Slip...'possible situation' does not match knowing 'for sure'...as interesting as your thinking may be...
On Mar 12, 8:44 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Forget the odds, still the procedure that I presented IS one > "possible" situation. It is possible that it would turn out that way > for me and so I would identify the odd ball with only 2 weigh-ins. > > On Mar 12, 10:30 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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.
