Question and Answer thread
#1
Posted 2011-March-01, 10:46
George Carlin
#2
Posted 2011-March-01, 10:49
Usually you would draw the lines at random and avoid to concede any little squares, but then after a while you'd be forced into conceding and then your opponent would win almost 100-0.
George Carlin
#3
Posted 2011-March-01, 11:01
See:
The Dots and Boxes Game
Sophisticated Child's Play
A K Peters (Publisher)
2000
#4
Posted 2011-March-01, 11:45
George Carlin
#5
Posted 2011-March-01, 19:57
#6
Posted 2011-March-01, 21:12
#7
Posted 2011-March-02, 00:39
#9
Posted 2011-March-02, 03:41
WellSpyder, on 2011-March-02, 03:30, said:
In Dutch it is called "kamertje verhuren" (="letting rooms"), obviously because you are partitioning of the plane in small rooms.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!), but Thats funny Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#10
Posted 2011-March-02, 09:46
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#11
Posted 2011-March-02, 18:15
If you are 12-years-old and watching ESPN Classics with your dad, this is a question. If you are a contestant on Jeapordy, it is an answer.
So much for the Law of Non-Contradiction.
#12
Posted 2011-March-02, 23:27
Winstonm, on 2011-March-02, 18:15, said:
If you are 12-years-old and watching ESPN Classics with your dad, this is a question. If you are a contestant on Jeapordy, it is an answer.
So much for the Law of Non-Contradiction.
Is this the same Buckner who was playing 1B for the Boston Red Sox
with two out in the bottom of the 9th of the 6th game of the 1986
World Series?
If so he let a ground ball get past him on what would have been the
final out of series, since the Red Sox had a 3-2 lead in games.
The error allowed the NY Mets to first tie the game and then win it.
The Mets followed up by winning the final game the next day, and the
Curse of Babe Ruth remained in effect for another 18 years.
Red Sox manager John McNamara was criticized for leaving Buckner,
a poor fielder, in the game when a better fielder was available
to substitute.
#13
Posted 2011-March-02, 23:42
USViking, on 2011-March-02, 23:27, said:
with two out in the bottom of the 9th of the 6th game of the 1986
World Series?
If so he let a ground ball get past him on what would have been the
final out of series, since the Red Sox had a 3-2 lead in games.
The error allowed the NY Mets to first tie the game and then win it.
The Mets followed up by winning the final game the next day, and the
Curse of Babe Ruth remained in effect for another 18 years.
Red Sox manager John McNamara was criticized for leaving Buckner,
a poor fielder, in the game when a better fielder was available
to substitute.
Son of a gun I garbled the story.
I got Bill Buckner right and also the teams, the year and the Series game number,
but I got the inning wrong (it was the 10th) and the score wrong (it was tied) and
the result of the error wrong (it let in the winning run).
Here is another famous World Series name from a generation before Bill Buckner,
also involving the Red Sox:
Who is Enos Slaughter, and describe the play which made him famous.
#14
Posted 2011-March-03, 14:15
#15
Posted 2011-March-03, 23:12
mycroft, on 2011-March-03, 14:15, said:
I thought you were pulling my leg until I googled the quote, and it checks out.
I did not realize that the routine "Who's on First?" was an Abbott and Costello production.
Getting back to the question I posed, the St. Louis Cardinals' Enos Slaughter was on first
base with two out and the score tied in the bottom of the 8th inning in Game 7 of the 1946
World Series vs the Boston Red Sox.
He took off with the pitch on a hit and run play. The batter made a hit to the outfield.
The outfielder who handled the ball bobbled it slightly and then made a weak throw to the
shortstop, who had to go to the shallow outfield to take the throw. Most runners in Slaughter's
postion whould have been content to stop at 3rd, especially with the 3rd base coach singalling
them to stop. Instead, Slaughter ignored the coach, rounded the base, and headed for home.
The shortstop, astounded by Slaughter's action, made a poor, short throw to the catcher,
and Slaughter scored what proved to be the winning run of the game and Series.
#16
Posted 2011-March-04, 18:49
George Carlin
#17
Posted 2011-March-04, 21:19
gwnn, on 2011-March-04, 18:49, said:
http://www2.research...as/doc/g4g8.pdf
and scroll down near bottom of page 2 for power train.
Here is a typical map:
3452->3^4 X 5^2=81 X25=2025
and
2025->2^0 X2^5=32
But then
2592->2^5 X 9^2=32 X 81=2592, a fixed point under that mapping.
Generally abcd...->a^b X c^d X..., and if there are an odd number of digits you just use it without an y exponent.
Of course a,b,c,... are base ten digits and so we could do the analogous thing in any other base.
#18
Posted 2011-March-04, 21:30
kenberg, on 2011-March-04, 21:19, said:
and scroll down near bottom of page 2 for power train.
Here is a typical map:
3452->3^4 X 5^2=81 X25=2025
and
2025->2^0 X2^5=32
But then
2592->2^5 X 9^2=32 X 81=2592, a fixed point under that mapping.
Generally abcd...->a^b X c^d X..., and if there are an odd number of digits you just use it without an y exponent.
Of course a,b,c,... are base ten digits and so we could do the analogous thing in any other base.
what was paris hilton wearing when she was made to clean up graffotti?
#19
Posted 2011-March-05, 03:58
kenberg, on 2011-March-04, 21:19, said:
and scroll down near bottom of page 2 for power train.
Here is a typical map:
3452->3^4 X 5^2=81 X25=2025
and
2025->2^0 X2^5=32
But then
2592->2^5 X 9^2=32 X 81=2592, a fixed point under that mapping.
Generally abcd...->a^b X c^d X..., and if there are an odd number of digits you just use it without an y exponent.
Of course a,b,c,... are base ten digits and so we could do the analogous thing in any other base.
I don't see the word "indestructible" anywhere.
George Carlin
#20
Posted 2011-March-05, 06:12
gwnn, on 2011-March-05, 03:58, said:
Good point. Numbers are indestructible if they don't get destroyed by the mapping.
24547284284866560000000000 ->
2^4 X 5^4 X 7^2 X 8^4 X 2^8 X 4^8 X 6^6 X 5^6=
24547284284866560000000000
so 24547284284866560000000000 is indestructible. (0^0=1 by definition).
As Wyman notes at http://www.bridgebas...esting-numbers/
there is no a priori reason why numbers cannot cycle w->x->y->z->w and maybe some do. Maybe they should be called resurrectable.
It's a feature of the definition that single digit numbers are indestructible but that's sort of like 1 being, or not being, prime. The two known non-trivial ones are 2592 and 24547284284866560000000000
Caveat: I never heard of indestructible numbers before the post about the Bello book. So I am parroting what I have found out.
Note: If anyone says "Who cares?", the answer is probably no one cares all that much. Mathematics as a whole is important, and sometimes a seemingly uninteresting result can be surprisingly useful, but I think that in this case we do not have to worry if another country is ahead of us in the theory of indestructible numbers.