Not to my knowledge, but I'm not much into dice games. Except M&Ms risk.
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
I think I got it. Seemed to work for me any way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, the name of the game is Mr. Obvious. Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
I didn't have it before. I do now. The name of the game does matter!
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Yes, I just now got it -- and only after I finally read the part of the page where it said that name of the game was significant. Then it made sense.
Farmgirl
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
When I first read that line I thought it had something to do with significant figures!
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Time elapsed since I started trying to figure this out: approx. 2 hours, 20 minutes.
How far I've gotten: Nowhere.
A brilliant victory for the Retarded Monkeys Club.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
wooooo! Retarded monkeys!
I haven't figured it out either. Everytime I think I have a clue I'm wrong.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
. . . and eight minutes later the answer is mine.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
darn you! I still don't have it!!!
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
Here's a clue: Stop thinking. Works every time!
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
This game makes no sense. Petals around the rose? The only way that could be significant would be if the numbers were possible numbers of petals on a rose, and that still doesn't help calculate. *sigh*
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
Don't try to calculate. It won't help. Did you read the story?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I had it right for three in a row, then I lost it again. Aaarrrrg!
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I read the story. You have to calculate _something_ to get any score at all.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Julie, you're cheating. No clues.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Don't worry, Saxon. The story tells me nothing except that the smarter you are the more impossible it gets.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Macc, I took no such oath as I haven't figured it out yet, and this is what I think I have so far:
It has something to do with doubles When there are two sets of doubles, the number goes up When there are three fives, the answer is sometimes twelve and sometimes fourteen.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
My G&T teacher tormented us with this for about five minutes once a week over the course of several months until we all got it.
She made it harder by telling us about "flowers that aren't roses"...
But she bent our brains, which is always a good thing.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
The only thing I can come up with is that the letters could stand for numbers. But that doesn't work either. This is hopeless.
[Addited] This will be stuck in my brain for the rest of my life. There is no pattern whatsoever.
We hates it! We hates it forever!!!
[ December 01, 2003, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
Hmmm, well, I figured it out, but I can't say as I understand what the name has to do with anything.
HC
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
Then you might not have figured it out. I thought that too and it turned out that my "pattern" was a coincedence that lasted a surprisingly long time.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh
my head hurts. and i've only been trying for 10 minutes!
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
I was showing my dad with real dice. He gave up and asked what the secret was. I told him I couldn't tell him but I gave him the link. Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
The site is playing a keyboard-MIDI version of Rush's "Red Barchetta."
How can anything be so cool and so lame at the same time.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
What a relief - I got it.
Now I can get back to work (huh, who am I kidding?)
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I found it. (No, I haven't been working on it all this time--I went to get some pictures taken with family right after I found it.)
Specifically, I found it on Google. How's that for thinking outside the box?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Hmm, I think that kind of thinking outside the box is also referred to as cheating...
The question is - which member of the Fraternity of Petals around the Rose divulged the secret?!?
Maybe there's a Fraternity of Petals around the Rose Mafia.... they better watch out.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Maybe I'm too math-oriented, but I got it as of the first try. For me it was incredibly easy, but you can ask Mama -- that's just how my brain works. I went ten for ten, so I assume my reasoning was correct. Or I need to hit Vegas really soon.
--Pop
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I think I took longer cos I'm too math orientated. I had a really nifty indices system going for a little while.
Needless to say, it didn't work.
I guess it is one of those things that looks so obvious when you get it - whether that's on the first or fiftieth role.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
i tried it five times. then i searched on google for the answer. so, needless to say, i figured it out.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Searching on Google does not count as "figuring it out" -- particularly not after a whopping five attempts. *rolls eyes*
I don't know whether I'm more ashamed of those of you who caved -- on what is, after all, actually a very easy puzzle; more than one of us got it on literally our first guess -- or the traitors who posted the answer online.
[ December 01, 2003, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
Oh, I got it all right. I verified my solution (not by googling, or getting the answer outright, but another way). I guess I just don't get the meaning of the title. Regardless. My mathematically inclined mind figured it out relatively quickly. Not on the first try mind you, as I needed a sample set to work from without any prior knowledge.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
The "traitors" were little kids who probably did not realize they were letting the secret slip. Ah, the innocence of youth. They didn't say it in so many words, but they gave me the clue.
I would never have associated the "petals around the rose" with the solution--quite possibly not if I worked on the problem my entire life. I just don't think that way. I was trying to remember what I learned in botany about what kinds of flowers have multiples of what number of petals.
So yeah, I cheated. I don't see it as any different than, say, turning off clipping when you see how to get through a video game puzzle but no matter how long you practice you just aren't dextrous enough for it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't see it as any different than, say, turning off clipping when you see how to get through a video game puzzle but no matter how long you practice you just aren't dextrous enough for it."
