[Guest]

.

[Guest]

Without giving away too much:

7) 60

9) 1

Edited December 1, 2009 by ljb

[plainglazed]

...to be 48. But either way I think 9. would be 2.

[plainglazed]

...to be 48. But either way I think 9. would be 2.

okay, should have read a little more closely especially after coming up with different than ljb. agree, for 9. one.

[Guest]

...to be 48. But either way I think 9. would be 2.

but based on the last bar shown in the graph, it would be very difficult to argue 48

[Guest]

but based on the last bar shown in the graph, it would be very difficult to argue 48

That is why I included 20 bars -- good job both a yous.

[plainglazed]

but based on the last bar shown in the graph, it would be very difficult to argue 48

But of course, right again. Hasty on my part once again. Fun stuff Xamdam. @ ljb - Havent given up on your twisted twist of Xamdam's decimal code either, just not making progress despite much trying.

[Guest]

But of course, right again. Hasty on my part once again. Fun stuff Xamdam. @ ljb - Havent given up on your twisted twist of Xamdam's decimal code either, just not making progress despite much trying.

Glad you had fun. I haven't given up on the twist either.