ChrispenEvan said:

What manner of pedantic argument are we to have on this topic?

In good order I’d imagine.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

What manner of pedantic argument are we to have on this topic?

whether the cups are all the same size? whether that are all made from the same material? whether they are all in contact with the same surface. I could go on. and on.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

What manner of pedantic argument are we to have on this topic?

I can help there. Do those temperatures relate to the temps of the cups of water when placed, or are there some weird cones of temperature over each cup keeping the cup at that temp but the water is initially at whatever “outside” temperature is?

Well all things being equal and sensible and obvious and the only variable being the starting temperatures as set out in the question the 25 one will reach zero first and then change state followed by the 75 one and then the 100 degree one.
Over.

Peak Warming Man said:

Well all things being equal and sensible and obvious and the only variable being the starting temperatures as set out in the question the 25 one will reach zero first and then change state followed by the 75 one and then the 100 degree one.
Over.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-it-true-that-hot-water/

“To the first part of the question—‘Does hot water freeze faster than cold water?’—the answer is ‘Not usually, but possibly under certain conditions.’

ChrispenEvan said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Well all things being equal and sensible and obvious and the only variable being the starting temperatures as set out in the question the 25 one will reach zero first and then change state followed by the 75 one and then the 100 degree one.
Over.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-it-true-that-hot-water/

“To the first part of the question—‘Does hot water freeze faster than cold water?’—the answer is ‘Not usually, but possibly under certain conditions.’

Also:
https://phys.org/news/2010-03-mpemba-effect-hot-faster-cold.html

So we’re all agreed. The answer is, it depends.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Well all things being equal and sensible and obvious and the only variable being the starting temperatures as set out in the question the 25 one will reach zero first and then change state followed by the 75 one and then the 100 degree one.
Over.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-it-true-that-hot-water/

“To the first part of the question—‘Does hot water freeze faster than cold water?’—the answer is ‘Not usually, but possibly under certain conditions.’

Also:
https://phys.org/news/2010-03-mpemba-effect-hot-faster-cold.html

So we’re all agreed. The answer is, it depends.

all of us except PWM who seems to be adam ant in his answer.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Well all things being equal and sensible and obvious and the only variable being the starting temperatures as set out in the question the 25 one will reach zero first and then change state followed by the 75 one and then the 100 degree one.
Over.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-it-true-that-hot-water/

“To the first part of the question—‘Does hot water freeze faster than cold water?’—the answer is ‘Not usually, but possibly under certain conditions.’

Also:
https://phys.org/news/2010-03-mpemba-effect-hot-faster-cold.html

So we’re all agreed. The answer is, it depends.

There’s only one way to answer that question. Lab experiment.

For example, the amount of dissolved air in the water matters. And that is affected by how it was poured into the cups – gently or from a height.

I’ll be interested to know what the ABC’s answer is.

My understanding is that because of energy and material losses due to evap, the time taken to freeze the remaining water will have a negative gradient with respect to temperature, at boiling point. ie you can expect 100 deg C water to freeze faster than 99.9 dec C. At some point there will be a maximum.

What that maximum is will depend on the shape and size of of the cup, the thickness, the material from which it is made, the exact outside temperature (after all, temperatures in Antarctica vary over a range of 100 kelvin) … even whether there is a breeze, or whether it is cloudy or sunny.

Does hot water freeze faster than cold water?

Spiny Norman said:

Does hot water freeze faster than cold water?

No.

ChrispenEvan said:

the arguments on this one are hilarious…

ChrispenEvan said:

Because he’s a very gullible person who happens to have a birthday on 31st March?

Arts said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the arguments on this one are hilarious…

Where do we find these arguments?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the arguments on this one are hilarious…

Where do we find these arguments?

https://www.facebook.com/ABCScience/

Link

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

the arguments on this one are hilarious…

Where do we find these arguments?

https://www.facebook.com/ABCScience/

Link

Thanks (although Bing gave me the official answer to this question from another source, so I don’t really need it now)

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where do we find these arguments?

https://www.facebook.com/ABCScience/

Link

Thanks (although Bing gave me the official answer to this question from another source, so I don’t really need it now)

Bing actually being useful is the ultimate April fools.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the arguments on this one are hilarious…

Where do we find these arguments?

Facebook

The home of arguments

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.facebook.com/ABCScience/

Link

Thanks (although Bing gave me the official answer to this question from another source, so I don’t really need it now)

Bing actually being useful is the ultimate April fools.

Ha – that’s what the people at big search-engine want you to think!

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

the arguments on this one are hilarious…

Where do we find these arguments?

Facebook

The home of arguments

no it isn’t.

Because he was born yesterday.

Bubblecar said:

Because he was born yesterday.

You spoiled it!

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Because he was born yesterday.

You spoiled it!

Sorry, I thought the object of the exercise was to think of the answer and post it.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Because he was born yesterday.

You spoiled it!

Sorry, I thought the object of the exercise was to think of the answer and post it.

I’m sure you know I was only joking, but just in case, only joking :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

You spoiled it!

Sorry, I thought the object of the exercise was to think of the answer and post it.

I’m sure you know I was only joking, but just in case, only joking :)

I know you were :)

ChrispenEvan said:

1:1

ChrispenEvan said:

It depends

we’re they an enlightened culture in which fluid gender and sex identities were celebrated

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

It depends

^this.. we don’t know the starting conditions

ChrispenEvan said:

We don’t have enough information. Generally more boys are born than girls in the real world but it is also known that the probability in a given couple producing a male or female is partly affected by both genetic and epigenetic effects. Ironicallyz the edict here would have the effect of lowering the number of girls by preferentially forcing more “boyish,” couples to have more children.

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

We don’t have enough information. Generally more boys are born than girls in the real world but it is also known that the probability in a given couple producing a male or female is partly affected by both genetic and epigenetic effects. Ironicallyz the edict here would have the effect of lowering the number of girls by preferentially forcing more “boyish,” couples to have more children.

That is along my thought too. Genetics of the parents.

ChrispenEvan said:

they will likely end up with more boys, since you could have multiple boys but only one girl.. but to figure out the ratio is unclear.

bad job by the ABC on that one..

diddly-squat said:

bad job by the ABC on that one..

cut the work experience kid a break…

Arts said:

diddly-squat said:

bad job by the ABC on that one..

cut the work experience kid a break…

Yes. He’s busy reading Das Kapital.

Arts said:

diddly-squat said:

bad job by the ABC on that one..

cut the work experience kid a break…

I think you have to take into consideration the general audience for these posers. Most would not look too deeply at the wording, and make general assumptions. IE, 50/50 chance of a boy or girl each time.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

We don’t have enough information. Generally more boys are born than girls in the real world but it is also known that the probability in a given couple producing a male or female is partly affected by both genetic and epigenetic effects. Ironicallyz the edict here would have the effect of lowering the number of girls by preferentially forcing more “boyish,” couples to have more children.

That is along my thought too. Genetics of the parents.

But to answer the question “how much” we’d need all of that statistical detail.

ChrispenEvan said:

Arts said:

diddly-squat said:

bad job by the ABC on that one..

cut the work experience kid a break…

I think you have to take into consideration the general audience for these posers. Most would not look too deeply at the wording, and make general assumptions. IE, 50/50 chance of a boy or girl each time.

(Shrugs) they could have made this puzzle just right by adding a single phrase to that effect.

Arts said:

diddly-squat said:

bad job by the ABC on that one..

cut the work experience kid a break…

Ooo…listen to the academic trying to be all reasonable like.

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Arts said:

cut the work experience kid a break…

I think you have to take into consideration the general audience for these posers. Most would not look too deeply at the wording, and make general assumptions. IE, 50/50 chance of a boy or girl each time.

(Shrugs) they could have made this puzzle just right by adding a single phrase to that effect.

Not only but also maybe they are purely put up to garner responses and arguments from the audience and therefore ambiguous by design?

sibeen said:

Arts said:

diddly-squat said:

bad job by the ABC on that one..

cut the work experience kid a break…

Ooo…listen to the academic trying to be all reasonable like.

read the unit outline you complete fucking nutbug… does your mum still do your washing for you?

Thanks for reminding me where I am … I might start a thread on emails I wish I could send and post every time there’s an email I send with an academic tone.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I think you have to take into consideration the general audience for these posers. Most would not look too deeply at the wording, and make general assumptions. IE, 50/50 chance of a boy or girl each time.

(Shrugs) they could have made this puzzle just right by adding a single phrase to that effect.

Not only but also maybe they are purely put up to garner responses and arguments from the audience and therefore ambiguous by design?

it’s just engagement shit.. also they engage the masses who think they are smarter than the other masses because they subscribe to the ABC on Facebook… the irony is delicious. :)

Arts said:

sibeen said:

Arts said:

cut the work experience kid a break…

Ooo…listen to the academic trying to be all reasonable like.

read the unit outline you complete fucking nutbug… does your mum still do your washing for you?

Thanks for reminding me where I am … I might start a thread on emails I wish I could send and post every time there’s an email I send with an academic tone.

hehehehe. Do it.

Arts said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

(Shrugs) they could have made this puzzle just right by adding a single phrase to that effect.

Not only but also maybe they are purely put up to garner responses and arguments from the audience and therefore ambiguous by design?

it’s just engagement shit.. also they engage the masses who think they are smarter than the other masses because they subscribe to the ABC on Facebook… the irony is delicious. :)

exactly and hence the thread title here.

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

It depends

^this.. we don’t know the starting conditions

I think 50/50 starting conditions would be a reasonable assumption, but no doubt the “correct” answer is based on the assumption that each couple has a 50/50 chance of producing a girl at any birth, with no hereditary bias either way, and I don’t think that is a reasonable assumption, even as an approximation.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It depends

^this.. we don’t know the starting conditions

I think 50/50 starting conditions would be a reasonable assumption, but no doubt the “correct” answer is based on the assumption that each couple has a 50/50 chance of producing a girl at any birth, with no hereditary bias either way, and I don’t think that is a reasonable assumption, even as an approximation.

Perhaps but surely if we’re going to get all technical and clever about it, you could simply give the answer in terms of some variable you define to be the natural condition.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

^this.. we don’t know the starting conditions

I think 50/50 starting conditions would be a reasonable assumption, but no doubt the “correct” answer is based on the assumption that each couple has a 50/50 chance of producing a girl at any birth, with no hereditary bias either way, and I don’t think that is a reasonable assumption, even as an approximation.

Perhaps but surely if we’re going to get all technical and clever about it, you could simply give the answer in terms of some variable you define to be the natural condition.

I guess if you’re a nerd you could do that, but us normal people just go with lame assumptions.

Tamb said:

Arts said:

diddly-squat said:

bad job by the ABC on that one..

cut the work experience kid a break…

Yes. He’s busy reading Das Kapital.

better or worse than Mein Kampf though

sibeen said:

Arts said:

sibeen said:

Ooo…listen to the academic trying to be all reasonable like.

read the unit outline you complete fucking nutbug… does your mum still do your washing for you?

