Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Science Thread (now with 100% less religion)

05-23-2021 , 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte
Spoiler:
Well Done. And until you realize the hint there isn't any way I can think of to get the answer other than stumbling upon it. As Prof. Gowers alluded to.
Here's where my stumbling led:

sum(1:8)=36; put 3 in any box in the top or bottom rows and 6 in the diagonal and remove 3,6 from the set.
resum=27; put 2, 7 in middle row end-caps so they don't conflict with 3,6. Remove 7,2...
resum=18; put 1,8 in the middle row....
put 4,5 in the remaining spots so they don't conflict.

Any idea what I'm seeing with this? Seems to work but I have no idea why.
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-23-2021 , 11:36 AM
I think you have it, you seem to be on the right track. The hint I was saying was crucial to figure out was

Spoiler:
Since 1 and 8 only are consecutive to only 1 other number each, those need to go in the center squares that neighbor the most other squares. After that you can just fill in the rest manually, starting with the fact that 2 and 7 have only 1 allowed location each.
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-23-2021 , 02:20 PM
That's how I initially solved it. But...

Spoiler:
... that left only 2 forced solutions. However, when I arbitrarily rendered "36" as "3,6" and started from there instead everything fell into place. That seems weird.
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-23-2021 , 05:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by John21
That's how I initially solved it. But...

Spoiler:
... that left only 2 forced solutions. However, when I arbitrarily rendered "36" as "3,6" and started from there instead everything fell into place. That seems weird.
Spoiler:
I think that's a coincidence (maybe not the best choice of word because it's not completely unrelated) that comes about because the sum is a multiple of nine, multiples of 9 always have digits that sum to 9, and the numbers 1-8 can be split into 4 pairs that each sum to 9.

This ends up being relevant because the overall solution can be thought of as two separate ones that are mirrors of each other, where each solution uses one number from each of those pairs (i.e. one solution is the 4 high numbers and the other is the 4 low numbers). As a result once you've made the realisation about 1/8 placing the rest of the numbers in pairs - 2/7, 3/6, 4/5 - is an easy way to place the rest.


As a bit of an aside, I do a lot of variant sudoku puzzles with all sorts of different rule sets, which meant finding the logical way of solving this puzzle was very intuitive for me
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-23-2021 , 11:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willd
Spoiler:
I think that's a coincidence (maybe not the best choice of word because it's not completely unrelated) that comes about because the sum is a multiple of nine, multiples of 9 always have digits that sum to 9, and the numbers 1-8 can be split into 4 pairs that each sum to 9.

This ends up being relevant because the overall solution can be thought of as two separate ones that are mirrors of each other, where each solution uses one number from each of those pairs (i.e. one solution is the 4 high numbers and the other is the 4 low numbers). As a result once you've made the realisation about 1/8 placing the rest of the numbers in pairs - 2/7, 3/6, 4/5 - is an easy way to place the rest.


As a bit of an aside, I do a lot of variant sudoku puzzles with all sorts of different rule sets, which meant finding the logical way of solving this puzzle was very intuitive for me
I tried that. The problem is it's too easy.

Spoiler:
For example, after the middle row is complete 4/5 can go in any remaining box without conflict but 2 of those will conflict and need to be removed when we place 3/6. Or starting with 3/6 we still have 2 choices. I'm not saying that approach doesn't work; just that aside from placing 2/7 after 1/8 the next moves aren't forced.
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-24-2021 , 04:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte
Show the fraction

(21x +4)
(14X + 3)

cannot be reduced to a simpler fraction for all integer values of x
I don't think Michael Penn's channel has been linked ITT yet:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6j...4eSkzT5Gx0HOAw

He is very fond of similar problems to the one above. Number theory is his "thing".
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-24-2021 , 01:46 PM
Nice channel!

The problem I posted was actually the first ever IMO question. It's almost laughably easy by modern standards. But I guess it's like sports; major leaguers in the 20s would just show up to the stadium and start playing where as now they have to train almost non stop to get to that level.
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-24-2021 , 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte
Nice channel!

The problem I posted was actually the first ever IMO question. It's almost laughably easy by modern standards. But I guess it's like sports; major leaguers in the 20s would just show up to the stadium and start playing where as now they have to train almost non stop to get to that level.
I mean, you're definitely not wrong. in fact, you're exactly right. Could not have put it better myself.

Btw, someone told me in a previous life you were "Max Raker". That true?

Last edited by d2_e4; 05-24-2021 at 09:34 PM. Reason: Someone I talk maths with, who has talked maths with you in the past.
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-24-2021 , 09:43 PM
Yes, that was an old account before that big 2+2 hack
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-24-2021 , 09:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte
Yes, that was an old account before that big 2+2 hack
I assume not many people knew that, till now, at least.

Any idea who it was that told me? This is more fun than the maths problems.

It's a maths guy, I promise. In fact, he was a bit upset about a probability answer you offered me, and that is when he was like "I am gonna PM max about this". Which he never did. And I was like "who the **** is max?"
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-24-2021 , 10:34 PM
I thought most people knew who were around SMP and politics at that time. Sklansky knows. Unless he forgot. Not sure who you are talking to. No longer active here?
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-24-2021 , 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte
I thought most people knew who were around SMP and politics at that time. Sklansky knows. Unless he forgot. Not sure who you are talking to. No longer active here?
Frank.. It was Frank.

