite interest, then you must have entered the bank on infinite occasions. Your argument for 2 instances of you fails because then you can't explain why your interest would be infinite.
-
Your objection to "above the speed of light" is debatable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster_than_light). Besides, there are times in modern developments when we consider "was Einstein wrong", unless you suggest physicists have learned nothing since him.
-
Interesting, but I am sceptical about whether word hints will help solve subsequent parts of the message unless there are a lot of words given. I'm going for bruteforce.
-
Due to the natural law of conservation of time, you will end up forming an infinite queue at the bank consisting of you and yourself, thus taking forever to generate the infiniteth dollar.
-
chromium breathalyzer juice box pipette By object, do you mean physical? What's a WAI?
-
Yeah I meant even cases where number of troublemakers is equal or less than the number of honest persons. It is not solvable with 2 people, and 4 may be impossible too (perhaps an informal proof may arise, or simply a brute-force program demonstrates this one and we give up on the rest). If it is solvable, I wonder if there is a general pattern with even cases, particularly one with polynomial cost.
-
My bad, I only read the start and end of plainglazed's post, but k-man's proof that you can add the unpaired one puts away any doubts. Just wondering, can even cases be solved with limited questions?
-
You all seem too happy to ditch the puzzle before solving it; Plainglazed notes (99 - 1) / 2 = 49, which is odd (PUN!)! No one has demonstrated a complete solution yet: a complete solution needs induction or a general algorithm, along with stating the money spent in the worst case scenario. While collectively, 3M, 5M and 7M cases have been solved fully, independent arguments were used to solve the worst case; there has been no induction. "3M, 5M, 7M have a pattern" is an illegitimate observation since the related series is actually 1M, 3M, 7M, 15M, ... [5M is not a base case of 7M's worst case; nor is 9M related to 7M SINCE (9 - 1) IS A MULTIPLE OF 4! Number of people: 1 3 7 15 31 63 Cost to shift/reduce: 0 1 3 7 15 31 Total cost to solve: 0 1 4 11 26 57] New interest: 2M (1 Honest 1 Troubler)?, 4M (2H 2T)?, hence 9M? These even-numbered groups seem less favourable. It should be clear by now that with our popular algorithm the worst case is when, in an odd-sized group arranged for pairing off, every person in a pair that you question happens to be a Troubler and says Yes their 'partner' is honest. This minimises your information gain.
-
This is a nice challenging puzzle.
-
I haven't thought about the worst case scenario yet, but in general I think the amount of money left is arbitrary.
-
All of your conclusions are wrong or off-track, except the bolded thought.
-
I think the story given by the OP (haven't read the book) is a bit vague; not all logicians can come to a conclusion based on that only (but some can). For example, how come C dies of thirst but A and B don't? What were the chances of them all finding water? My opinion anyway: Loosely speaking, C was already slowly dying of thirst, and drinkable water would save him. Neither A nor B directly/intentionally caused C's condition of thirst (at least not that we know of), which will kill him. Supposing more water was impossible to find, A's actions guaranteed that C would die. We cannot know whether A intended C to drink the poison or knew that even without drinking the poison, C would die. We could also imagine that B saved C from the poisoned water, but guaranteed he die of thirst instead. My guess at an answer: Although A's actions guaranteed that C would die (this does not equate to "C is a dead murdered man"), C did not die as a result of A's actions but from B's. Furthermore, C died the way B intended. Conclusion: B intended for C to die of thirst (and he is not directly responsible for the thirst) by getting rid of water, the only thing that could save C. I don't know much about law, but I would consider this to be murder committed by B, since they intelligently planned and ensured for C to die of thirst.
-
lol got me good. I somehow doubt it would be convincing standing in front of it though.
-
-
4) When she is standing in front of her dead grandmother, I don't think she would be so willing to accept the "she never killed her grandmother" theory. In modern science fiction time travel terms, "traveling back in time" is transferring matter (~teleportation/creation/destruction...) to a different time in an equivalent parallel universe (it was identical and equivalent until the time travel occurred; that then changes the whole future after the destination time.) Universe #1 is the "original" universe. Universe #2 is a parallel universe. -Girl travels back in time. She is now in universe #2. She cannot get back to #1 even if she tried to return immediately (she would find the "back to the future" is different to her original "present"). -Girl kills grandmother. There is nothing questionable about it other than in the physics of time travel; her existence is not paradoxical as she simply appeared from nothing in #2. I opened the spoilers in your signature by Tab + Enter, but naturally I did not stop in time and gave you a reputation mark - actually I don't know whether it was +1 or -1 due to a bug.
-
The two lines are parallel. If he walks along the second line, it is implied that the first line would still be visible without having to walk between them. Just for fun: 1) A straight line is an arc of a circle with infinite radius. 2) Starting at any point on the circumference of a circle, you can take either direction along it and eventually reach your starting point. 3) Therefore, if the man travels to the left (away from the second line) for an infinite period of time, he may eventually see the second line and even return to the starting point.