RW, love it! The Great British tradition of rounds does not however extend to requiring everyone to have to turn up at the same time.
Once again though, how do you set up the 'triple click' thing?
Bigtone53 wrote:Once again though, how do you set up the 'triple click' thing?
[quote="Triple click below to see what I"][color=white]Insert your text here![/color][/quote]
Triple click below to see what I wrote:Insert your text here!
Bigtone53 wrote:It is well known that certain people suffer from fibobia after drinking beer. If you suffer from this unfortunate affliction, then of any 5 statements you may make, the number of false ones is the same as the number of pints you have had. A,B C D and E all suffer from fibobia and I asked them one night how many pints of beer they had had. These were the answers
A said " I've had 4, E 3, B 5,C 1 and D 2"
B said " I've had 4, C 3, A 5, E 1 and D 2"
C said " I've had 3, E 2, B 5, A 1 and D 4"
D said " I've had 4, E 3, B 5, C 2 and A 1"...
Triple click below to see what re'born wrote:The key observation for me was to note that the sum of digits must be 10. This immediately implies that for n>=5, then the number in the nth position (I label the positions as the 0th through 9th positions) is either 0 or 1. From here I noted that if 1 occurs in the nth-position, then this will imply a sum of digits of at least 1 + n + n*r, where r is the position in which n lays. If we can deduce that r<>1, then we get a sum of digits at least 4 + n + n*r.
udosuk wrote:Triple click below to see what re'born wrote:The key observation for me was to note that the sum of digits must be 10. This immediately implies that for n>=5, then the number in the nth position (I label the positions as the 0th through 9th positions) is either 0 or 1. From here I noted that if 1 occurs in the nth-position, then this will imply a sum of digits of at least 1 + n + n*r, where r is the position in which n lays. If we can deduce that r<>1, then we get a sum of digits at least 4 + n + n*r.
Re'born, although the last sentence is probably true, I think you should have explained a bit how you came to this conclusion. Let's say if I'm a teacher marking you on this proof I wouldn't give you full marks for this "logical gap".
Triple click below to see what re'born wrote:If r<>1, then r=0 and there is a 1 in the nth position, an n in the 0th position and at least a 2 in the 1st position, hence at least a 1 in 2nd position. So we have 1 + n + 2 + 1 = 4 + n (the +n*r is missing since r = 0).
re'born wrote:Hee Hee. Fair enough, Herr Professor.Triple click below to see what re'born wrote:If r<>1, then r=0 and there is a 1 in the nth position, an n in the 0th position and at least a 2 in the 1st position, hence at least a 1 in 2nd position. So we have 1 + n + 2 + 1 = 4 + n (the +n*r is missing since r = 0).