Yeah, but I see THAT as cheating, too. Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
I have to admit, I am completely stumped... I have been trying all morning. Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Tom> There was a time when I did, too. Then I began playing Doom (until I beat it; I forget which iteration it was). Every single puzzle yielded relatively easily except for one spot where you had to run over these columns sticking up over the acid. If I turned early, I toppled in. If I waited and turned a bit later, I skidded off the columns and toppled in on the other side. If I walked instead of running, naturally I fell in between the columns.
After going over and over this many many times I finally concluded the game had been misdesigned, there was no way of doing it "right", and the only way through was to just turn off clipping and go. I did take a big hit from the acid, which I considered payment.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I've been getting it semi-correct, but that is only because I read the Bill Gates story and am doing exactly what he did as far as remembering previous rolls.
Grrrr. I'm too stubborn to google it though it is tempting!
AJ
Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
I have tried googling it banna, and havent been able to find any answers. All I can find are people who are sworn to secrecy! Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Cyruseh, after whining (I played it most of yesterday) I went back and played it today.
Actually what I did was I went and looked at that thread about Bill Gates, and I studied those rolls since there were more on the screen at once. Once you see it, it IS stupidly easy. I think I've got the algorithm figured out too which isn't a hard one, once you know the premise. I'm amazed that Happy could figure it out only mathematically though without actually looking at the dice.
I wonder if it is actually harder or easier for people who are numerically oriented compared to visually oriented. I know I was too caught up in trying to pull wild equations out of my rear to actually see the obvious. It wasn't until my eyes caught the visual patterns of several rolls next to each other that I got it.
AJ
[ December 02, 2003, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm sure it is. But that's only because numerically-oriented people can't see the obvious. j/k
Seriously, I think it's because your typical numerically-oriented person thinks in terms of mathematical patterns, and this puzzle doesn't.
Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
Yes, the whole time I was doing different math equations on the dice, I would have never gotten it.
I have it now, and since I got it by cheating (googling) should I still swear to secrecy? Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Sorry tom, I edited my first post to change it. If you think your average numerically oriented person doesn't get it as often, then how does that explain you or Moose?
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not numerical at all, believe it or not. Numbers make my tummy hurt.
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
*smacks forehead* now I understand the title. And normally I do get the whole visually oriented thing. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
So you are a non-numerical nerd then Tom?
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Or are you constantly popping antacid as a computer administrator? AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, it's amazing how few numbers are actually required in order to administrate a computer. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:I know I was too caught up in trying to pull wild equations out of my rear to actually see the obvious.
What is it about the human rectum that makes it such a powerful generator of wild equations and random theories? Simply amazing.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Happy, I didn't understand the title until after I figured out the pattern. But then I realized you didn't actually understand the pattern entirely if you didn't think the name made sense. In my other post, I was also trying to give enough clues to cyruseh to figure it out without Tom beating me over the head for giving it away, but he googled it first. (cheater! )
AJ
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
When I say I'm number-oriented, I don't mean that I look at the number 1729 and think, "Hey, that's the smallest number that can be expressed as the sum of the cubes of two positive integers in more than one way." I mean that I see the numeric relationships in everything, be it music, literature, art, bridge, or just about anything else. It's like synesthesia with numbers, if I correctly understand synesthesia. What I saw immediately in this case was the relationship between the numbers on the dice and the title of the game. It doesn't require cal-cool-us, but it's still math to me.
--Pop
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Saxon, I was so far afield yesterday that I was contemplating whether the heaviside step function would get me anywhere.
AJ
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Don't feel too bad, AJ. I had pulled out my trusty spreadsheet and was starting a combinatorial analysis before I got it.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
It took me about an hour of trying to work out equations and writing down the numbers and comparing results and a lot of muttering under my breath before I stopped. About 2 minutes after I stopped, it came to me and I went and confirmed it. I am a mathematical person, but have never done as well with "Visual Math".
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I never did like geometry, but I could visualize 3-D calculus functions just fine.
AJ
[ December 02, 2003, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
I never had problems with the calculus, but I didn't bother visualizing them most of the time if I could avoid it. I understood how they worked visually, but didn't need to actually visualize things to figure them out most of the time. Sadly, I don't remember much calculus since switching from math to computers as my focus.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I remember I nearly kicked one of my physics lab partners butt from here to Saturday, even though he was a windsurfer dude that was twice as big as me and looked like a walking advertisement for Michalangelo's David. He went on this big spiel about how he'd watched on the Discovery Channel that guys brains were wired better than girls to visualize abstract stuff. Well Mr. "my brain's wired correctly" couldn't visualize his way through a circuit diagram and I had to re-wire the entire experiment before it worked. (The whole time he was giving me these "you're doing it wrong" looks as I tried to figure out where he messed up.) I wasn't terribly amused. I managed not to gloat since I knew I had to get along with him for the rest of the semester, and he was eye candy and more intelligent than the lab partner the semester before who had decided that he should stalk me.
