niviene Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 It took me about 3 minutes to figure it out.... I guess that makes me pretty dumb, LOL!!! If you haven't figured it out, send me a PM and I'll tell you at least what I think the solution is.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 What different method can be used??It really is all in the name..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockytriton Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 I'll PM you with how I figured it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niviene Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 I'll PM you with how I figured it out. I wanna know what you did, too.... I just started guessing and noticed a pattern. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokinjoe9 Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 I like it, but man I had a hard time figuring it out...It took me like 15 minutes. Ha, my kind of puzzle.....I never dig to deep into something, so this one's for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Mind Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 If you haven't figured it out, send me a PM and I'll tell you at least what I think the solution is.... I already know the "right" way to do it, but thanks! :eek: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Mind Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 I'll PM you with how I figured it out. Thank you. :eek: Very nice explanation, and I was proven wrong. :eek: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niviene Posted May 19, 2005 Report Share Posted May 19, 2005 Thank you. :shrug: Very nice explanation, and I was proven wrong. :o LOL :o As was I.... that's why I wanted to ask you how you did it... I wasn't sure if I was right or just getting lucky every time. :P He does have a much more scientific method about it than I did..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Mind Posted May 19, 2005 Report Share Posted May 19, 2005 Me too, I just used the more... I can't think of anything without giving it away... I guess, the less "mathematical" way. Good job rockytriton! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleAl Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 The solution is a bad pun. One is reminded of the game Jessica Tanner, Jessica Tanner likes noodles but not pasta,accountants but not CPAs,slippers but not shoes,books but not newspapers,sheep but not goats,mutton but not lamb,actresses but not actors,missiles but not rockets,rabbis but not priests,grasshoppers but not crickets,etc. You see it or you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chacmool Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 This is a nasty little puzzle. Very sneaky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAHD Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 This hurts my brain, e verytime I think I've got it it throws me a new loop...owowowow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 He he. I got in after about 10 attempts. That is one cool puzzle! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 i still don't get it. i try many times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted June 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 i still don't get it. i try many times.Maybe this version will help... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skuinders Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 I solved it in about 9 minutes... but then I tried to see if a neural network could find a way to generate correct petal counts. The dice roll data was encoded as follows:N = number of rollsND = number of dice in each roll the input is a NxND matrix of random values from 1 to 6 the class (desired output) vector holds the petal count corresponding to each row (roll) of the input matrix using a simple backpropagation NN, it is not possible to solve this problem as encoded the above way because of the inherent non-linearity of the problem. (if you plot the 2D case, you can clearly see that the petal counts are not linearly separable and a simple non-linear function is not immediately clear either). there are other (more trivial) ways you could encode the roll information and make it work, but these would be of little use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nkt Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 I got it wrong three times, right twice (for the wrong reason), then got it wrong twice, then got it right consistently, and for the right reason. Reminds me of the Good Dragon, Bad Dragon thing! *shuudddder* Learned my over-analysis lesson the hard way with that one, shouting down 400 other graduates from the stage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.