Thanks for reminding me where I am … I might start a thread on emails I wish I could send and post every time there’s an email I send with an academic tone.

hehehehe. Do it.

the correct term is fascist intellectual

diddly-squat said:

bad job by the ABC on that one..

Au contraire.

The young lass or lad has done an excellent job in providing us with things to discuss pedantically.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

^this.. we don’t know the starting conditions

I think 50/50 starting conditions would be a reasonable assumption, but no doubt the “correct” answer is based on the assumption that each couple has a 50/50 chance of producing a girl at any birth, with no hereditary bias either way, and I don’t think that is a reasonable assumption, even as an approximation.

Perhaps but surely if we’re going to get all technical and clever about it, you could simply give the answer in terms of some variable you define to be the natural condition.

We could be pedantic about and say that OP is asking for a specific answer to the problem, not a general solution.

ChrispenEvan said:

This is not a straightforward mathematical problem, requiring me to numerically calculate the solution in Excel.

Probability(0 B + 1 G) = 2^–1^
Probability(1 B + 1 G) = 2^–2^
Probability(2 B + 1 G) = 2^–3^
…
Probability(n B + 1 G) = 2^–n+1^
…

Girls: 2^–1^ + 2^–2^ + 2^–3^ + … + 2^–n+1^ + … = 1
Boys: 0 * 2^–1^ + 1 * 2^–2^ + 2 * 2^–3^ + … + n * 2^–n+1^ + … = ???

However, a numerical calculation using Excel appears to be also 1.

Thus, the ratio of girls:boys appears to be 1:1

ChrispenEvan said:

This is not a straightforward mathematical problem, requiring me to numerically calculate the solution in Excel.

Probability(0 B + 1 G) = 2^–1
Probability(1 B + 1 G) = 2^–2
Probability(2 B + 1 G) = 2^–3
…
Probability(n B + 1 G) = 2^–(n+1)
…

Girls: 2^–1 + 2^–2 + 2^–3 + … + 2^–(n+1) + … = 1
Boys: 0 * 2^–1 + 1 * 2^–2 + 2 * 2^–3 + … + n * 2^–(n+1) + .. = ???

However, a numerical calculation using Excel appears to be also 1.

Thus, the ratio of girls:boys appears to be 1:1

KJW said:

ChrispenEvan said:

This is not a straightforward mathematical problem, requiring me to numerically calculate the solution in Excel.

Probability(0 B + 1 G) = 2^–1^
Probability(1 B + 1 G) = 2^–2^
Probability(2 B + 1 G) = 2^–3^
…
Probability(n B + 1 G) = 2^–n+1^
…

Girls: 2^–1^ + 2^–2^ + 2^–3^ + … + 2^–n+1^ + … = 1
Boys: 0 * 2^–1^ + 1 * 2^–2^ + 2 * 2^–3^ + … + n * 2^–n+1^ + … = ???

However, a numerical calculation using Excel appears to be also 1.

Thus, the ratio of girls:boys appears to be 1:1

If we assume that the probability of any birth from any couple being a girl is exactly 50%, as you appear to be, then the ratio of boys to girls must be 50:50 because every birth has a 50% chance of being a girl, regardless of any restrictions that may be in place.

aren’t you all pleased that i post these ambiguously worded posers? How much less fun would they be if they elicited no argument?

ChrispenEvan said:

aren’t you all pleased that i post these ambiguously worded posers? How much less fun would they be if they elicited no argument?

Yes.

Or possibly no.

I can’t speak for everyone else.

The Rev Dodgson said:

KJW said:

ChrispenEvan said:

This is not a straightforward mathematical problem, requiring me to numerically calculate the solution in Excel.

Probability(0 B + 1 G) = 2^–1
Probability(1 B + 1 G) = 2^–2
Probability(2 B + 1 G) = 2^–3
…
Probability(n B + 1 G) = 2^–(n+1)
…

Girls: 2^–1 + 2^–2 + 2^–3 + … + 2^–(n+1) + … = 1
Boys: 0 * 2^–1 + 1 * 2^–2 + 2 * 2^–3 + … + n * 2^–(n+1) + .. = ???

However, a numerical calculation using Excel appears to be also 1.

Thus, the ratio of girls:boys appears to be 1:1

If we assume that the probability of any birth from any couple being a girl is exactly 50%, as you appear to be, then the ratio of boys to girls must be 50:50 because every birth has a 50% chance of being a girl, regardless of any restrictions that may be in place.

I don’t think one can simply draw that conclusion because boys and girls are not treated equally in the scenario, and as shown above, the calculation is different for boys and girls. That the series for boys is also 1 happened to be quite surprising to me.

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

KJW said:

This is not a straightforward mathematical problem, requiring me to numerically calculate the solution in Excel.

Probability(0 B + 1 G) = 2^–1
Probability(1 B + 1 G) = 2^–2
Probability(2 B + 1 G) = 2^–3
…
Probability(n B + 1 G) = 2^–(n+1)
…

Girls: 2^–1 + 2^–2 + 2^–3 + … + 2^–(n+1) + … = 1
Boys: 0 * 2^–1 + 1 * 2^–2 + 2 * 2^–3 + … + n * 2^–(n+1) + .. = ???

However, a numerical calculation using Excel appears to be also 1.

Thus, the ratio of girls:boys appears to be 1:1

If we assume that the probability of any birth from any couple being a girl is exactly 50%, as you appear to be, then the ratio of boys to girls must be 50:50 because every birth has a 50% chance of being a girl, regardless of any restrictions that may be in place.

I don’t think one can simply draw that conclusion because boys and girls are not treated equally in the scenario, and as shown above, the calculation is different for boys and girls. That the series for boys is also 1 happened to be quite surprising to me.

But the difference in the treatment of families who have previously had or not had a girl child does not change the fact that for every actual birth the probability of a boy or a girl is equal.

ChrispenEvan said:

aren’t you all pleased that i post these ambiguously worded posers? How much less fun would they be if they elicited no argument?

Yes, we aren’t

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

aren’t you all pleased that i post these ambiguously worded posers? How much less fun would they be if they elicited no argument?

Yes, we aren’t

good. as long as i please no one i’m happy.

The Rev Dodgson said:

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If we assume that the probability of any birth from any couple being a girl is exactly 50%, as you appear to be, then the ratio of boys to girls must be 50:50 because every birth has a 50% chance of being a girl, regardless of any restrictions that may be in place.

I don’t think one can simply draw that conclusion because boys and girls are not treated equally in the scenario, and as shown above, the calculation is different for boys and girls. That the series for boys is also 1 happened to be quite surprising to me.

But the difference in the treatment of families who have previously had or not had a girl child does not change the fact that for every actual birth the probability of a boy or a girl is equal.

In the end, that is probably true because the ratio is 1:1, but the fact that families are forbidden to have any more children after they have a girl does make the calculation for boys and girls distinct, and I felt it was necessary to make that calculation. TBH, my thoughts before doing the actual calculation in Excel was that the number of boys would be greater than the number of girls.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

aren’t you all pleased that i post these ambiguously worded posers? How much less fun would they be if they elicited no argument?

Yes, we aren’t

good. as long as i please no one i’m happy.

I mean I like this kind of thing generally but quality control seems poor over at ABC online. These “teasers” almost always have some problem.

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

Yes, we aren’t

good. as long as i please no one i’m happy.

I mean I like this kind of thing generally but quality control seems poor over at ABC online. These “teasers” almost always have some problem.

I know. I wonder whether it is deliberate so they don’t have to come up with an answer that people will argue over.

The Rev Dodgson said:

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If we assume that the probability of any birth from any couple being a girl is exactly 50%, as you appear to be, then the ratio of boys to girls must be 50:50 because every birth has a 50% chance of being a girl, regardless of any restrictions that may be in place.

I don’t think one can simply draw that conclusion because boys and girls are not treated equally in the scenario, and as shown above, the calculation is different for boys and girls. That the series for boys is also 1 happened to be quite surprising to me.

But the difference in the treatment of families who have previously had or not had a girl child does not change the fact that for every actual birth the probability of a boy or a girl is equal.

remember Martin Gale and the coins

If we really do assume that the probability of male is 50% every time then this is trivial. Each birth is a coin flip, you don’t need to rack your brain with Reimann sums.

dv said:

If we really do assume that the probability of male is 50% every time then this is trivial. Each birth is a coin flip, you don’t need to rack your brain with Reimann sums.

what if different pairs of parents have different male female probabilities rather than a flat fifty fifty across all the population

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

KJW said:

I don’t think one can simply draw that conclusion because boys and girls are not treated equally in the scenario, and as shown above, the calculation is different for boys and girls. That the series for boys is also 1 happened to be quite surprising to me.

But the difference in the treatment of families who have previously had or not had a girl child does not change the fact that for every actual birth the probability of a boy or a girl is equal.

remember Martin Gale and the coins

No.

dv said:

If we really do assume that the probability of male is 50% every time then this is trivial. Each birth is a coin flip, you don’t need to rack your brain with Reimann sums.

I don’t think it is trivial, even if one does consider each birth to be a coin flip. It is not entirely random because one is performing a selection of an outcome. Thus, one does need the Riemann sums, even if only to convince oneself that the selection is a red herring.

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

KJW said:

I don’t think one can simply draw that conclusion because boys and girls are not treated equally in the scenario, and as shown above, the calculation is different for boys and girls. That the series for boys is also 1 happened to be quite surprising to me.

But the difference in the treatment of families who have previously had or not had a girl child does not change the fact that for every actual birth the probability of a boy or a girl is equal.

In the end, that is probably true because the ratio is 1:1, but the fact that families are forbidden to have any more children after they have a girl does make the calculation for boys and girls distinct, and I felt it was necessary to make that calculation. TBH, my thoughts before doing the actual calculation in Excel was that the number of boys would be greater than the number of girls.

This one.

If parents keep producing boys until they have a girl, then there is more boys.

If parents produce a girl, they stop.

I don’t know the ratio, I just assumed that all you intelligent people would calculate the ratio.

My guess is about 1.5 boys per girl. It’s probably pi. I dunno.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

KJW said:

I don’t think one can simply draw that conclusion because boys and girls are not treated equally in the scenario, and as shown above, the calculation is different for boys and girls. That the series for boys is also 1 happened to be quite surprising to me.

But the difference in the treatment of families who have previously had or not had a girl child does not change the fact that for every actual birth the probability of a boy or a girl is equal.

remember Martin Gale and the coins

I’m afraid I don’t.

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

If we really do assume that the probability of male is 50% every time then this is trivial. Each birth is a coin flip, you don’t need to rack your brain with Reimann sums.

what if different pairs of parents have different male female probabilities rather than a flat fifty fifty across all the population

We’ve already been through that.

Kingy said:

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But the difference in the treatment of families who have previously had or not had a girl child does not change the fact that for every actual birth the probability of a boy or a girl is equal.

In the end, that is probably true because the ratio is 1:1, but the fact that families are forbidden to have any more children after they have a girl does make the calculation for boys and girls distinct, and I felt it was necessary to make that calculation. TBH, my thoughts before doing the actual calculation in Excel was that the number of boys would be greater than the number of girls.

