Uhhh, odds have nothing to do with it since I clearly said “*for sure*”…in other words, all possible situations must be addressed…not just chance.
On Mar 12, 7:11 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Odds would have to play a part. > > 11 balls are equal, so weighing 5 and 5 may, with good odds, > establishes 10 as equal, leaving only 2 in question. One of those > two is either lighter or heavier. Knowing the others are equal it > would only take one more weigh-in to establish the odd ball, for a > total of 2 weigh-ins. However, it may not work that easily because > the odds might be against the first weighing resulting in 10 equal > weights. > > Eliminating the equal weights as soon as possible reveals the odd > ball. What are the odds? > > But the question being "what is the "Least" number of weighings...." > implies excellent odds, therefore it would have to be 2 as it plays > out like this; > > Only two balls are weighed and one side lowers, obviously one ball > being the lighter or heavier ball and the other being equal weight to > the other 10. One ball is then removed, noting its weight and put off > to the side as one of the other ten is placed on the scale. If they > balance out then the removed ball is the odd ball and if they don't > balance out the ball left on the scale for the second weigh-in is the > odd ball and depending on whether or not it lowered or raised > determines it heavier of lighter weight among the rest. Answer, with > ultimate odds, is 2. > > On Mar 12, 7:25 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > By the way, I first found the problem in a Scientific American decades > > ago. I solved it in about 45 min. Slow, yes...however, over the years, > > I've come up w/3 different possible correct solutions. > > > On Mar 11, 9:18 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ok, I found it on the net(yes, I cheated.) It seems an offal lot of > > > work for ONE less weighing. Did I mention I'm laZy? On a > > > cost/benefit analysis I believe my way is better. And I'm stickin' to > > > it.;-) > > > > Puzzles Smuzzles. *harrumph* > > > > dj > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:08 PM, ornamentalmind > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > incorrect > > > > > On Mar 11, 9:04 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I thought about it again. Actually, you could put half in on scale > > > >> and half in another. 1)One would be heavier. So then you split one > > > >> side again and weight them.2)If they are even then you know that > > > >> different ball didn't come from that side and now you know if the ball > > > >> is heavier or lighter. 3)You split the balls(3 each scale) with the > > > >> odd ball in them to narrow it down. 4)weigh two of the remaining 3-if > > > >> they are even you know the 3rd is your odd ball. If one is(lighter or > > > >> heavier based on earlier discovery) you know that one is the oddball. > > > > >> So 4 times. > > > > >> I think. > > > > >> dj > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > Total guess is six but you can stop as soon as the scales aren't > > > >> > equal. > > > > >> > dj > > > > >> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:53 PM, ornamentalmind > > > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> >> Years ago I proffered this puzzle to ME: > > > > >> >> 12 balls…all appear to be identical. One and only one of them is a > > > >> >> little heavier OR a little lighter than the rest. > > > >> >> You have a balance scale…two pans hanging similar to what the statue > > > >> >> of blind justice holds. > > > > >> >> Problem: What is the *least* number of weighings necessary to know > > > >> >> *for sure* which of the 12 is different *and* whether the specific > > > >> >> ball is lighter or heavier than the rest? > > > > >> >> On Mar 11, 7:32 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > >> >> wrote: > > > >> >>> Indeed...I'd hate to hear you lost your marbles! > > > > >> >>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> > > > >> >>> wrote: > > > >> >>> > lmao, I'd be nuts to even consider it. > > > > >> >>> > On Mar 11, 9:28 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > >> >>> > wrote: > > > >> >>> > > Fortunately it wasn't a botched vasectomy, or you might not > > > >> >>> > > have had the > > > >> >>> > > balls! > > > > >> >>> > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> > > > >> >>> > > wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > I'm in recovery right now after a botched operation. I had > > > >> >>> > > > my gall > > > >> >>> > > > bladder removed and the doctor accidentally cut out part of > > > >> >>> > > > my > > > >> >>> > > > stomach. I was beyond upset but when I told him I was going > > > >> >>> > > > to file a > > > >> >>> > > > lawsuit he said I didn't have the guts. > > > > >> >>> > > > On Mar 11, 9:19 pm, Chris Jenkins > > > >> >>> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > > Not that I'm above them... > > > > >> >>> > > > > Two maggots were fighting in dead Ernest. > > > > >> >>> > > > > Sticks float. They wood. > > > > >> >>> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Chris Jenkins > > > >> >>> > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > >> >>> > > > > > *dying* > > > > >> >>> > > > > > Puns are the worst. > > > > >> >>> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Slip Disc > > > >> >>> > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > >> >>> > wrote: > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> Then of course you should know How Long was the Chinese > > > >> >>> > > > > >> man's name > > > >> >>> > and > > > >> >>> > > > > >> how to make an Egg Roll, right? > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> On Mar 11, 8:49 pm, Chris Jenkins > > > >> >>> > > > > >> <[email protected]> > > > >> >>> > wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > Great fun! I've always been a fan of riddles and > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > puzzle games. > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Slip Disc > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > <[email protected]> > > > >> >>> > > > wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > Yeah, I