Till the lights go out

Dory Dory · 12-02-2013 2:44am

shotgunmcos wrote: »

No chance! Oh and an appeal, the chocolate on the rice krispies buns was gluten free, not my usual choice...

No birthday cake. A birthday swim set.

So let me get this straight....gluten free rice Krispies buns trump a chocolatey chocolate deep dark devil's food homemade by your lovely Caz birthday cake?? With ice cream on top? Really?? Oh....go on.....

interested · 12-02-2013 9:38am

in the good old days anyone at the pool for their birthday got a special birthday set (age*100's or similar) and thrown into the pool with their clothes on. If you're not going to do a set of 30 something 100's then ....

Oryx · 12-02-2013 9:48am

interested wrote: »

in the good old days anyone at the pool for their birthday got a special birthday set (age*100's or similar) and thrown into the pool with their clothes on. If you're not going to do a set of 30 something 100's then ....

In my case that would be one of those epic swims.I did a swim session on my birthday but thankfully noone knew.

Oryx · 12-02-2013 10:59pm

More swimming tonight. I had no clue what was coming but halfway through the warmup I just got an instinct... and I was right: 1500 tt. Oh well. Let's just get it done.

I didn't take off hard as had been instructed, but began steady. I'm in back to base mode, see?:) Settled into a good pace and tried to keep my pull strong and work on a good catch. Caught one guy a few lengths in, and got lapped halfway by another. Stayed on his feet though. Free speed

He lost count and finished too early, I didn't and did the last bit on my own. Tried to up the speed and finish strong. 31.35, which is a big improvement of about 3 mins on the last one of these. Happy.

Finished with a few drills 2250.

shotgunmcos · 12-02-2013 11:20pm

Well done!

Oryx · 13-02-2013 3:29pm

Bright and breezy turbo this morning. 7-8am accompanied by beat fm. I particularly like working on Vinnys big hard one as I train*. Just a steady session holding moderate effort and 85 -90 rpm continuous, only adjustments were aero to hoods and back again. This was all about enjoyment; sometimes, ya just wanna spin.

*in case you got the wrong idea, this is a mental conundrum they pose every morning. Todays: Jason and Gerry each have some tennis balls. If Jason gives Gerry 6, both will have the same number of balls. If Gerry gives Jason 6, then Jason will have three times as many balls as Gerry. How many balls does Gerry have?

Easy peasy today.

BTH · 13-02-2013 3:42pm

Oryx wrote: »

Bright and breezy turbo this morning. 7-8am accompanied by beat fm. I particularly like working on Vinnys big hard one as I train*. Just a steady session holding moderate effort and 85 -90 rpm continuous, only adjustments were aero to hoods and back again. This was all about enjoyment; sometimes, ya just wanna spin.

*in case you got the wrong idea, this is a mental conundrum they pose every morning. Todays: Jason and Gerry each have some tennis balls. If Jason gives Gerry 6, both will have the same number of balls. If Gerry gives Jason 6, then Jason will have three times as many balls as Gerry. How many balls does Gerry have?

Easy peasy today.

Gerry has 18 tennis balls

More more more

Kurt Godel · 13-02-2013 5:00pm

BTH wrote: »

More more more

There are 10 stacks of coins (numbered from 1-10), and each stack is made up of 10 coins. One of the stacks is made up of counterfeit coins, and a counterfeit coin weighs 1 gram more than a true coin. You don't know which stack are the counterfeit coins, and they all look identical. The only equipment you have is a very accurate weighing scales.
What is the smallest number of weighings needed to tell which stack is counterfeit?

No googling, answer tomorrow if not solved;)

*Edit- scales aren't the balance type- you can assume them to be a digital scales that give an accurate reading of the amount placed on top*

BTH · 13-02-2013 5:15pm

Kurt Godel wrote: »

There are 10 stacks of coins (numbered from 1-10), and each stack is made up of 10 coins. One of the stacks is made up of counterfeit coins, and a counterfeit coin weighs 1 gram more than a true coin. You don't know which stack are the counterfeit coins, and they all look identical. The only equipment you have is a very accurate weighing scales.
What is the smallest number of weighings needed to tell which stack is counterfeit?