This one.

If parents keep producing boys until they have a girl, then there is more boys.

If parents produce a girl, they stop.

I don’t know the ratio, I just assumed that all you intelligent people would calculate the ratio.

My guess is about 1.5 boys per girl. It’s probably pi. I dunno.

Half of the first children are girls
Half of the second children are girls
Half of the third children are girls.
…
and so on.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Kingy said:

KJW said:

In the end, that is probably true because the ratio is 1:1, but the fact that families are forbidden to have any more children after they have a girl does make the calculation for boys and girls distinct, and I felt it was necessary to make that calculation. TBH, my thoughts before doing the actual calculation in Excel was that the number of boys would be greater than the number of girls.

This one.

If parents keep producing boys until they have a girl, then there is more boys.

If parents produce a girl, they stop.

I don’t know the ratio, I just assumed that all you intelligent people would calculate the ratio.

My guess is about 1.5 boys per girl. It’s probably pi. I dunno.

Half of the first children are girls
Half of the second children are girls
Half of the third children are girls.
…
and so on.

‘ere, slow down, poindexter.

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

If we really do assume that the probability of male is 50% every time then this is trivial. Each birth is a coin flip, you don’t need to rack your brain with Reimann sums.

what if different pairs of parents have different male female probabilities rather than a flat fifty fifty across all the population

I already dealt with that above

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

If we really do assume that the probability of male is 50% every time then this is trivial. Each birth is a coin flip, you don’t need to rack your brain with Reimann sums.

what if different pairs of parents have different male female probabilities rather than a flat fifty fifty across all the population

I already dealt with that above

I already dealt with it already being dealt with :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

what if different pairs of parents have different male female probabilities rather than a flat fifty fifty across all the population

I already dealt with that above

I already dealt with it already being dealt with :)

Stand back – I’ve got this.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

what if different pairs of parents have different male female probabilities rather than a flat fifty fifty across all the population

I already dealt with that above

I already dealt with it already being dealt with :)

I agreed.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

If we really do assume that the probability of male is 50% every time then this is trivial. Each birth is a coin flip, you don’t need to rack your brain with Reimann sums.

what if different pairs of parents have different male female probabilities rather than a flat fifty fifty across all the population

I already dealt with that above

I already dealt with it already being dealt with :)

Stand back – I’ve got this.

not really, we can’t find where in the above dv confirmed that were different coupling probabilities relevant, Riemann sums wouldn’t be needed

or Reimann but we’re being kind

Why Does War Breed More Boys?

Surge of male babies in wartime is due to a male gene, says evolution researcher

A curious shift occurs during and right after a war: more boys tend to be born than girls. It’s been documented for decades in many nations, especially during long conflicts with many troops deployed. The cause of this boy boom has long flummoxed thinkers and scientists. Ideas have veered from the theological—a divine call for new men to replace those lost in battle—to the coital—returning soldiers have lots of sex, and so will be more likely to fertilize at a time in their ladies’ cycle that’s ripe for making boy babies. A new study in the journal Evolutionary Biology rejects them all. Instead, it pins the “returning soldier effect” on a gene expressed by men only. It also shows how researching your family tree can help you place bets on the sex of your next kid.

“I wasn’t satisfied with the explanation that it was due to couples having more sex,” says Newcastle University’s Corry Gellatly, who did the work as part of his Ph.D. thesis. Gellatly was curious about studies of male shrimps, marine worms, and yes—human males—that showed that their likelihood of producing male offspring seemed to mimic that of their parents. In other words, males who have more brothers than sisters would in turn produce more sons than daughters. Thinking this may be the root of the wartime peaks, Gellatly sought to investigate the trend on a large scale. He sifted through 927 North American and European family trees posted on an online database by both amateur and professional genealogists, and tallied the sex ratios of siblings for each generation.

“The family tree study showed that whether you’re likely to have a boy or a girl is inherited,” says Gellatly. “We now know that men are more likely to have sons if they have more brothers but are more likely to have daughters if they have more sisters.” Women, however, did not have the same tendency.

Gellatly argues that a gene—which is carried by both men and women but only active in men—influences what proportion of a man’s sperm carry the X chromosome and how many carry the Y. The sperm’s X or Y status determines the sex of the baby upon meeting the egg, which only carries the X chromosome. More Y sperm=more XY (male) babies.

How might this gene tip the baby balance after a war? Consider the legacy of two hypothetical men—let’s call them John and Rich. John has three sons, all of whom go off to fight, and one daughter, who does not. Rich has the opposite family structure: three daughters and one son. John is more likely to see multiple sons return from war alive—and with Y-leaning sperm. So they’ll produce more sons of their own. Rich is likely to lose his only son, which if alive, would have fathered girls to even out the sex ratio. The mechanism, Gellatly’s genetic model shows, shifts the sex ratio back to normal as the dip in male mortality recovers.

The genetic explanation of the returning soldier effect is, for now, a thought experiment—the gene responsible has not been found.

https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-12/why-does-war-breed-more-boys/

The Rev Dodgson said:

Half of the first children are girls
Half of the second children are girls
Half of the third children are girls.
…
and so on.

What’s interesting about this is that it provides a clear proof of the equality:

SUM_{n = 1 to infinity}(2^–n) = SUM_{n = 1 to infinity}((n–1) * 2^–n) = 1

P=2^–1: G
P=2^–2: BG
P=2^–3: BBG
P=2^–4: BBBG
P=2^–5: BBBBG
P=2^–6: BBBBBG
P=2^–7: BBBBBBG
P=2^–8: BBBBBBBG
P=2^–9: BBBBBBBBG
etc

By considering this vertically down the j-th column and noting that:

SUM_{n = j+1 to infinity}(2^–n) = 2^–j

The equivalence with looking at this horizontally then leads to the proof of the equality:

SUM_{n = 1 to infinity}(2^–n) = SUM_{n = 1 to infinity}((n–1) * 2^–n) = 1

This seems to be related to the equality of the definite integrals between 0 and infinity of e^–x and xe^–x

wait so it really is just like the martingale after all imagine that

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Half of the first children are girls
Half of the second children are girls
Half of the third children are girls.
…
and so on.

What’s interesting about this is that it provides a clear proof of the equality:

SUM_{n = 1 to infinity}(2^–n) = SUM_{n = 1 to infinity}((n–1) * 2^–n) = 1

P=2^–1: G
P=2^–2: BG
P=2^–3: BBG
P=2^–4: BBBG
P=2^–5: BBBBG
P=2^–6: BBBBBG
P=2^–7: BBBBBBG
P=2^–8: BBBBBBBG
P=2^–9: BBBBBBBBG
etc

By considering this vertically down the j-th column and noting that:

SUM_{n = j+1 to infinity}(2^–n) = 2^–j

The equivalence with looking at this horizontally then leads to the proof of the equality:

SUM_{n = 1 to infinity}(2^–n) = SUM_{n = 1 to infinity}((n–1) * 2^–n) = 1

This seems to be related to the equality of the definite integrals between 0 and infinity of e^–x and xe^–x

Why are you taking limits at ∞? Is it reasonable to suppose any woman can have infinitely many children? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to assume a maximum of, say, 20 — or even an average maximum of, say, 10? (Valentina Vassilyev is claimed to have given birth to 69 children in the 18th century, though the claim is disputed; the most fertile woman of recent times is Mariam Nabatanzi Babirye, a Ugandan woman who gave birth to 44 children between 1998 and 2016.) I acknowledge that the original problem says the couple must keep having children until a girl is born, and then stop, but there are physical limitations that can’t be overruled by imperial decree.

SCIENCE said:

wait so it really is just like the martingale after all imagine that

Hadn’t heard of martingales before, so looked it up, which was interesting. Had heard of the keep doubling strategy before.

I’m not sure that this is “just like” a martingale, but is connected.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

wait so it really is just like the martingale after all imagine that

Hadn’t heard of martingales before, so looked it up, which was interesting. Had heard of the keep doubling strategy before.

I’m not sure that this is “just like” a martingale, but is connected.

I thought of this, or the horsey version.

https://gentledogtrainers.com.au/best-martingale-collar/

I had no idea how that could be relevent. But I also Googled and found there is a mathematical version.

PermeateFree said:

Why Does War Breed More Boys?

Surge of male babies in wartime is due to a male gene, says evolution researcher

A curious shift occurs during and right after a war: more boys tend to be born than girls. It’s been documented for decades in many nations, especially during long conflicts with many troops deployed. The cause of this boy boom has long flummoxed thinkers and scientists. Ideas have veered from the theological—a divine call for new men to replace those lost in battle—to the coital—returning soldiers have lots of sex, and so will be more likely to fertilize at a time in their ladies’ cycle that’s ripe for making boy babies. A new study in the journal Evolutionary Biology rejects them all. Instead, it pins the “returning soldier effect” on a gene expressed by men only. It also shows how researching your family tree can help you place bets on the sex of your next kid.

“I wasn’t satisfied with the explanation that it was due to couples having more sex,” says Newcastle University’s Corry Gellatly, who did the work as part of his Ph.D. thesis. Gellatly was curious about studies of male shrimps, marine worms, and yes—human males—that showed that their likelihood of producing male offspring seemed to mimic that of their parents. In other words, males who have more brothers than sisters would in turn produce more sons than daughters. Thinking this may be the root of the wartime peaks, Gellatly sought to investigate the trend on a large scale. He sifted through 927 North American and European family trees posted on an online database by both amateur and professional genealogists, and tallied the sex ratios of siblings for each generation.

“The family tree study showed that whether you’re likely to have a boy or a girl is inherited,” says Gellatly. “We now know that men are more likely to have sons if they have more brothers but are more likely to have daughters if they have more sisters.” Women, however, did not have the same tendency.

Gellatly argues that a gene—which is carried by both men and women but only active in men—influences what proportion of a man’s sperm carry the X chromosome and how many carry the Y. The sperm’s X or Y status determines the sex of the baby upon meeting the egg, which only carries the X chromosome. More Y sperm=more XY (male) babies.

How might this gene tip the baby balance after a war? Consider the legacy of two hypothetical men—let’s call them John and Rich. John has three sons, all of whom go off to fight, and one daughter, who does not. Rich has the opposite family structure: three daughters and one son. John is more likely to see multiple sons return from war alive—and with Y-leaning sperm. So they’ll produce more sons of their own. Rich is likely to lose his only son, which if alive, would have fathered girls to even out the sex ratio. The mechanism, Gellatly’s genetic model shows, shifts the sex ratio back to normal as the dip in male mortality recovers.

The genetic explanation of the returning soldier effect is, for now, a thought experiment—the gene responsible has not been found.

https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-12/why-does-war-breed-more-boys/

Interesting idea; should be tested.

Michael V said:

PermeateFree said:

Why Does War Breed More Boys?

