The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
My first is in biscuit but never in cake
My second's in awesome but not in great
My third is in mother but not seen in dad
My fourth is in sunny but never in sad
My fifth is a vowel found in water not creek
My sixth is found only in one day of the week
My seventh's two of three that you learn when you're young
My eighth's not in song but it's there when it's sung
My ninth's in eleven and twelve, not thirteen
My tenth is in island and river, not stream
My eleventh's in precious and secret and paste
My twelfth is in phantom and spectre and haste
My whole stalks the night in a quiet dreamlike state
With no memories the next day of being out late
My second's in awesome but not in great
My third is in mother but not seen in dad
My fourth is in sunny but never in sad
My fifth is a vowel found in water not creek
My sixth is found only in one day of the week
My seventh's two of three that you learn when you're young
My eighth's not in song but it's there when it's sung
My ninth's in eleven and twelve, not thirteen
My tenth is in island and river, not stream
My eleventh's in precious and secret and paste
My twelfth is in phantom and spectre and haste
My whole stalks the night in a quiet dreamlike state
With no memories the next day of being out late
Page:
> How quickly using only these two hourglasses can the mentalist boil
> Top Score for the given 9 minutes?
Sentance makes no sense to me :(
> Top Score for the given 9 minutes?
Sentance makes no sense to me :(
where did IB come into it?
Forget it, pal! Here's one:
Someone on the forums finally snaps and loses his rag with Top Score. He kidnaps him and decides to boil him and munch on his tender flesh but he doesn't want to overcook Top Score. He phones up that fat-tongued mockney idiot Jamie Oliver who tells him to boil IB for 9 minutes, to ensure optimum tenderising of his flesh.
However, all he has are two hourglasses:
1) The first can precisely measure sand in seven minutes
2) The second can precisely measure sand in four minutes.
How quickly using only these two hourglasses can the mentalist boil Top Score for the given 9 minutes?
Someone on the forums finally snaps and loses his rag with Top Score. He kidnaps him and decides to boil him and munch on his tender flesh but he doesn't want to overcook Top Score. He phones up that fat-tongued mockney idiot Jamie Oliver who tells him to boil IB for 9 minutes, to ensure optimum tenderising of his flesh.
However, all he has are two hourglasses:
1) The first can precisely measure sand in seven minutes
2) The second can precisely measure sand in four minutes.
How quickly using only these two hourglasses can the mentalist boil Top Score for the given 9 minutes?
> No, it doesn't. Once you picked the chance you have won and x box is
> 1/3 and the chance you have won poo is 2/3.
> When the host opens a box with a plate of poo on it the chance that
> the box you have chosen has an x box in it is still 1/3 but the chance
> that the other box is a winner is now 2/3. You should chance every
> time.
When the host opens the other box you have in effect removed that box from play and the chance of my box containing the x-box, drops from 1/3 to 1/2.
> 1/3 and the chance you have won poo is 2/3.
> When the host opens a box with a plate of poo on it the chance that
> the box you have chosen has an x box in it is still 1/3 but the chance
> that the other box is a winner is now 2/3. You should chance every
> time.
When the host opens the other box you have in effect removed that box from play and the chance of my box containing the x-box, drops from 1/3 to 1/2.
Gangsta Hamsta wrote:
> Yeah but we know if there are 2 lions the sheep survives.
>
> Therefore, in the 3 lions one, the sheep gets eaten, we are left with
> 2 lions and one sheep.
>
> Therefore it would survive
>
> Answer your question?
Ah, but applying that to 100 or 101 lions relies on backwards recursion form the final state - which as you'll see from my prisoner problem, does not work.
Before any sheep have been eaten, you can't make assumptions based on what will be the case *if* there are only X lions left.
> Yeah but we know if there are 2 lions the sheep survives.
>
> Therefore, in the 3 lions one, the sheep gets eaten, we are left with
> 2 lions and one sheep.
>
> Therefore it would survive
>
> Answer your question?
Ah, but applying that to 100 or 101 lions relies on backwards recursion form the final state - which as you'll see from my prisoner problem, does not work.
Before any sheep have been eaten, you can't make assumptions based on what will be the case *if* there are only X lions left.
Slaveunit wrote:
> Yeah, SS, i read it wrong, but now the odds are 50% there is no
> evidence for her to stay or change.
no, it's 1/3 to win if she stays
2/3 to win if she swaps boxes
> Yeah, SS, i read it wrong, but now the odds are 50% there is no
> evidence for her to stay or change.
no, it's 1/3 to win if she stays
2/3 to win if she swaps boxes
Slaveunit wrote:
> I've got a real good one for you ros, but I'll wait until all the
> others are cleared up first, having more than one on the go is getting
> messy...
That sounds really dodgy.
> I've got a real good one for you ros, but I'll wait until all the
> others are cleared up first, having more than one on the go is getting
> messy...
That sounds really dodgy.
I've got a real good one for you ros, but I'll wait until all the others are cleared up first, having more than one on the go is getting messy...
Rosalind wrote:
> Simon Says wrote:
> Unbeliever wrote:
>
> Ros should change as this gives her twice the probability of winning
> the car.
>
> If she sticks with one box, there is a 1/3 chance of winning. The
> other option to change is 2/3 chance of winning.
>
> I think the key is that the host reveals only poo by opening a box.
> There will always be a box with poo. He always opens a box with poo.
>
> Absolutely correct.
>
> once the box has been opened that reduces the chances of me winning
> down to 50% never mind what the cahnces were when I picked the box in
> the first place, so I'm not sure this makes sense
No, it doesn't. Once you picked the chance you have won and x box is 1/3 and the chance you have won poo is 2/3.
When the host opens a box with a plate of poo on it the chance that the box you have chosen has an x box in it is still 1/3 but the chance that the other box is a winner is now 2/3. You should chance every time.
> Simon Says wrote:
> Unbeliever wrote:
>
> Ros should change as this gives her twice the probability of winning
> the car.
>
> If she sticks with one box, there is a 1/3 chance of winning. The
> other option to change is 2/3 chance of winning.
>
> I think the key is that the host reveals only poo by opening a box.
> There will always be a box with poo. He always opens a box with poo.
>
> Absolutely correct.
>
> once the box has been opened that reduces the chances of me winning
> down to 50% never mind what the cahnces were when I picked the box in
> the first place, so I'm not sure this makes sense
No, it doesn't. Once you picked the chance you have won and x box is 1/3 and the chance you have won poo is 2/3.
When the host opens a box with a plate of poo on it the chance that the box you have chosen has an x box in it is still 1/3 but the chance that the other box is a winner is now 2/3. You should chance every time.
this like, totally confues me
Page: