math challenge

[lurker]

Noruas quoted smoth as well as smoth's quote of Caydr, that can only be interpreted as him putting parenthesis around there votes. (If he hadn't included quotes at all, we would have to interpret it one post to the next as well. If he had quoted only smoth, then we could count him as only modifying smoth's vote)

I think that interpretation ignores the realities of replying on a forum. Really, Noruas just hit the quote button that applied to smoth's post, so it's somewhat of a guess whether he meant one or both. But I agree that he most likely was replying to both 'votes'.

...the nature of meaning of tripling. In word mathematics, tripling always refers to multiplication by 3, not adding 1 to 2. Interpreting it any other way is inconsistent, you cannot assume someone used a meaning that is both extremely unlikely and simply wrong when analyzing their statement.

In general, yes it would be foolish to think tripling meant adding one, but I urge you to truly think of the context. This is a general forum afterall, and I think it's more likely to have someone make the silly wordplay of calling making a number 3 'tripling' rather than the rather nonsensical action of turning 2 votes into 6. Remember, it wasn't labled as a mathematical discussion at the time, and was rather informal. Please explain how you think my interpretation is 'simply wrong'. Is it simply that it does not line up with the true definition of tripling, instead being a different action that tripling would be a good word for if not already taken? Why do you find this so extremely unlikely? Think about it in terms of Noruas's actions. The act of 'thirding' is common and fits perfectly in this situation. It's multiplying by three that is truly inconsistant and extremely unlikely, though I would not go as far as to call it simply wrong.
I do agree that 1 + 1 * 3 / 2 = 1 + 1.5 = 2.5 is a very weak interpretation, and I truely don't understand why you would give it more merit than (((1) + 1) --> 3) / 2 = 1.5.

[Comp1337]

I lift my hat off to jcnossens professionally done troll

[rattle]

Needs moar DIV0 errors...

[Archangel of Death]

Dragon45: Ah, yes, of course. Postfix formatting would make it all much clearer, though it I would have to be prefaced with an explanation to how it works...

lurker: On the first point, yes, I suppose that was a case of expecting far more than believable amounts of effort in a post.

On the second, I'm still not convinced I should budge on it. Speaking of general language, and not a mathematically context at all, a wordplay does not try to fit a word into a meaning it does not have, but rather use its meaning in an unexpected way. This general rule is also actually followed in practice because failing to follow it makes ones actual meaning difficult or impossible to determine, because the only meaning anyone readily assigns to any word is one they already know it can mean (for example, if you didn't know minute also meant small, and you saw someone using it in that way, you'd just be confused out of your mind). Also, I have never encountered someone using tripling to mean "increasing a number to 3", in any forum, and I even usually read the posts with really, really horrendous butchering of the English language too. This isn't to say it isn't possible just because I haven't seen it, but to show a significant data sample in which it hasn't happened, so statistically it is probable that it hasn't in the whole either. However, using it to mean * 3 is consistent with its actual meaning, statistically more probable (though, admittedly, that is a weak support when applied to specific cases), and still within the possibility of having been wordplay on the OP's part (in the "I'm going to do one better than just adding another vote to it! Next level up of operations: muliplication!" sort of way).
I should note also, I don't see multiplication as inconsistent at all. Trying to one up another's mathematical construct comes as early as the learning of numbers. "I'm right to the infinity. No me times double infinity. No me to the infinityith power."? Going to a higher order operation to "empower" (in actual sense of course) one's side is quite common. Multiplication is just the next step up from addition.

Now, to that final bit. I only view it as a stronger interpretation because it could follow from my interpreted meaning of "tripling", using a consistent system of relating the posts together (specifically, only immediately previous post relations). Contrarily, (((1) + 1) --> 3) / 2 = 1.5 is what I would consider the strongest meaning, if I agreed on interpreting "tripling" as "--> 3".

-- Arch - Enjoying the mental exercise

[Comp1337]

As this discussion has descended into headbutting i will post a new problem

GO

[Archangel of Death]

The answer is 1295, which, funnily enough happens to be the numerical value of a dead but highly skilled gamer.

[BaNa]

The answer is 1295, which, funnily enough happens to be the numerical value of a dead but highly skilled gamer.

Nope, I know this was posted as teh funnaz, but the answer to the xkcd problem has a hard upper bound of 1.5 Ohms, if you just look at the 2 shortest paths.

Note: that question is actually in the Google Labs Aptitude Test, kind of like a funny job application to Google.

[Comp1337]

The answer is 1295, which, funnily enough happens to be the numerical value of a dead but highly skilled gamer.

Nope, I know this was posted as teh funnaz, but the answer to the xkcd problem has a hard upper bound of 1.5 Ohms, if you just look at the 2 shortest paths.

no dude
The upper bound is one ohm, three paths of three ohms.
And i figure it should be integrated in one way or another, but i need to RTFM on moar maths for the exact methods.. Saw someone talking about fourier sets which i know nothing about

[BaNa]

no dude
The upper bound is one ohm, three paths of three ohms.
And i figure it should be integrated in one way or another, but i need to RTFM on moar maths for the exact methods.. Saw someone talking about fourier sets which i know nothing about

I didn't count that middle resistance since it makes things more difficult. And I'm not sure about the terminology here, but I didn't say that the resistance converges to my bound in infinity, so my bound is good, it's just not the absolute bound. Read: if the resistance -> c when path length -> inf , then any d>c number will be a good bound (or upper limit or wtf, I has learnz in non-english sk00l).

[Comp1337]

ah yeah, i worded myself badly i guess
Just woken up

[Archangel of Death]

Oh gosh... did you have to bring actual circuit analysis into this? Now I'm having the hardest time not mapping out a clearer circuit diagram and crunching the actual numbers!

But I shall resist... yes I shall... just think of Christmas... take mind away from circuit analysis... uhg, Christmas tree lights won't help there...

[Peet]

And once someone figures out that, tell them the grid is actually 5-dimensional.

[Evil4Zerggin]

I didn't count that middle resistance since it makes things more difficult.

Actually, since the problem is rotationally symmetric about the point halfway between the two marked nodes, precisely zero current flows through the middle. I may think more about it later.

[Comp1337]

woot its on
Youve all been sniped

[Archangel of Death]

Except for me, for I managed to resist! Woo for self control!

[Comp1337]

you posted here didnt you

[Archangel of Death]

Post only takes a few seconds, leaving plenty of time to look up and see the oncoming truck.