Surge of male babies in wartime is due to a male gene, says evolution researcher

A curious shift occurs during and right after a war: more boys tend to be born than girls. It’s been documented for decades in many nations, especially during long conflicts with many troops deployed. The cause of this boy boom has long flummoxed thinkers and scientists. Ideas have veered from the theological—a divine call for new men to replace those lost in battle—to the coital—returning soldiers have lots of sex, and so will be more likely to fertilize at a time in their ladies’ cycle that’s ripe for making boy babies. A new study in the journal Evolutionary Biology rejects them all. Instead, it pins the “returning soldier effect” on a gene expressed by men only. It also shows how researching your family tree can help you place bets on the sex of your next kid.

“I wasn’t satisfied with the explanation that it was due to couples having more sex,” says Newcastle University’s Corry Gellatly, who did the work as part of his Ph.D. thesis. Gellatly was curious about studies of male shrimps, marine worms, and yes—human males—that showed that their likelihood of producing male offspring seemed to mimic that of their parents. In other words, males who have more brothers than sisters would in turn produce more sons than daughters. Thinking this may be the root of the wartime peaks, Gellatly sought to investigate the trend on a large scale. He sifted through 927 North American and European family trees posted on an online database by both amateur and professional genealogists, and tallied the sex ratios of siblings for each generation.

“The family tree study showed that whether you’re likely to have a boy or a girl is inherited,” says Gellatly. “We now know that men are more likely to have sons if they have more brothers but are more likely to have daughters if they have more sisters.” Women, however, did not have the same tendency.

Gellatly argues that a gene—which is carried by both men and women but only active in men—influences what proportion of a man’s sperm carry the X chromosome and how many carry the Y. The sperm’s X or Y status determines the sex of the baby upon meeting the egg, which only carries the X chromosome. More Y sperm=more XY (male) babies.

How might this gene tip the baby balance after a war? Consider the legacy of two hypothetical men—let’s call them John and Rich. John has three sons, all of whom go off to fight, and one daughter, who does not. Rich has the opposite family structure: three daughters and one son. John is more likely to see multiple sons return from war alive—and with Y-leaning sperm. So they’ll produce more sons of their own. Rich is likely to lose his only son, which if alive, would have fathered girls to even out the sex ratio. The mechanism, Gellatly’s genetic model shows, shifts the sex ratio back to normal as the dip in male mortality recovers.

The genetic explanation of the returning soldier effect is, for now, a thought experiment—the gene responsible has not been found.

https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-12/why-does-war-breed-more-boys/

Interesting idea; should be tested.

A little more than an idea.

More boys are born than girls: this is a fact. In the western world the ‘sex ratio’ is around 105 boys for every 100 girls, but this changes through history. And rather remarkably, it peaks at the end of wars: another fact.

So why are more boys born at the end of wars? Now we have to leave the comfort of facts, and are left with contested opinions.

Reliable official statistics on births in England and Wales have been available since the late 1830s, and the graph below shows the sex ratio from then until 2012. There are clear spikes at the end of the two World Wars, but also around 1973, while there is also a steady dip towards the end of the nineteenth century – we’ll come to that later.

More:
https://www.science20.com/david_spiegelhalter/why_are_more_boys_born_at_the_end_of_wars-154948

btm said:

KJW said:

What’s interesting about this is that it provides a clear proof of the equality:

SUM_{n = 1 to ∞}(2^–n) = SUM_{n = 1 to ∞}((n–1) * 2^–n) = 1

P=2^–1: G
P=2^–2: BG
P=2^–3: BBG
P=2^–4: BBBG
P=2^–5: BBBBG
P=2^–6: BBBBBG
P=2^–7: BBBBBBG
P=2^–8: BBBBBBBG
P=2^–9: BBBBBBBBG
etc

By considering this vertically down the j-th column and noting that:

SUM_{n = j+1 to ∞}(2^–n) = 2^–j

The equivalence with looking at this horizontally then leads to the proof of the equality:

SUM_{n = 1 to ∞}(2^–n) = SUM_{n = 1 to ∞}((n–1) * 2^–n) = 1

Why are you taking limits at ∞?

I’m taking limits at ∞ for more-or-less the same reason that physicists only deal with spherical chickens in a vacuum. While the problem was stated in terms of births, it can be restated in terms of coin tosses, in which the analysis seems more appropriate, at least as an idealisation.

JudgeMental said:

Short,

Tamb said:

JudgeMental said:

Short,

And the winner is……….just a minute I’m having trouble opening the envelope, it’s well sealed…………..here we go.
The winner is TAMB.

Tamb said:

JudgeMental said:

Short,

this puzzle is phrased badly, or well for pedants, because it falsely implies that the solution is unique

Peak Warming Man said:

Tamb said:

JudgeMental said:

Short,

And the winner is……….just a minute I’m having trouble opening the envelope, it’s well sealed…………..here we go.
The winner is TAMB.

Well short is the obvious one, certainly, but what is wrong with:
horte
or
orter
or
sorte
or even
shote?

SCIENCE said:

Tamb said:

JudgeMental said:

Short,

this puzzle is phrased badly, or well for pedants, because it falsely implies that the solution is unique

I’m glad someone is nit-picking. I was beginning to loose faith in the forum.

JudgeMental said:

SCIENCE said:

Tamb said:

Short,

this puzzle is phrased badly, or well for pedants, because it falsely implies that the solution is unique

I’m glad someone is nit-picking. I was beginning to loose faith in the forum.

:)

roughbarked said:

JudgeMental said:

SCIENCE said:

this puzzle is phrased badly, or well for pedants, because it falsely implies that the solution is unique

I’m glad someone is nit-picking. I was beginning to loose faith in the forum.

:)

Loose faith is wishy washy.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

JudgeMental said:

I’m glad someone is nit-picking. I was beginning to loose faith in the forum.

:)

Loose faith is wishy washy.

or rather sinful?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Tamb said:

Short,

And the winner is……….just a minute I’m having trouble opening the envelope, it’s well sealed…………..here we go.
The winner is TAMB.

Well short is the obvious one, certainly, but what is wrong with:
horte
or
orter
or
sorte
or even
shote?

Also a minimum is shorter than a minim, isn’t it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Tamb said:

Short,

And the winner is……….just a minute I’m having trouble opening the envelope, it’s well sealed…………..here we go.
The winner is TAMB.

Well short is the obvious one, certainly, but what is wrong with:
horte
or
orter
or
sorte
or even
shote?

OK.

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

And the winner is……….just a minute I’m having trouble opening the envelope, it’s well sealed…………..here we go.
The winner is TAMB.

Well short is the obvious one, certainly, but what is wrong with:
horte
or
orter
or
sorte
or even
shote?

OK.

Short is the only word which makes shorter. The other suggestions make words other than shorter. (or shorten)

Tamb said:

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well short is the obvious one, certainly, but what is wrong with:
horte
or
orter
or
sorte
or even
shote?

OK.

Short is the only word which makes shorter. The other suggestions make words other than shorter. (or shorten)

but but it in no way suggests that the word with two extra letters has to specifically be, short.

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Michael V said:

OK.

Short is the only word which makes shorter. The other suggestions make words other than shorter. (or shorten)

but but it in no way suggests that the word with two extra letters has to specifically be, short.

I took it to mean exactly that.

Tamb said:

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well short is the obvious one, certainly, but what is wrong with:
horte
or
orter
or
sorte
or even
shote?

OK.

Short is the only word which makes shorter. The other suggestions make words other than shorter. (or shorten)

??

They all make shorter if you add the right letters in the right place.

They didn’t say the letters had to go on the end.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Short is the only word which makes shorter. The other suggestions make words other than shorter. (or shorten)

but but it in no way suggests that the word with two extra letters has to specifically be, short.

I took it to mean exactly that.

and it works.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Michael V said:

OK.

Short is the only word which makes shorter. The other suggestions make words other than shorter. (or shorten)

??

They all make shorter if you add the right letters in the right place.

They didn’t say the letters had to go on the end.

They?

It simply said ‘what word’?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Short is the only word which makes shorter. The other suggestions make words other than shorter. (or shorten)

??

They all make shorter if you add the right letters in the right place.

They didn’t say the letters had to go on the end.

They?

It simply said ‘what word’?

By “they” I mean whoever wrote it. Substitute “it” if you wish.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

??

They all make shorter if you add the right letters in the right place.

They didn’t say the letters had to go on the end.

They?

It simply said ‘what word’?

By “they” I mean whoever wrote it. Substitute “it” if you wish.

the lack of ability to think laterally astounds me sometimes… but I may be being harsh, since I just finished reading some quora questions and the reality of humanity has set in… and now I am sad and scared for everyone

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

They?

It simply said ‘what word’?

By “they” I mean whoever wrote it. Substitute “it” if you wish.

the lack of ability to think laterally astounds me sometimes… but I may be being harsh, since I just finished reading some quora questions and the reality of humanity has set in… and now I am sad and scared for everyone

On here or in general ?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

??

They all make shorter if you add the right letters in the right place.

They didn’t say the letters had to go on the end.

They?

It simply said ‘what word’?

By “they” I mean whoever wrote it. Substitute “it” if you wish.

being pedantic.. you know.

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

They?

It simply said ‘what word’?

By “they” I mean whoever wrote it. Substitute “it” if you wish.

the lack of ability to think laterally astounds me sometimes… but I may be being harsh, since I just finished reading some quora questions and the reality of humanity has set in… and now I am sad and scared for everyone

There appears reason to be fearful, yes.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

They?

It simply said ‘what word’?

By “they” I mean whoever wrote it. Substitute “it” if you wish.

being pedantic.. you know.

It’s a necklace
No its a pendant

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

They?

It simply said ‘what word’?

By “they” I mean whoever wrote it. Substitute “it” if you wish.

the lack of ability to think laterally astounds me sometimes… but I may be being harsh, since I just finished reading some quora questions and the reality of humanity has set in… and now I am sad and scared for everyone

Not another quora reader?

dv will be devastated :)

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

By “they” I mean whoever wrote it. Substitute “it” if you wish.

the lack of ability to think laterally astounds me sometimes… but I may be being harsh, since I just finished reading some quora questions and the reality of humanity has set in… and now I am sad and scared for everyone

There appears reason to be fearful, yes.

Occam’s razor suggests that thinking literally is the best initial strategy.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

They?

It simply said ‘what word’?

By “they” I mean whoever wrote it. Substitute “it” if you wish.

being pedantic.. you know.

But anyway, what of minim and minimum?

We all agree that a minimum is shorter than a minim, I hope.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

the lack of ability to think laterally astounds me sometimes… but I may be being harsh, since I just finished reading some quora questions and the reality of humanity has set in… and now I am sad and scared for everyone

There appears reason to be fearful, yes.

Occam’s razor suggests that thinking literally is the best initial strategy.

Occam’s bleeding razor is given way too much credit.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

the lack of ability to think laterally astounds me sometimes… but I may be being harsh, since I just finished reading some quora questions and the reality of humanity has set in… and now I am sad and scared for everyone

There appears reason to be fearful, yes.

Occam’s razor suggests that thinking literally is the best initial strategy.

Why would I argue with that?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

By “they” I mean whoever wrote it. Substitute “it” if you wish.

being pedantic.. you know.