AJ
[ December 02, 2003, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
I still say that if you don't understand the title you're doing it wrong. Either that or you don't know why you're doing what you're doing which is pretty much the same thing. I'm a numbers/math person but I figured it out fairly quickly.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
It's funny. I don't do nearly as well with visual math, but stuff like circuits I can visualize without much trouble at all. My lab partner for Digital Logic was a female and we were about equal in the class. Together we averaged 99% in the lab portion of the class.
When I took calculus in grade 12 I had no problems, but it was taught in a very formula, numeric method. When I took basically the same course the next year in college (because it was required) it was taught in a graphical way and we were expected to show our answers in that manner. I didn't do nearly as well in the college course almost exclusively due to the visual components.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Weirdly enough while I didn't mind the electricity in physics, I hated Electrical science in Engineering. It wasn't the teacher either, it was me, I just got bored with it all.
AJ
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Wow! I actually started a thread and made it to two pages! Does that make me a true Hatracker now?
Farmgirl
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
Hmmm, Julie, you insult me. Not that I'm trying to get defensive here, but I felt I had to respond. As I recall, the idea behind the game, as that site states, is to figure out how the answer is calculated. Which is exactly what I did. The answer to the game is not to state what the relevance of the game is to the title. So I did a different way, which happens to be one of the reasons I'm good at what I do. I tend to arrive at solutions to problems via unconventional routes. For instance, once in High School physics I managed to obtain the solution to a problem on an exam by using algebra and backing into it instead of using basic arithmetic. Anyway, I personally think that the solution I came up with was just as valid as anyone's, but I rightfully admit the fact that it took me about 24 hours to realize the significance. What can I say? Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
In that case Happy, can you or anyone figure out the proof behind this one?
I mean figuring out the calculation trick is easy and took me all of maybe 2 minutes. But I still don't know the proof behind it. I gave it to one of my friends who has a Master's in math. He said it kept him awake thinking about it for a couple nights. He thought it had to do with subtraction in binary but he isn't completely sure.
AJ
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Yes, I can figure it out, and no, it doesn't have to do with subtracting in binary.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:Seriously, I think it's because your typical numerically-oriented person thinks in terms of mathematical patterns, and this puzzle doesn't.
Tom gave it away to me. I'd been trying to figure out a mathematical solution based on the fact that the result had to be zero or even, but once clued in on the fact that it wasn't necessarily mathematical, starring at the puzzle worked pretty fast.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Pop figuring out the trick is easy, like I said it took me under 2 minutes much to my co-workers chagrin because they had no idea how it worked. What I want to know is WHY it works. That part is the proof. Can you make it work with x's y's and z's like you can with ordinary numbers and if so why?
AJ
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
quote:*smacks forehead* now I understand the title. And normally I do get the whole visually oriented thing.
yeah, me too. That took forever! Or at least, until I changed my idea of what the petals were.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Yes, I can. Do you need a rigorous proof, or will a systematic explanation do for you?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Here's a fun site that talks about a teacher using PATR in a classroom setting.
It also has some hints. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Basically I want to know why a subtraction of two numbers with the same digits in a different order, results in a number whose digits add up to nine or a multiple thereof.
However you can explain that go for it!
AJ
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
That was fun. Took my mind off heresy for a while. Oh well, back to the stake. . .
(I'm spending a lot of time with the gnostic gospels and Elaine Pagels' stuff in particular. At first, "Petals around the Rose" made me think of "The Name of the Rose" which made me think of church history, heresy, the Knights Templar and things that had absolutely nothing to do with dice.)
Q.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Ok, the digits are w,x,y,z. Each is multiplied by a power (from 0 to 3) of ten. Any power of ten minus any other power of ten is evenly divisible by nine. That is, (x-1) is always a factor of (x^m)-(x^n). I can give you a proof for that if you want, or you can just believe me*. So the difference of the numbers will be 9i(w)+9j(x)+9k(y)+9l(z) for some integers i,j,k,l. The sum of the digits of any number divisible by nine will be another number divisible by nine. Proof of that is the same as above, but the destination power of ten is always zero; most people simply accept it as an axiom in base ten. I apologize that this isn't really clear, but I didn't plan on writing an essay, so I'm trying to give only the outline. Is that enough, or do I need to try to explain further?
Thus x-1 is always a factor.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Actually, I'm not that numerically-oriented. There are a lot of things I prefer to think about visually. It's just that there's not much crossover.
So when I started reading about even numbers or zero, and so on, nothing but algorithms would occur to me.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hey Papa Moose,
Thanks for the explanation. I'm going to e-mail it to my math friend that couldn't figure it out. I was beating myself up last night for not being able to figure it out. Why hadn't I learned the algebra to figure that out? I then had a minor lightbulb moment. You see, over time I've forgotten how abnormal I really am. I'd completely forgotten that all the algebra I learned (with the exception of linear algebra) was almost 15 years ago and that I taught it to myself while working through textbooks while I was homeschooled, before I went to the community college. So really it isn't surprising that I have gaps in my algebra. What is more suprising was that I hadn't ever really encountered a major one before now!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
j/k![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
So you are a non-numerical nerd then Tom?![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)