No googling, answer tomorrow if not solved;)

Not sure I understand. You could surely find the lightest in two weighing, if you strike lucky. To guarantee you find the right one I'm going with

6

weightings. I think.

Kurt Godel · 13-02-2013 5:20pm

BTH wrote: »

Not sure I understand. You could surely find the lightest in two weighing, if you strike lucky. To guarantee you find the right one I'm going with
6
weightings. I think.

Nope. This one requires a lot more thought.

mossym · 13-02-2013 5:20pm

Kurt Godel wrote: »

There are 10 stacks of coins (numbered from 1-10), and each stack is made up of 10 coins. One of the stacks is made up of counterfeit coins, and a counterfeit coin weighs 1 gram more than a true coin. You don't know which stack are the counterfeit coins, and they all look identical. The only equipment you have is a very accurate weighing scales.
What is the smallest number of weighings needed to tell which stack is counterfeit?

No googling, answer tomorrow if not solved;)

sorry, meant to spoiler, will do now

answer, now spoilered:

three, can explain if you want

and no googling involved

Kurt Godel · 13-02-2013 5:24pm

mossym wrote: »

sorry, meant to spoiler, will do now

answer, now spoilered:
three, can explain if you want

Give your explanation in

tags (ditto anyone else's answer;))

BTH · 13-02-2013 5:24pm

Kurt Godel wrote: »

So how are you doing the 2 weighings? Do you weigh stack (say) 1, and then stack (say) 2, and compare? What if you randomly compare two stacks that are equal in weight?

Thats my point. You could get lucky, but you will have done it in 2 weightings. If the two are different weights then you have your fake.

Minimum number of weighting required to guarantee you find the heavier fake stack is the number I put in the spoiler. I think.

Kurt Godel · 13-02-2013 5:26pm

BTH wrote: »

Thats my point. You could get lucky, but you will have done it in 2 weightings. If the two are different weights then you have your fake.

Minimum number of weighting required to guarantee you find the heavier fake stack is the number I put in the spoiler. I think.

There's a way to do it with less weighings than your answer of

6

BTH · 13-02-2013 5:29pm

Kurt Godel wrote: »

There's a way to do it with less weighings than your answer of
6

Have it in

5

not sure how your man has less than that.

Kurt Godel · 13-02-2013 5:30pm

BTH wrote: »

Have it in
5
not sure how your man has less than that.

Explanation?

BTH · 13-02-2013 5:33pm

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Explanation?

So, I'm right then??

Kurt Godel · 13-02-2013 5:39pm

BTH wrote: »

So, I'm right then??

No you lazy sh!te! You're wrong, but if you don't give an explanation you may as well just answer one less each time:D

BTH · 13-02-2013 5:41pm

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Explanation?

weight 3 groups of 3. Thats three weightings and will throw up an anomaly. Unless all three are the same and you’ve beaten the system! Weight two of the three in the abnormal group of three. Two more weightings and your answer.

Kurt Godel · 13-02-2013 5:46pm

BTH wrote: »

weight 3 groups of 3. Thats three weightings and will throw up an anomaly. Unless all three are the same and you’ve beaten the system! Weight two of the three in the abnormal group of three. Two more weightings and your answer.

Very good reasoning- but it can be done in less than your answer.

mossym · 13-02-2013 5:58pm

okay, my reasoning for my answer above

okay, three, done this way. 5 versus 5 in the first, heavier side contains the fakes. take the heavier side, split into a 2 a 2 and a 1. measure the 2 and 2 against each other, if they are equal, the 1 is the fake. if not take the heavier 2, split into 1 and 1, and the heavier is the fake.

BTH · 13-02-2013 5:59pm

mossym wrote: »

okay, my reasoning for my answer above
okay, three, done this way. 5 versus 5 in the first, heavier side contains the fakes. take the heavier side, split into a 2 a 2 and a 1. measure the 2 and 2 against each other, if they are equal, the 1 is the fake. if not take the heavier 2, split into 1 and 1, and the heavier is the fake.