But anyway, what of minim and minimum?

We all agree that a minimum is shorter than a minim, I hope.

Gave no argument with that logic.

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

There appears reason to be fearful, yes.

Occam’s razor suggests that thinking literally is the best initial strategy.

Why would I argue with that?

Because this is the Argument teaser for pedants thread?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

There appears reason to be fearful, yes.

Occam’s razor suggests that thinking literally is the best initial strategy.

Occam’s bleeding razor is given way too much credit.

At least he did apparently use one himself.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

There appears reason to be fearful, yes.

Occam’s razor suggests that thinking literally is the best initial strategy.

Occam’s bleeding razor is given way too much credit.

This is the reason:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

There appears reason to be fearful, yes.

Occam’s razor suggests that thinking literally is the best initial strategy.

Occam’s bleeding razor is given way too much credit.

Has to cut to cause bleeding.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Occam’s razor suggests that thinking literally is the best initial strategy.

Why would I argue with that?

Because this is the Argument teaser for pedants thread?

Perhaps I shouldn’t be here then?

Use your pedant feelings people! Let the arguments flow through you! come over to the forum way.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

By “they” I mean whoever wrote it. Substitute “it” if you wish.

the lack of ability to think laterally astounds me sometimes… but I may be being harsh, since I just finished reading some quora questions and the reality of humanity has set in… and now I am sad and scared for everyone

Not another quora reader?

dv will be devastated :)

I read it for no other reason than to be horrified at the behaviour of humanity.

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

the lack of ability to think laterally astounds me sometimes… but I may be being harsh, since I just finished reading some quora questions and the reality of humanity has set in… and now I am sad and scared for everyone

Not another quora reader?

dv will be devastated :)

I read it for no other reason than to be horrified at the behaviour of humanity.

What we’re not depraved enough for ya???

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

the lack of ability to think laterally astounds me sometimes… but I may be being harsh, since I just finished reading some quora questions and the reality of humanity has set in… and now I am sad and scared for everyone

Not another quora reader?

dv will be devastated :)

I read it for no other reason than to be horrified at the behaviour of humanity.

Same here :)

That and to confirm my conviction that AI bots are still totally hopeless at picking what people are really interested in.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not another quora reader?

dv will be devastated :)

I read it for no other reason than to be horrified at the behaviour of humanity.

What we’re not depraved enough for ya???

this place is like a Mensa meeting compared to over there

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

the lack of ability to think laterally astounds me sometimes… but I may be being harsh, since I just finished reading some quora questions and the reality of humanity has set in… and now I am sad and scared for everyone

Not another quora reader?

dv will be devastated :)

I read it for no other reason than to be horrified at the behaviour of humanity.

On the rare occasion I read those type of platforms for some information they often contain irrelevant nasty comments.

Cymek said:

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not another quora reader?

dv will be devastated :)

I read it for no other reason than to be horrified at the behaviour of humanity.

On the rare occasion I read those type of platforms for some information they often contain irrelevant nasty comments.

Fucking bullshit.

SCIENCE said:

Tamb said:

JudgeMental said:

Short,

this puzzle is phrased badly, or well for pedants, because it falsely implies that the solution is unique

Well at least this one is a satisfactory answer, unlike the last few

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

Tamb said:

Short,

this puzzle is phrased badly, or well for pedants, because it falsely implies that the solution is unique

Well at least this one is a satisfactory answer, unlike the last few

Boris said:

Must show working!

Boris said:

Quite a lot.

There’d be a fair few I reckon.

Michael V said:

Boris said:

Quite a lot.

Bugger.

Peak Warming Man said:

There’d be a fair few I reckon.

Define distinct.

1

Tamb said:

Peak Warming Man said:

There’d be a fair few I reckon.

Define distinct.

distinguishable to the eye or mind as being discrete.

Boris said:

Tamb said:

Peak Warming Man said:

There’d be a fair few I reckon.

Define distinct.

distinguishable to the eye or mind as being discrete.

OK, ta.

Boris said:

http://puzzles.nigelcoldwell.co.uk/twentyseven.htm#:~:text=In%20total%20there%20are%20204,of%20size%201×1%20to%208×8.

Link.

Boris said:

Boris said:

http://puzzles.nigelcoldwell.co.uk/twentyseven.htm#:~:text=In%20total%20there%20are%20204,of%20size%201×1%20to%208×8.

Link.

Is there anything that maths can’t do?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Boris said:

Boris said:

http://puzzles.nigelcoldwell.co.uk/twentyseven.htm#:~:text=In%20total%20there%20are%20204,of%20size%201×1%20to%208×8.

Link.

Is there anything that maths can’t do?

you want i should make a list?

Boris said:

I would think Sum(x^2) from 1 to 8, which is 204, but I don’t have much time to think on it.

dv said:

Boris said:

I would think Sum(x^2) from 1 to 8, which is 204, but I don’t have much time to think on it.

Zinc waits for no man.

dv said:

Boris said:

I would think Sum(x^2) from 1 to 8, which is 204, but I don’t have much time to think on it.

That’s what I got too.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Boris said:

I would think Sum(x^2) from 1 to 8, which is 204, but I don’t have much time to think on it.

That’s what I got too.

Or is it 205? (including the entire square)

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

I would think Sum(x^2) from 1 to 8, which is 204, but I don’t have much time to think on it.

That’s what I got too.

Or is it 205? (including the entire square)

Nine.

One squared is included.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

I would think Sum(x^2) from 1 to 8, which is 204, but I don’t have much time to think on it.

That’s what I got too.

Or is it 205? (including the entire square)

This includes the entire square

not a teaser. not the ABC.

Quiz questions

The height of a horse is measured in a unit called hands. In centimetres, what is the length of a hand? a) 5.5 centimetres, b) 10 centimetres, c) 10.16 centimetres, d) 12 centimetres What unit of length is equivalent to approximately 3.26 light years? a) an astronomical unit, b) a parsec, c) a magnitude What mineral has a hardness of 1 on Mohs scale? a) topaz, b) diamond, c) quartz, d) talc What does a sphygmomanometer measure? a) body temperature, b) blood pressure, c) respiratory rate Which of the following is not a unit of measurement included in the International System of Units (SI)? a) ampere, b) pound, c) candela, d) kelvin

Bogsnorkler said:

not a teaser. not the ABC.

Quiz questions

The height of a horse is measured in a unit called hands. In centimetres, what is the length of a hand? a) 5.5 centimetres, b) 10 centimetres, c) 10.16 centimetres, d) 12 centimetres

Dunno.

What unit of length is equivalent to approximately 3.26 light years? a) an astronomical unit, b) a parsec, c) a magnitude

Dunno

What mineral has a hardness of 1 on Mohs scale? a) topaz, b) diamond, c) quartz, d) talc

Talc

What does a sphygmomanometer measure? a) body temperature, b) blood pressure, c) respiratory rate

Blood pressure

Which of the following is not a unit of measurement included in the International System of Units (SI)? a) ampere, b) pound, c) candela, d) kelvin

pound

Bogsnorkler said:

not a teaser. not the ABC.

Quiz questions

The height of a horse is measured in a unit called hands. In centimetres, what is the length of a hand? a) 5.5 centimetres, b) 10 centimetres, c) 10.16 centimetres, d) 12 centimetres What unit of length is equivalent to approximately 3.26 light years? a) an astronomical unit, b) a parsec, c) a magnitude What mineral has a hardness of 1 on Mohs scale? a) topaz, b) diamond, c) quartz, d) talc What does a sphygmomanometer measure? a) body temperature, b) blood pressure, c) respiratory rate Which of the following is not a unit of measurement included in the International System of Units (SI)? a) ampere, b) pound, c) candela, d) kelvin

Guessed no. 4 wrong and the others right (although the Mohs scale one was also a complete guess).

Quiz questions

The height of a horse is measured in a unit called hands. In centimetres, what is the length of a hand? a) 5.5 centimetres, b) 10 centimetres, c) 10.16 centimetres, d) 12 centimetres

Guess: (d)

What unit of length is equivalent to approximately 3.26 light years? a) an astronomical unit, b) a parsec, c) a magnitude

B)

What mineral has a hardness of 1 on Mohs scale? a) topaz, b) diamond, c) quartz, d) talc

D)

What does a sphygmomanometer measure? a) body temperature, b) blood pressure, c) respiratory rate

B)

Which of the following is not a unit of measurement included in the International System of Units (SI)? a) ampere, b) pound, c) candela, d) kelvin

B)

dv said:

Quiz questions

The height of a horse is measured in a unit called hands. In centimetres, what is the length of a hand? a) 5.5 centimetres, b) 10 centimetres, c) 10.16 centimetres, d) 12 centimetres

Guess: (d)

What unit of length is equivalent to approximately 3.26 light years? a) an astronomical unit, b) a parsec, c) a magnitude

B)

What mineral has a hardness of 1 on Mohs scale? a) topaz, b) diamond, c) quartz, d) talc

D)

What does a sphygmomanometer measure? a) body temperature, b) blood pressure, c) respiratory rate

B)

Which of the following is not a unit of measurement included in the International System of Units (SI)? a) ampere, b) pound, c) candela, d) kelvin

B)

whispers to dv and mv – a hand is 4 inches.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Quiz questions

The height of a horse is measured in a unit called hands. In centimetres, what is the length of a hand? a) 5.5 centimetres, b) 10 centimetres, c) 10.16 centimetres, d) 12 centimetres

Guess: (d)

What unit of length is equivalent to approximately 3.26 light years? a) an astronomical unit, b) a parsec, c) a magnitude

B)

What mineral has a hardness of 1 on Mohs scale? a) topaz, b) diamond, c) quartz, d) talc

D)

What does a sphygmomanometer measure? a) body temperature, b) blood pressure, c) respiratory rate

B)

Which of the following is not a unit of measurement included in the International System of Units (SI)? a) ampere, b) pound, c) candela, d) kelvin

B)

whispers to dv and mv – a hand is 4 inches.

Ah well, twas but a guess. You’d never catch me using such barbaric units.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Quiz questions

The height of a horse is measured in a unit called hands. In centimetres, what is the length of a hand? a) 5.5 centimetres, b) 10 centimetres, c) 10.16 centimetres, d) 12 centimetres

Guess: (d)

What unit of length is equivalent to approximately 3.26 light years? a) an astronomical unit, b) a parsec, c) a magnitude

B)

What mineral has a hardness of 1 on Mohs scale? a) topaz, b) diamond, c) quartz, d) talc

D)

What does a sphygmomanometer measure? a) body temperature, b) blood pressure, c) respiratory rate

B)

Which of the following is not a unit of measurement included in the International System of Units (SI)? a) ampere, b) pound, c) candela, d) kelvin

B)

whispers to dv and mv – a hand is 4 inches.

I’m not the horsey-horsey type.