knew the original set would lay waste to the > > > >> >>> > complexity, > > > >> >>> > > > but > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > it would have on it's own without the correlation > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > proved to be > > > >> >>> > > > more > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > perplexing. It was fun at the least. > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > On Mar 11, 8:39 pm, Chris Jenkins > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > <[email protected] > > > > >> >>> > > > wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > If you check the time stamps, it took about five > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > minutes. :D > > > >> >>> > The > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > predictable > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > range of the downward progression led me > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > immediately to the > > > >> >>> > > > > >> correlation > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > with > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > the original set. Calculus, for the win! > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Slip Disc < > > > >> >>> > [email protected]> > > > >> >>> > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > Simply smashing ol chap, I'm a bit gobsmacked. > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > How many hours did it take you? hehehe! > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > On Mar 11, 8:03 pm, Chris Jenkins < > > > >> >>> > [email protected] > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > I'm still waiting for the response from Slip! > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > He > > > >> >>> > apparently > > > >> >>> > > > > >> didn't > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > take > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > my > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > order, and tonight's overnight rate is > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > increasing > > > >> >>> > > > .0345343782%! > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 3:24 AM, archytas < > > > >> >>> > > > > >> [email protected]> > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > Collaterally derivitise that last option > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > Chris! > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > On 11 Mar, 03:17, Chris Jenkins < > > > >> >>> > > > [email protected]> > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Elementary, my dear boy! > > > > >> >>> > > > 6.5192024052026487145829715574291844165280937789100654589503 > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Slip > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Disc < > > > >> >>> > > > > >> [email protected]> > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Well Chris, you're really sharp so, > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > what is the > > > >> >>> > next > > > >> >>> > > > in > > > >> >>> > > > > >> this > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > sequence? > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 20.024984394500785727697212148323, > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 13.114877048604001304688219995272, > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 9.230384607371460986883556451096, > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ?........................................? > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hint: It also has to do with the > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Universe. > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Anyone? > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 8:20 am, Chris Jenkins < > > > >> >>> > > > > >> [email protected]> > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > *laughing* > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Indeed, sir, Douglas Adams is who I > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > was > > > >> >>> > referring > > > >> >>> > > > to. > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Slip > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Disc < > > > >> >>> > > > > >> [email protected] > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Come to think of it, probably that > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > was what > > > >> >>> > Chris > > > >> >>> > > > was > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > referring > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > too. > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > The solar reference threw me off > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > but the real > > > >> >>> > > > problem > > > >> >>> > > > > >> was > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > that > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > I > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > had > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > just finished off a six pack of > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Samuel Adams. > > > > >> >>> >http://www.samueladams.com/verification/?nocookie > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Now I'll have that cigar but first > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > cut 82.5 > > > >> >>> > off > > > >> >>> > > > it's > > > >> >>> > > > > >> length > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > to > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > remove > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > the bad tasting stuff. > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 6:46 am, Lee > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > >> >>> > > > wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Ahhh and here I was thinking > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Douglas Adams. > > > >> >>> > He > > > >> >>> > > > of > > > >> >>> > > > > >> the > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > '42' > > > >> >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > quote. > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