Thats what I did the first time, but you are actually doing twice as many weightings as you claim to be doing.

mossym · 13-02-2013 6:03pm

BTH wrote: »

Thats what I did the first time, but you are actually doing twice as many weightings as you claim to be doing.

no i'm doing

three. 5 versus 5, 2vs 2, and a 1 vs 1 how on earth is that any more than three. once you know which side is heavier you can discard the other side

BTH · 13-02-2013 6:06pm

mossym wrote: »

no i'm doing
three. 5 versus 5, 2vs 2, and a 1 vs 1 how on earth is that any more than three. once you know which side is heavier you can discard the other side

you weight 5 then you weight 5. you weight 2 then you weight 2. You weight 1 and then the other. Thats 6 separate weightings.

Oryx is going to freak when she gets back!!!!

Oryx · 13-02-2013 6:07pm

4

1, 2:Weigh two sets of four, use lighter weight /4 to give weight of one stack
If both stacks equal weight the heavy stack is in neither
if one is heavier, 3 weigh two stacks from this (together), to decide where your heavy stack is.
Of the final two, 4 weigh one, and bobs your uncle.

menoscemo · 13-02-2013 6:07pm

mossym wrote: »

no i'm doing
three. 5 versus 5, 2vs 2, and a 1 vs 1 how on earth is that any more than three. once you know which side is heavier you can discard the other side

You are assuming that the weighing scales are a balance, I think we are assuming they are an electronic type scale and not weighing one thing against another

My answer is

2. Weigh one set of coins. Weigh another. If one is heavier than the other it is the fake. If you get unlucky you require more weighings but it is possible to do it with 2 weighings if you are lucky.

Kurt Godel · 13-02-2013 6:08pm

mossym wrote: »

okay, my reasoning for my answer above
okay, three, done this way. 5 versus 5 in the first, heavier side contains the fakes. take the heavier side, split into a 2 a 2 and a 1. measure the 2 and 2 against each other, if they are equal, the 1 is the fake. if not take the heavier 2, split into 1 and 1, and the heavier is the fake.

BTH wrote: »

Thats what I did the first time, but you are actually doing twice as many weightings as you claim to be doing.

I knew there would be confusion about my term "weighing scales". Mossym is assuming a "balance scale", BTH is assuming a "pointer scale"; and both are essentially doing the same thing. But for the sake of this puzzle, since I specified a "very accurate weighing scales", it can be assumed to be a digital scale that will give you accurate readings of the amount placed on top.

mossym · 13-02-2013 6:10pm

BTH wrote: »

Oryx is going to freak when she gets back!!!!

read what i wrote,. i weigh 5 against 5.. 5 on one side of teh scales. 5 on the other. that's one measurent,

take the heavier 5. without touching teh scales, split into a group of two, another group of two, and a group of one. now meaure the group of two against the group of two 2 on one side of the scales, 2 on the other, again 1 measurement.

if they are the same, the 1 is the fake. if not, take teh heavier, split into 1 v 1 (again without touching the scales, and measure again. heavier is the fake

for the third time, that's 3 weighs, not 6, ont 5 not 4, but 3, nout double or triple, or quadruple or anthing more than i claim. i might still be wrong, but i'm not doing any more measurements than i claimed

BTH · 13-02-2013 6:12pm

mossym wrote: »

sigh..

:rolleyes:

Right back at ya my friend.

Oryx · 13-02-2013 6:13pm

mossym wrote: »

sigh..
read what i wrote, not what you think i wrote. i weigh 5 against 5.. 5 on one side of teh scales. 5 on the other. that's one measurent,

take the heavier 5. without touching teh scales, split into a group of two, another group of two, and a group of one. now meaure the group of two against the group of two 2 on one side of the scales, 2 on the other, again 1 measurement.

if they are the same, the 1 is the fake. if not, take teh heavier, split into 1 v 1 (again without touching the scales, and measure again. heavier is the fake

for the third time, that's 3 weighs, not 6, ont 5 not 4, but 3, nout double or triple, or quadruple or anthing more than i claim. i might still be wrong, but i'm not doing any more measurements than i claimed

You have to do it on a regular scale not a balance scale. You cant weigh one in balance with another.

Till the lights go out

Comments