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Quiz questions

The height of a horse is measured in a unit called hands. In centimetres, what is the length of a hand? a) 5.5 centimetres, b) 10 centimetres, c) 10.16 centimetres, d) 12 centimetres

Guess: (d)

What unit of length is equivalent to approximately 3.26 light years? a) an astronomical unit, b) a parsec, c) a magnitude

B)

What mineral has a hardness of 1 on Mohs scale? a) topaz, b) diamond, c) quartz, d) talc

D)

What does a sphygmomanometer measure? a) body temperature, b) blood pressure, c) respiratory rate

B)

Which of the following is not a unit of measurement included in the International System of Units (SI)? a) ampere, b) pound, c) candela, d) kelvin

B)

whispers to dv and mv – a hand is 4 inches.

I’m not the horsey-horsey type.

soooo not a gangnam style person?

Bogsnorkler said:

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

whispers to dv and mv – a hand is 4 inches.

I’m not the horsey-horsey type.

soooo not a gangnam style person?

Stop horsing around!

(I also noticed that The Rev is a horse-whisperer.)

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Quiz questions

The height of a horse is measured in a unit called hands. In centimetres, what is the length of a hand? a) 5.5 centimetres, b) 10 centimetres, c) 10.16 centimetres, d) 12 centimetres

Guess: (d)

What unit of length is equivalent to approximately 3.26 light years? a) an astronomical unit, b) a parsec, c) a magnitude

B)

What mineral has a hardness of 1 on Mohs scale? a) topaz, b) diamond, c) quartz, d) talc

D)

What does a sphygmomanometer measure? a) body temperature, b) blood pressure, c) respiratory rate

B)

Which of the following is not a unit of measurement included in the International System of Units (SI)? a) ampere, b) pound, c) candela, d) kelvin

B)

whispers to dv and mv – a hand is 4 inches.

I’m not the horsey-horsey type.

Excuses excuses

(actually I have no idea why I know about hands)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

whispers to dv and mv – a hand is 4 inches.

I’m not the horsey-horsey type.

Excuses excuses

(actually I have no idea why I know about hands)

I know now.

A couple of days ago I had the fleeting notion of looking up the hands measurement, but I didn’t. Now it appears I should have done so.

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

I’m not the horsey-horsey type.

Excuses excuses

(actually I have no idea why I know about hands)

I know now.

A couple of days ago I had the fleeting notion of looking up the hands measurement, but I didn’t. Now it appears I should have done so.

You coulda’ had class. You coulda’ been a contender. You coulda’ been somebody. Instead of a bum, which is what you am.

Bogsnorkler said:

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Excuses excuses

(actually I have no idea why I know about hands)

I know now.

A couple of days ago I had the fleeting notion of looking up the hands measurement, but I didn’t. Now it appears I should have done so.

You coulda’ had class. You coulda’ been a contender. You coulda’ been somebody. Instead of a bum, which is what you am.

Ah well. Still, if I’ve gotta be a bum, it’s best to be a beach bum.

Michael V said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Michael V said:

I know now.

A couple of days ago I had the fleeting notion of looking up the hands measurement, but I didn’t. Now it appears I should have done so.

You coulda’ had class. You coulda’ been a contender. You coulda’ been somebody. Instead of a bum, which is what you am.

Ah well. Still, if I’ve gotta be a bum, it’s best to be a beach bum.

Went down with all hands.

The height of a horse is measured in a unit called hands. In centimetres, what is the length of a hand? a) 5.5 centimetres, b) 10 centimetres, c) 10.16 centimetres, d) 12 centimetres

—

Stupid question.. A hand is a unit of height not length

Ian said:

The height of a horse is measured in a unit called hands. In centimetres, what is the length of a hand? a) 5.5 centimetres, b) 10 centimetres, c) 10.16 centimetres, d) 12 centimetres

—

Stupid question.. A hand is a unit of height not length

and an instrument of pleasure

easy one toady

Bogsnorkler said:

easy one toady

I don’t know about easy.

I’m struggling to find anything to be pedantic about, but I’m working on it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

easy one toady

I don’t know about easy.

I’m struggling to find anything to be pedantic about, but I’m working on it.

is the clock set to 24hr or 12hr and if 12hr then is there a little light that indicates whether it is AM or PM.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

easy one toady

I don’t know about easy.

I’m struggling to find anything to be pedantic about, but I’m working on it.

I’m a traditionalist with an analogue watch. None of this digital nonsense for me.
Seriously though, a kid once asked me what the time was……………… in digital.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

easy one toady

I don’t know about easy.

I’m struggling to find anything to be pedantic about, but I’m working on it.

I’m a traditionalist with an analogue watch. None of this digital nonsense for me.
Seriously though, a kid once asked me what the time was……………… in digital.

did you give them the time in binary?

Twice.

Twice.

Michael V said:

Twice.

that’s twice you’ve posted twice.

Bogsnorkler said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know about easy.

I’m struggling to find anything to be pedantic about, but I’m working on it.

I’m a traditionalist with an analogue watch. None of this digital nonsense for me.
Seriously though, a kid once asked me what the time was……………… in digital.

did you give them the time in binary?

Nah. It was at the V8 races. They’d heard about twin turbo but not binary.

Bogsnorkler said:

Michael V said:

Twice.

that’s twice you’ve posted twice.

2 × 2 = 4

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

easy one toady

I don’t know about easy.

I’m struggling to find anything to be pedantic about, but I’m working on it.

is the clock set to 24hr or 12hr and if 12hr then is there a little light that indicates whether it is AM or PM.

OK, I took the “that shows AM and PM” to mean it used AM/PM format, rather than 24 hours, but I guess we could argue about that if you like.

Anyway, I’m going for 20.

Michael V said:

Twice.

The 2nd one raised a :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know about easy.

I’m struggling to find anything to be pedantic about, but I’m working on it.

is the clock set to 24hr or 12hr and if 12hr then is there a little light that indicates whether it is AM or PM.

OK, I took the “that shows AM and PM” to mean it used AM/PM format, rather than 24 hours, but I guess we could argue about that if you like.

Anyway, I’m going for 20.

what is AM/PM format? the little indicator light?

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

is the clock set to 24hr or 12hr and if 12hr then is there a little light that indicates whether it is AM or PM.

OK, I took the “that shows AM and PM” to mean it used AM/PM format, rather than 24 hours, but I guess we could argue about that if you like.

Anyway, I’m going for 20.

what is AM/PM format? the little indicator light?

Could be a light. Could be a digital AM or PM indicator.

Either way, I’m assuming the time sequence from 1 minute after midnight goes:
12:01am, 1:01am … 11:01am, 12:01pm, 1:01pm, 11:01pm

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, I took the “that shows AM and PM” to mean it used AM/PM format, rather than 24 hours, but I guess we could argue about that if you like.

Anyway, I’m going for 20.

what is AM/PM format? the little indicator light?

Could be a light. Could be a digital AM or PM indicator.

Either way, I’m assuming the time sequence from 1 minute after midnight goes:
12:01am, 1:01am … 11:01am, 12:01pm, 1:01pm, 11:01pm

But I might have to rethink that. If it’s an old fashioned digital clock it will have 4 digits, each of which has to display something, so it will go:
12:01am, 01:01am … 11:01am, 12:01pm, 01:01pm, 11:01pm
which changes the answer.

Bogsnorkler said:

Michael V said:

Twice.

that’s twice you’ve posted twice.

How perceptive!

Some clocks show the leading zero. For such clocks the answer will be 4 times a day.
Other clocks, twice a day.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

Twice.

The 2nd one raised a :)

:)

dv said:

Some clocks show the leading zero. For such clocks the answer will be 4 times a day.
Other clocks, twice a day.

Would you like my list of 20 times for option 2?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Some clocks show the leading zero. For such clocks the answer will be 4 times a day.
Other clocks, twice a day.

Would you like my list of 20 times for option 2?

sure whatever

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Some clocks show the leading zero. For such clocks the answer will be 4 times a day.
Other clocks, twice a day.

Would you like my list of 20 times for option 2?

sure whatever

Ascending Descending
AM
12:34 6:54
1:23 5:43
2:34 4:32
3:45 3:21
4:56 2:10
PM
12:34 6:54
1:23 5:43
2:34 4:32
3:45 3:21
4:56 2:10

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Would you like my list of 20 times for option 2?

sure whatever

Ascending Descending
AM
12:34 6:54
1:23 5:43
2:34 4:32
3:45 3:21
4:56 2:10
PM
12:34 6:54
1:23 5:43
2:34 4:32
3:45 3:21
4:56 2:10

For some reason I thought this was about 4 consecutive digits but I see now that is not in the original question

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

sure whatever

Ascending Descending
AM
12:34 6:54
1:23 5:43
2:34 4:32
3:45 3:21
4:56 2:10
PM
12:34 6:54
1:23 5:43
2:34 4:32
3:45 3:21
4:56 2:10

For some reason I thought this was about 4 consecutive digits but I see now that is not in the original question

I’m glad we found something to be pedantic about anyway.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ascending Descending
AM
12:34 6:54
1:23 5:43
2:34 4:32
3:45 3:21
4:56 2:10
PM
12:34 6:54
1:23 5:43
2:34 4:32
3:45 3:21
4:56 2:10

For some reason I thought this was about 4 consecutive digits but I see now that is not in the original question

I’m glad we found something to be pedantic about anyway.

LOL

Boris said:

Kylie.

Still working on finding the pedants delight aspect.

Boris said:

I would say they are both equally likely.

1 x roll of 3 dice would be the same as 3 rolls of 1 dice, which would suggest there is a 50% chance of rolling a 6.

Dark Orange said:

Boris said:

I would say they are both equally likely.

1 x roll of 3 dice would be the same as 3 rolls of 1 dice, which would suggest there is a 50% chance of rolling a 6.

The chance of not rolling a 6 in three throws is (5/6)^3, which is > 0.5.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dark Orange said:

Boris said:

I would say they are both equally likely.

1 x roll of 3 dice would be the same as 3 rolls of 1 dice, which would suggest there is a 50% chance of rolling a 6.

The chance of not rolling a 6 in three throws is (5/6)^3, which is > 0.5.

I take no notice of anything Kylie has to say.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dark Orange said:

I would say they are both equally likely.

1 x roll of 3 dice would be the same as 3 rolls of 1 dice, which would suggest there is a 50% chance of rolling a 6.

The chance of not rolling a 6 in three throws is (5/6)^3, which is > 0.5.

I take no notice of anything Kylie has to say.

More fool you :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The chance of not rolling a 6 in three throws is (5/6)^3, which is > 0.5.

I take no notice of anything Kylie has to say.

More fool you :)

She’s one of Karen’s pseudonims.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

I take no notice of anything Kylie has to say.

More fool you :)

She’s one of Karen’s pseudonims.

Or I should say: It’s one of Karen’s pseudonims.

P(rolling a six) = 1/6
P(not rolling a six) = 5/6
P(not rolling a six over three independent rolls) = 5/6 × 5/6 × 5/6 = 125/216
P(of rolling at least one six over three independent rolls) = 1 – 125/216 = 91/216

Sorry James, but Kylie has the better odds..

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dark Orange said:

I would say they are both equally likely.