Do you know his user name?
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-24-2021 , 10:59 PM
Sounds familiar, but I’m drawing a blank.
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-24-2021 , 11:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte
Sounds familiar, but I’m drawing a blank.
Heehwaw. One of the best probabilists on this whole forum.
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-25-2021 , 03:32 AM
Out of the 40,320, 1-8 combinations 5,242 sequences have no adjacent and consecutive numbers according to A002464. Of the latter....

Spoiler:
... only 2 are valid when entered left-to-right, top-to-bottom in the grid, with the remaining 2 solution sequences in the combo set becoming valid when placed in the grid as noted.

Based on what we know about the grid configuration is there really no way to filter those solution sequences out of their respective sets?

I'm rapidly running out of teapots to break but I did run across a reference to pg. 373 of Analytical Combinatorics that I'm thinking might provide a solution to generate the solutions but it's a bit above my pay grade to be of much use, for me anyway.
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-30-2021 , 01:03 PM
Since this thread is not moving quickly I will pose a Science Theory/fiction question to see where people lie.


You are tested and found to be one of the only people likely able to achieve and survive a future travel tip. As such you are offered the opportunity to be the sole human to travel 1000 thousands years into the future.

We have a singular tested and functional experimental craft that can achieve light speed and it will make one lap around the earth as light speed in which you will age about 50 days but when the vehicle stops you will be 1000 in the future.


Some additional considerations:


- you are confident of the crafts ability to make the journey so fear of death in that regard is absolutely minimal
- once you come out of your light speed trip the vehicle will be depleted and unable to do any more travel unless you encounter a society with the ability to fix it (or likely they have their own and better tech).
- If there are advanced humans there, they will detect, see, identify and understand your craft easily. So you will not be able to avoid detection. You will instantly become a known entity, good or bad in that society.
- when you come out of your lap around the earth the planet you discover could be in any state from post Apocalyptic hell zone with all humans dead, or forced back to near stone age living, to Utopian wonderland. Perhaps humans are no longer the dominant lifeform (ie aliens or Planet of the Apes type scenario)




Would you being one of the only ones able to make this journey become a willing test pilot knowing you would likely never be able to go back and likely would never be able to let anyone in your past know if you succeeded or what you found?
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-30-2021 , 01:54 PM
If anyone does decide to play with the above hypothetical I will take away the two easiest 'No's' to this question.

This takes place at a time where if you have kids they are adults and if you were married you are either divorced or a widower.
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-30-2021 , 02:09 PM
I'd have a go at the science part, which I don't think works in the sense you describe (i.e. future time travel at near c, twin paradox etc.), but pretty sure you're more interested in the philosophical part, which is not really my bag.
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-30-2021 , 02:12 PM
Yes i understand the science might not hold up but in this hypothetical it does via it being defined as true due to the hypothetical!

But any posting on the 'science' as a tangent, absent my hypothetical is welcome.

I once read an article on how many Star Trek TOS technologies that were completely or mostly theoretical at the time of shooting that now exist in some fashion and i find that trip from science fantasy to science fact fascinating.

I also understand many of those writings come from real scientists extrapolating and theorizing and are not just out of fiction writers minds and whole cloth musings.
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-30-2021 , 02:18 PM
Tbh, while I've read a bunch of books on this and watched countless youtube clips (esp the "Fermilab" youtube channel has a couple of really good & detailed vids on the twin paradox), I'm 99.9% sure that Ec'd can explain this much, much better than I can, with my pretty rudimentary understanding of special relativity.
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-30-2021 , 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
I once read an article on how many Star Trek TOS technologies that were completely or mostly theoretical at the time of shooting that now exist in some fashion and i find that trip from science fantasy to science fact fascinating.

I also understand many of those writings come from real scientists extrapolating and theorizing and are not just out of fiction writers minds and whole cloth musings.
The Alcubierre drive ("real life" warp drive) is pretty cool, and I understand there have actually been some recent theoretical developments in this area since it was first introduced as a thought experiment in the mid 90's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-30-2021 , 02:32 PM
Yes in a heartbeat. Total no-brainer. i might even get to live for ever
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-30-2021 , 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
Yes in a heartbeat. Total no-brainer. i might even get to live for ever
That's the only potential upside for me. I mean I'd take the risk providing some immediate reward to humanity resulted but not to satisfy my curiosity or for the experience.
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-31-2021 , 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
Yes in a heartbeat. Total no-brainer. i might even get to live for ever
I would take the trip too.

With an apology to kids and future grandkids, who I hope would understand both the grandness of the adventure and the potential importance of the value of such a journey, I would gladly take that history making journey.
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote
05-31-2021 , 11:46 AM


Two questions?

Can this be my future gf?

Any chance I can have more clothes? Sun's rays kinda deadly in the future, right?
Science Thread (now with 100% less religion) Quote

      
m