1. Create Light !
2. Create Earth !
[Note: There is wide disagreement among experts about this move; some give it a !, while others give it a ??]
3. Create Sky
4. Create Oceans
5. Create Mountains
6. Create Pat Robertson (Wait, Lord...never mind, too late. Carry on.)
...
105. Create Monisha Koirala !!
106. Create the feeling in her that she has acting ability, thereby subjecting millions of people to a mild form of torture ??
...
565. Create cellphones !
567. Create cellphone ringtones that play a tinny, metallic Fur Elise ?
...
...
12,546. Create Sougata !?
3. Create Sky
4. Create Oceans
5. Create Mountains
6. Create Pat Robertson (Wait, Lord...never mind, too late. Carry on.)
...
105. Create Monisha Koirala !!
106. Create the feeling in her that she has acting ability, thereby subjecting millions of people to a mild form of torture ??
...
565. Create cellphones !
567. Create cellphone ringtones that play a tinny, metallic Fur Elise ?
...
...
12,546. Create Sougata !?
[Note: According to some analysts, this should be ?!]
...
OK, now that we have established beyond reasonable doubt that the stuttery-looking description below my name is not simply a case of keyboard epilepsy, we'll get off this ego trip and move on.
I am cycling backwards through the various comments on the previous posts and trying to respond to them, driven by the rather pitifully buoyant pair of assumptions that the commenters are (A) still around, and (B) give a f***.
Ironluca says that history has a tendency to repeat itself for those who disregard it as well as for those who do not. I find this observation to be wiser than Santayana's original assertion. Even those who are aware of history often repeat it. Foresight inertia, maybe?
Ironluca is the creatively menacing name for an old friend. Welcome, Ironluca. Who sleeps with the fishes tonight?
...
OK, now that we have established beyond reasonable doubt that the stuttery-looking description below my name is not simply a case of keyboard epilepsy, we'll get off this ego trip and move on.
I am cycling backwards through the various comments on the previous posts and trying to respond to them, driven by the rather pitifully buoyant pair of assumptions that the commenters are (A) still around, and (B) give a f***.
Ironluca says that history has a tendency to repeat itself for those who disregard it as well as for those who do not. I find this observation to be wiser than Santayana's original assertion. Even those who are aware of history often repeat it. Foresight inertia, maybe?
Ironluca is the creatively menacing name for an old friend. Welcome, Ironluca. Who sleeps with the fishes tonight?
8 comments:
http://trunks.secondfoundation.org/files/psychic.swf
Hey ,
Was wondering whether you can give me a rational explanation for what happens at the above link?
Dear Anon,
There are two explanations. It's either:
(1) a miracle.
(2) simple algebra.
I suspect it's the former, but let me talk about the latter.
Any two digit number can be represented in the form 10T + U, where T is the digit in the ten's place, and U is the digit in the unit's place. Meaning, 91 is really 10*9 + 1, because here T=9 and U=1, and * is the symbol for multiplication. Similarly, 73 is 10*7 + 3, and a single digit number like 8 is 10*0 + 8, if you think of 8 being really 08. Fair enough?
Now, what the author of the little puzzle is asking us to do, algebraically, is this:
10T + U - (T + U)
i.e. subtract the sum of digits of the number from the number.
Simplifying the above expression, we get:
9T
Note that the unit's digit no longer affects the result. The result is only a function of the ten's digit. So any number in the 90's that you apply the author's instructions to always yields 9*9, i.e. 81. Any number in the 80's yields 9*8, i.e. 72. Any number in the teens yields 9*1, i.e. 9 and any number in the single digits always yields 9*0, i.e. 0.
Note in the puzzle that the symbols for 81, 72, 63, 54, 45, 36, 27, 18, 9, and 0 are always the same.
The author's algorithm is as simple-minded as it can get. No matter what number you choose and apply his instructions to, the program always shows you the symbol for zero.
Try this: Don't do the stupid subtraction. Choose any symbol other than 81, 72, 63, 54 ... 0. Say, choose 82. And now see if the program is still bloody psychic and will tell you what you are thinking.
Sougata.
Rob,
AC/DC. I like.
Being a musician, among other things, do you have any opinions on Van Halen?
Sougata
Ok Sougata...Iget that; but whats the possibility of the exat same symbol appearing; I know for sure the computer is not a psychic!!!
The possibility, or rather, the probability, is exactly 100%.
Note that when the program changes the symbols in the grid in response to the request for a new game, it always assigns the same symbols to the numbers 81, 72, 63, 54, 45, 36, 27, 18, 9, and 0. These numbers represent the exhaustive set of results that you will get by picking any number from the grid and subtracting the sum of its digits from it.
So no matter which number in the grid you choose and subtract the sum of its digits from it, you will always get one of these abovementioned results. The computer only needs to make sure that it assigns the same symbol to the each of the members of the set of results. It then, rather simple-mindedly, displays the symbol for zero every time. There is an illusion of free will in the grid. In reality, there is none. The choice has already been made for you.
Anon,
To convince yourself, just try this: pick several numbers in the 90's and subtract the sum of their digits from themselves. You will always get the same result, namely 81.
91 - (9 + 1) = 81
92 - (9 + 2) = 81
93 - (9 + 3) = 81
...
99 - (9 + 9) = 81
Try the same with numbers from the 60's. You'll always get 54.
61 - (6 + 1) = 54
62 - (6 + 2) = 54
...
69 - (6 + 9) = 54
A similar reasoning applies to each and every number in the grid. Are you beginning to see the pattern?
It's quite simple, really. You can choose from a set of 100 numbers that is the grid, but the result of applying the author's instruction to your chosen number will always be mapped to a set of 10 distinct results. It cannot be otherwise. Now the computer conveniently assigns the same symbol to each of these distinct results and shows you this symbol every time.
Sorry to get so long-winded on you. I just wanted to be clear. I hope I haven't sacrificed clarity for verbosity in the process.
Best,
Sougata.
If I am not mistaken, this is along similar lines of that old chestnut where you end up thinking of elephants in Denmark. Nicely done, though.
This trick is even more rigorous and airtight than the elephant thing. In the elephant trick, there is a small chance that someone will think "Dominican Republic" instead of Denmark and the trick will fail. No such chance here.
Post a Comment