1 x roll of 3 dice would be the same as 3 rolls of 1 dice, which would suggest there is a 50% chance of rolling a 6.

The chance of not rolling a 6 in three throws is (5/6)^3, which is > 0.5.

I take no notice of anything Kylie has to say.

Don’t make her get the whip out…

diddly-squat said:

P(rolling a six) = 1/6
P(not rolling a six) = 5/6
P(not rolling a six over three independent rolls) = 5/6 × 5/6 × 5/6 = 125/216
P(of rolling at least one six over three independent rolls) = 1 – 125/216 = 91/216

Sorry James, but Kylie has the better odds..

That’s what I said :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

P(rolling a six) = 1/6
P(not rolling a six) = 5/6
P(not rolling a six over three independent rolls) = 5/6 × 5/6 × 5/6 = 125/216
P(of rolling at least one six over three independent rolls) = 1 – 125/216 = 91/216

Sorry James, but Kylie has the better odds..

That’s what I said :)

yes, yes you did…

I was actually surprised how close it ended up being to 50/50…

Boris said:

How accurate do you need it and how quickly can the 11 minute timer be reset?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Boris said:

How accurate do you need it and how quickly can the 11 minute timer be reset?

exact. instantaneously.

Boris said:

That’s an easy one.

Boris said:

When the 11 minute timer is at 8 minutes start the 7 minute timer.
What else have they got?

I assume they only be set to exactly 7 and 11? And there is no readout to say how far along they are? Otherwise, it’d be a simple thing to do…

Boris said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Boris said:

How accurate do you need it and how quickly can the 11 minute timer be reset?

exact. instantaneously.

OK, that makes it easy.
Egg timers can’t time exactly, so it can’t be done.

My non-pedantic answer is:
Start both timers simultaneously
When the 7 minute timer finishes, start timing.
The 11 minute timer will run for another 4 minutes, so reset when it finishes which will give you 4+11 = 15 minutes.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Boris said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How accurate do you need it and how quickly can the 11 minute timer be reset?

exact. instantaneously.

OK, that makes it easy.
Egg timers can’t time exactly, so it can’t be done.

My non-pedantic answer is:
Start both timers simultaneously
When the 7 minute timer finishes, start timing.
The 11 minute timer will run for another 4 minutes, so reset when it finishes which will give you 4+11 = 15 minutes.

these a spherical frictionless eggtimers operating in a perfect vacuum.

Boris said:

There’s a few ways you could do this.

You could do 11-7=4, 4+11=15
You could count the grains of sand in one of the timers and calculate a grains-per-minute number.
You could lift one of the timers to an altitude of 3,971,693.25 meters on a clear day with no wind, updrafts or downdrafts and then time it until impact with the ground.

Boris said:

Set them both going. When the 7 minute timer runs out, flip it. When the 11 minute timer runs out, flip the 7 minute timer again.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Boris said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How accurate do you need it and how quickly can the 11 minute timer be reset?

exact. instantaneously.

OK, that makes it easy.
Egg timers can’t time exactly, so it can’t be done.

My non-pedantic answer is:
Start both timers simultaneously
When the 7 minute timer finishes, start timing.
The 11 minute timer will run for another 4 minutes, so reset when it finishes which will give you 4+11 = 15 minutes.

Then you’d need to know 6 minutes in advance that you’d want to time 15 minutes.

If these are sand timers. Start at same time when the 7 finishes, turn it over, when the 11 finishes, turn the 7 again. When the that finished, that’s 15…

personally i’d just use the time in the pic which can be set to 15 minutes. flipping easier.

Boris said:

personally i’d just use the time® in the pic which can be set to 15 minutes. flipping easier.

Boris said:

Boris said:

personally i’d just use the time® in the pic which can be set to 15 minutes. flipping easier.

Eccles used to keep the time written on a piece of paper in his pocket.

furious said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Boris said:

exact. instantaneously.

OK, that makes it easy.
Egg timers can’t time exactly, so it can’t be done.

My non-pedantic answer is:
Start both timers simultaneously
When the 7 minute timer finishes, start timing.
The 11 minute timer will run for another 4 minutes, so reset when it finishes which will give you 4+11 = 15 minutes.

Then you’d need to know 6 minutes in advance that you’d want to time 15 minutes.

If these are sand timers. Start at same time when the 7 finishes, turn it over, when the 11 finishes, turn the 7 again. When the that finished, that’s 15…

I’m happy to acknowledge that is also a valid answer.

Even if you did nick it off dv.

The Rev Dodgson said:

furious said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, that makes it easy.
Egg timers can’t time exactly, so it can’t be done.

My non-pedantic answer is:
Start both timers simultaneously
When the 7 minute timer finishes, start timing.
The 11 minute timer will run for another 4 minutes, so reset when it finishes which will give you 4+11 = 15 minutes.

Then you’d need to know 6 minutes in advance that you’d want to time 15 minutes.

If these are sand timers. Start at same time when the 7 finishes, turn it over, when the 11 finishes, turn the 7 again. When the that finished, that’s 15…

I’m happy to acknowledge that is also a valid answer.

Even if you did nick it off dv.

I was typing on a phone, and he’s probably on a keyboard, so I probably started typing before him…

furious said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

furious said:

Then you’d need to know 6 minutes in advance that you’d want to time 15 minutes.

If these are sand timers. Start at same time when the 7 finishes, turn it over, when the 11 finishes, turn the 7 again. When the that finished, that’s 15…

I’m happy to acknowledge that is also a valid answer.

Even if you did nick it off dv.

I was typing on a phone, and he’s probably on a keyboard, so I probably started typing before him…

Master and apprentice, which is which though

Cymek said:

Master and apprentice,

almost a good name for a band.

X

ChrispenEvan said:

Well there are 28 pairs, and only 6 pairs work, so 22 pairs do not work, so you might need to try 23 pairs.

ChrispenEvan said:

I’m probably missing a more efficient solution here, but I’m going to dive in anyway and say 6.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I’m probably missing a more efficient solution here, but I’m going to dive in anyway and say 6.

Forget that. Didn’t read the question. I’ll get back to you.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I’m probably missing a more efficient solution here, but I’m going to dive in anyway and say 6.

Forget that. Didn’t read the question. I’ll get back to you.

sorry but your answer is locked in.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m probably missing a more efficient solution here, but I’m going to dive in anyway and say 6.

Forget that. Didn’t read the question. I’ll get back to you.

sorry but your answer is locked in.

so you mean dv loses

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I’m probably missing a more efficient solution here, but I’m going to dive in anyway and say 6.

Forget that. Didn’t read the question. I’ll get back to you.

OK, now I’m going for 27.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m probably missing a more efficient solution here, but I’m going to dive in anyway and say 6.

Forget that. Didn’t read the question. I’ll get back to you.

OK, now I’m going for 27.

No I’m not.
I did a different question again!
The answer is 14.

ChrispenEvan said:

1

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Forget that. Didn’t read the question. I’ll get back to you.

OK, now I’m going for 27.

No I’m not.
I did a different question again!
The answer is 14.

But it actually looks like the right method is here:
https://puzzlefry.com/puzzles/you-have-a-flashlight-and-8-batteries

Two responses there give the answer of 7, but after 6 negative trials you are left with one pair that must be both working, so you don’t need to try that one, so the answer is 6.

Just like I said at the start :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Forget that. Didn’t read the question. I’ll get back to you.

OK, now I’m going for 27.

No I’m not.
I did a different question again!
The answer is 14.

My answer is 8

Pair up each of the batteries and try them, that’s 4 tries. If one of the pairs works you have done it within 4 tries. If none of them work, you know that each of your pairs contain one working and one non-working battery. Select two of these pairs and mix and match them for another maximum of 4 possible combos and you are guaranteed to have a working pair.

4 + 4 = 8

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, now I’m going for 27.

No I’m not.
I did a different question again!
The answer is 14.

But it actually looks like the right method is here:
https://puzzlefry.com/puzzles/you-have-a-flashlight-and-8-batteries

Two responses there give the answer of 7, but after 6 negative trials you are left with one pair that must be both working, so you don’t need to try that one, so the answer is 6.

Just like I said at the start :)

This assumes the torch won’t work with one good and one dead battery ?

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No I’m not.
I did a different question again!
The answer is 14.

But it actually looks like the right method is here:
https://puzzlefry.com/puzzles/you-have-a-flashlight-and-8-batteries

Two responses there give the answer of 7, but after 6 negative trials you are left with one pair that must be both working, so you don’t need to try that one, so the answer is 6.

Just like I said at the start :)

This assumes the torch won’t work with one good and one dead battery ?

We do all seem to be assuming that.

Other than Ian.

Only Ian knows what Ian is assuming.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Forget that. Didn’t read the question. I’ll get back to you.

OK, now I’m going for 27.

No I’m not.
I did a different question again!
The answer is 14.

why not just go for between 1 and 100?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But it actually looks like the right method is here:
https://puzzlefry.com/puzzles/you-have-a-flashlight-and-8-batteries

Two responses there give the answer of 7, but after 6 negative trials you are left with one pair that must be both working, so you don’t need to try that one, so the answer is 6.

Just like I said at the start :)

This assumes the torch won’t work with one good and one dead battery ?

We do all seem to be assuming that.

Other than Ian.

Only Ian knows what Ian is assuming.

I would assume “my torch needs two good batteries” isn’t just a statement of preference, but a requirement for the torch to work.

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

This assumes the torch won’t work with one good and one dead battery ?

We do all seem to be assuming that.

Other than Ian.

Only Ian knows what Ian is assuming.

I would assume “my torch needs two good batteries” isn’t just a statement of preference, but a requirement for the torch to work.

I didn’t see that bit, my bad

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, now I’m going for 27.

No I’m not.
I did a different question again!
The answer is 14.

But it actually looks like the right method is here:
https://puzzlefry.com/puzzles/you-have-a-flashlight-and-8-batteries

Two responses there give the answer of 7, but after 6 negative trials you are left with one pair that must be both working, so you don’t need to try that one, so the answer is 6.

Just like I said at the start :)

Pedantically, you would need to insert (ie “try) the 7th pair in the torch to make the torch work but other than that I think Rev got the right answer… eventually :)

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No I’m not.
I did a different question again!
The answer is 14.

But it actually looks like the right method is here:
https://puzzlefry.com/puzzles/you-have-a-flashlight-and-8-batteries

Two responses there give the answer of 7, but after 6 negative trials you are left with one pair that must be both working, so you don’t need to try that one, so the answer is 6.

Just like I said at the start :)

Pedantically, you would need to insert (ie “try) the 7th pair in the torch to make the torch work but other than that I think Rev got the right answer… eventually :)

Whadyamean? That was my very first response :)

And in pedantic mode, when you insert the 7th pair in the torch you are not “trying” them because you know they will work. Youa re using them.

And following that logic, and in Ian mode, my other answer is 0.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, now I’m going for 27.

No I’m not.
I did a different question again!
The answer is 14.

But it actually looks like the right method is here:
https://puzzlefry.com/puzzles/you-have-a-flashlight-and-8-batteries

Two responses there give the answer of 7, but after 6 negative trials you are left with one pair that must be both working, so you don’t need to try that one, so the answer is 6.

Just like I said at the start :)

1

Just curious, has anyone ever seen a device or know of a device that exists which takes multiple of the rectangular 9V batteries?

esselte said:

Just curious, has anyone ever seen a device or know of a device that exists which takes multiple of the rectangular 9V batteries?

Tazers perhaps ?

esselte said:

Just curious, has anyone ever seen a device or know of a device that exists which takes multiple of the rectangular 9V batteries?

Nup

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, now I’m going for 27.

No I’m not.
I did a different question again!
The answer is 14.

But it actually looks like the right method is here:
https://puzzlefry.com/puzzles/you-have-a-flashlight-and-8-batteries

Two responses there give the answer of 7, but after 6 negative trials you are left with one pair that must be both working, so you don’t need to try that one, so the answer is 6.

Just like I said at the start :)

I’ll go along with 6 to start with as well.
I’ll have a look at the question later.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No I’m not.
I did a different question again!
The answer is 14.

But it actually looks like the right method is here:
https://puzzlefry.com/puzzles/you-have-a-flashlight-and-8-batteries

Two responses there give the answer of 7, but after 6 negative trials you are left with one pair that must be both working, so you don’t need to try that one, so the answer is 6.

Just like I said at the start :)

I’ll go along with 6 to start with as well.
I’ll have a look at the question later.

Wise decision.

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But it actually looks like the right method is here:
https://puzzlefry.com/puzzles/you-have-a-flashlight-and-8-batteries

Two responses there give the answer of 7, but after 6 negative trials you are left with one pair that must be both working, so you don’t need to try that one, so the answer is 6.

Just like I said at the start :)

Pedantically, you would need to insert (ie “try) the 7th pair in the torch to make the torch work but other than that I think Rev got the right answer… eventually :)

Whadyamean? That was my very first response :)

And in pedantic mode, when you insert the 7th pair in the torch you are not “trying” them because you know they will work. Youa re using them.

And following that logic, and in Ian mode, my other answer is 0.

Am I misreading the question?

What if the first pair of batteries you pick up are working?

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

Pedantically, you would need to insert (ie “try) the 7th pair in the torch to make the torch work but other than that I think Rev got the right answer… eventually :)

Whadyamean? That was my very first response :)

And in pedantic mode, when you insert the 7th pair in the torch you are not “trying” them because you know they will work. Youa re using them.

And following that logic, and in Ian mode, my other answer is 0.

Am I misreading the question?

What if the first pair of batteries you pick up are working?

Well it’s certainly a worthy topic for pedantic debate, but my interpretation was that the words “need” and “to guarantee” imply that the number of choices must ensure that you will always find a working pair, rather than the minimum number with which you might find a working pair.

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

Pedantically, you would need to insert (ie “try) the 7th pair in the torch to make the torch work but other than that I think Rev got the right answer… eventually :)

Whadyamean? That was my very first response :)

And in pedantic mode, when you insert the 7th pair in the torch you are not “trying” them because you know they will work. Youa re using them.

And following that logic, and in Ian mode, my other answer is 0.

Am I misreading the question?

What if the first pair of batteries you pick up are working?

But what if they are not? You can not “guarantee” that the first pair would work, which is a requirement

esselte said:

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Whadyamean? That was my very first response :)

And in pedantic mode, when you insert the 7th pair in the torch you are not “trying” them because you know they will work. Youa re using them.

And following that logic, and in Ian mode, my other answer is 0.

Am I misreading the question?

What if the first pair of batteries you pick up are working?

But what if they are not? You can not “guarantee” that the first pair would work, which is a requirement

To switch sides here, if you happen to choose two working batteries on the first go, after you have tried them you can guarantee that they work.

we think someone should invent quantum-powered batteries and torches and then there will be no guarantees

SCIENCE said:

we think someone should invent quantum-powered batteries and torches and then there will be no guarantees

Surely batteries are already quantum powered.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Whadyamean? That was my very first response :)

And in pedantic mode, when you insert the 7th pair in the torch you are not “trying” them because you know they will work. Youa re using them.

And following that logic, and in Ian mode, my other answer is 0.

Am I misreading the question?

What if the first pair of batteries you pick up are working?

Well it’s certainly a worthy topic for pedantic debate, but my interpretation was that the words “need” and “to guarantee” imply that the number of choices must ensure that you will always find a working pair, rather than the minimum number with which you might find a working pair.

So, a poor question.

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

Am I misreading the question?

What if the first pair of batteries you pick up are working?

Well it’s certainly a worthy topic for pedantic debate, but my interpretation was that the words “need” and “to guarantee” imply that the number of choices must ensure that you will always find a working pair, rather than the minimum number with which you might find a working pair.

So, a poor question.

In a thread labeled “..for pedants”, yes it’s a poor question :)

Otherwise though, it’s a question of language pragmatics. Most people should understand the task those setting the question were trying to get us to solve regardless of the quality or specificity of the text. It’s the same as if I say “I haven’t eaten breakfast yet” most everyone will assume I’m saying I haven’t eaten breakfast yet today, rather than I have never eaten breakfast in my life.

esselte said:

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well it’s certainly a worthy topic for pedantic debate, but my interpretation was that the words “need” and “to guarantee” imply that the number of choices must ensure that you will always find a working pair, rather than the minimum number with which you might find a working pair.

So, a poor question.

In a thread labeled “..for pedants”, yes it’s a poor question :)

Otherwise though, it’s a question of language pragmatics. Most people should understand the task those setting the question were trying to get us to solve regardless of the quality or specificity of the text. It’s the same as if I say “I haven’t eaten breakfast yet” most everyone will assume I’m saying I haven’t eaten breakfast yet today, rather than I have never eaten breakfast in my life.

But surely that makes it a good question as an “argument teaser for pedants”.

esselte said:

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well it’s certainly a worthy topic for pedantic debate, but my interpretation was that the words “need” and “to guarantee” imply that the number of choices must ensure that you will always find a working pair, rather than the minimum number with which you might find a working pair.

So, a poor question.

In a thread labeled “..for pedants”, yes it’s a poor question :)

Otherwise though, it’s a question of language pragmatics. Most people should understand the task those setting the question were trying to get us to solve regardless of the quality or specificity of the text. It’s the same as if I say “I haven’t eaten breakfast yet” most everyone will assume I’m saying I haven’t eaten breakfast yet today, rather than I have never eaten breakfast in my life.

Bollocks

Ian said:

esselte said:

Ian said:

So, a poor question.

In a thread labeled “..for pedants”, yes it’s a poor question :)

Otherwise though, it’s a question of language pragmatics. Most people should understand the task those setting the question were trying to get us to solve regardless of the quality or specificity of the text. It’s the same as if I say “I haven’t eaten breakfast yet” most everyone will assume I’m saying I haven’t eaten breakfast yet today, rather than I have never eaten breakfast in my life.

Bollocks

I don’t see what testicles have to do with it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

esselte said:

In a thread labeled “..for pedants”, yes it’s a poor question :)

Otherwise though, it’s a question of language pragmatics. Most people should understand the task those setting the question were trying to get us to solve regardless of the quality or specificity of the text. It’s the same as if I say “I haven’t eaten breakfast yet” most everyone will assume I’m saying I haven’t eaten breakfast yet today, rather than I have never eaten breakfast in my life.

Bollocks

I don’t see what testicles have to do with it.

language pragmatics

Most people should understand the task those setting the question were trying to get us to…

—

A pair of testicles.. Bollocks

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

Bollocks

I don’t see what testicles have to do with it.

language pragmatics

Most people should understand the task those setting the question were trying to get us to…

—

A pair of testicles.. Bollocks

But most people did understand the task :)

I put the question to my wife and son.

Both quickly replied.. 1

ChrispenEvan said:

I’m going for 1/3.

Struggling to find anything to be pedantic about at the moment.

ChrispenEvan said:

Well there are 6 ways for the cups to be situated. 2 of these are all wrong. So 1/3.

ChrispenEvan said:

It depends.

Assuming transporting and selling apples is your business you can deliver 3000 apples from your near infinite supply, and also pay the required 3000 apples for the toll for 3 trips.

OTOH, if you have to pay the toll at the end of the trip rathjer than the beginning, you would have to hand over your entire load for the toll every trip, so clearly you wouldn’t bother, so the answer is zero.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

It depends.

Assuming transporting and selling apples is your business you can deliver 3000 apples from your near infinite supply, and also pay the required 3000 apples for the toll for 3 trips.

OTOH, if you have to pay the toll at the end of the trip rathjer than the beginning, you would have to hand over your entire load for the toll every trip, so clearly you wouldn’t bother, so the answer is zero.

well if CHINA are going to block our exports to them, may as well find another customer thanks for playing the end goodbye full stop

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

It depends.

Assuming transporting and selling apples is your business you can deliver 3000 apples from your near infinite supply, and also pay the required 3000 apples for the toll for 3 trips.

OTOH, if you have to pay the toll at the end of the trip rathjer than the beginning, you would have to hand over your entire load for the toll every trip, so clearly you wouldn’t bother, so the answer is zero.

well if CHINA are going to block our exports to them, may as well find another customer thanks for playing the end goodbye full stop

Bananaland people don’t eat apples.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

It depends.

Assuming transporting and selling apples is your business you can deliver 3000 apples from your near infinite supply, and also pay the required 3000 apples for the toll for 3 trips.

OTOH, if you have to pay the toll at the end of the trip rathjer than the beginning, you would have to hand over your entire load for the toll every trip, so clearly you wouldn’t bother, so the answer is zero.

well if CHINA are going to block our exports to them, may as well find another customer thanks for playing the end goodbye full stop

goodbye full stop?

But I have only just started to explore the possibilities.

That tax is prohibitive.
I knew this would happen under labor.

Peak Warming Man said:

That tax is prohibitive.
I knew this would happen under labor.

Won’t be easy under Albanese

So basically the ABC have zhuzhed up the old puzzle about moving fuel by using apples instead.

Bogsnorkler said:

27?

dv said:

Bogsnorkler said:

27?

quite possibly. co-primes and all that.

Bogsnorkler said:

dv said:

Bogsnorkler said:

27?

quite possibly. co-primes and all that.

My thinking was just to think of the mod 5 sets

8 is the lowest mod 5 = 3 you could do
16 the lowest mod 5 = 1
24 the lowest mod 5 = 4
32 the lowest mod 5 = 2
So … five less than that.

dv said:

Bogsnorkler said:

dv said:

27?

quite possibly. co-primes and all that.

My thinking was just to think of the mod 5 sets

8 is the lowest mod 5 = 3 you could do
16 the lowest mod 5 = 1
24 the lowest mod 5 = 4
32 the lowest mod 5 = 2
So … five less than that.

Matt Hudson
The biggest number that can’t be made from two co-primes (a and b) is a*b – a – b
Since 5 and 8 are co-prime, the answer is 40 – 8 – 5 = 27