Planetarion Forums - Roses are red

JonnyBGood · 25 Oct 2003, 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by W

That's what most of statistics is, yes...

How did your argument for it not being a maths problem go again?

Kind of like my argument as to why Jesus hated pizza. NEITHER OF THEM EXISTED. Jeez.

Dante Hicks · 25 Oct 2003, 21:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by W

It IS a maths problem. I solved it using statistics.

It can be represented as a maths problem, yeah - as most things can. My point was merely that I found the actual solution unsatisfying since it merely relies on noticing something fairly obvious, not through working something out. I'm sure you can solve it through numerous ways - hell, you could probably write a program to analyse the screen and brute force combinations or something.

Knight Theamion · 25 Oct 2003, 21:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

It's a bit shit and misleading. And theamion is right.

quote for future reference.

25 Oct 2003, 21:53

oh well, i carnt figure it out..

guess that means i am clever? :P

W · 25 Oct 2003, 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It can be represented as a maths problem, yeah - as most things can. My point was merely that I found the actual solution unsatisfying since it merely relies on noticing something fairly obvious, not through working something out. I'm sure you can solve it through numerous ways - hell, you could probably write a program to analyse the screen and brute force combinations or something.

And my point was that to some it isn't obvious, and that working it out is the only way. It certainly does not "rely" on you being able to spot it right away. With diligent analysis the solution is always easy, even if you lack creativity and insight. This is one of the points of the game, to show that to some people it is a maths problem, and to some people it is a riddle. The fact that most people don't have the math skills to solve it (or solve it fastly) doesn't mean that it has to be a riddle.

Bunga · 25 Oct 2003, 23:38

Certainly it can be solved using statistical analysis, but it states clearly in the problem that only basic maths skills are required. It was reading that which tipped me off to the solution when I solved it, I tried maths first and realised after some hundred tests that mathematics was the wrong method.

W · 25 Oct 2003, 23:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunga

Certainly it can be solved using statistical analysis, but it states clearly in the problem that only basic maths skills are required. It was reading that which tipped me off to the solution when I solved it, I tried maths first and realised after some hundred tests that mathematics was the wrong method.

If you need a hundred samples to spot the pattern, you're doing sloppy analysis. Which most do. "basic maths skills" is ambiguous. You don't need any other skills that counting. You just need to count alot of different things.

Bunga · 26 Oct 2003, 00:09

There are 30^5 possible combinations. Thats 24300000 different combinations those five dice can have (since you don't know untill afterwards of order matters or not, I have to assume it does when I begin). One would need a lot more than a hundred samples to be certain one is correct. If you did it in fewer, you were not using strict analysis. You must have come upon an aesthetically pleasing answer and decided it was correct.

W · 26 Oct 2003, 00:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunga

There are 30^5 possible combinations. Thats 24300000 different combinations those five dice can have (since you don't know untill afterwards of order matters or not, I have to assume it does when I begin). One would need a lot more than a hundred samples to be certain one is correct. If you did it in fewer, you were not using strict analysis. You must have come upon an aesthetically pleasing answer and decided it was correct.

Just goes to show why you never solved it mathematically... You know shit about statistics.

Bunga · 26 Oct 2003, 00:32

Really. How nice.

W · 26 Oct 2003, 01:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunga

Really. How nice.

Really. First of all, even if order matters, there's 6^5 different combinations, not 30^5. Second, if you, say, count the frequency of the different dice for each result, it not only becomes obvious that order does not matter, but it is equally obvious what dice count towards the score, and how much. As I said, about 20 samples is enough to get statistically conclusive evidence.

queball · 26 Oct 2003, 01:46

less than a minute, pen and paper

pablissimo · 26 Oct 2003, 01:53

Seriously though, W wins again.

Which is strange since I remember him having had the rank of 'Winner' for a while.

JonnyBGood · 26 Oct 2003, 02:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by pablissimo

Seriously though, W wins again.

Which is strange since I remember him having had the rank of 'Winner' for a while.

You are mistaken. It was 'Wanker' actually.

Aryn · 26 Oct 2003, 04:12

i got it
took me way to long though i think
5 mins or so

cause i was looking at it like 'wtf'
and then i read the first page of this thread for clues.. and when it said 'not a math problem' i realized i was thinking WAY too hard (i know iknow) and after staring at it for a few seconds i got it.

geez :\

15 Sep 2005, 00:24

accordin 2 this im intelligant
i bn tryin it 4 2days n cnt do it

my m8 got it straight away n his i.q is higher then mine
so wat does this mean

mj

wu_trax · 15 Sep 2005, 00:28

wtf?

LHC · 15 Sep 2005, 00:30

Fantastic.

Yahwe · 15 Sep 2005, 00:32

good god.

do not bump ****ing threads you ****ing ****tard you utter utter ****ing spastic

vampire_lestat · 15 Sep 2005, 00:46

hardly a maths problem really is it?

It took me far longer than it should to get it.

Nantoz · 15 Sep 2005, 00:51

Took me about 15 tries.
Gods, I feel stupid.

KaneED · 15 Sep 2005, 01:21

Oh got it.

I don't feel very enlightened though

I came across this ages ago and didn't solve it then, and I just suddenly figured it out now.

I can assure you that I am not intelligent, and that this test is not valid in a court of law.

Phang · 15 Sep 2005, 01:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaneED

I came across this ages ago and didn't solve it then, and I just suddenly figured it out now.

JonnyBGood · 15 Sep 2005, 01:26

This was a really really terrible game and it has not aged well.

s|k · 15 Sep 2005, 01:33

I really think Yahwe should be banned for starting up all these gimmicks.

Yahwe · 15 Sep 2005, 01:45

with dda i really went too far

s|k · 15 Sep 2005, 02:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

with dda i really went too far

Yes, and I see you've finally given that bit up.

Yahwe · 15 Sep 2005, 02:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

Yes, and I see you've finally given that bit up.

i really thought that you had given up on this.

you are a class A looney

s|k · 15 Sep 2005, 03:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

i really thought that you had given up on this.

you are a class A looney

I'm always trying to be the best I can at whatever I do.

Deepflow · 15 Sep 2005, 09:31

oooh

i havent seen this before.

I cant seem to get it after about 10 minutes though, does this make me genius?

s|k · 15 Sep 2005, 10:23

Yeah okay **** this stupid secrecy. There are three sides on a die that have a center dot, and only two of those three have other dots around it: the side with three dots and the side with five dots. You count all the dots (the petals) except the middle (the rose). Obviously, it follows that a 5 has 4 petals, and a 3 has 2 petals. So for each of the five dice that resulted with a side with petals around the rose you total them up and there you go.

**** you Fraternity of Petals Around the Rose for keeping something as dumb as this a secret thinking it was special enough to get on your knees in a suite, and **** you for any of you who thought you were smart for figuring out something so incredibly assenine. A dot is not a ****ing rose. Dots around a dot are not petals. This is a rose: http://www.stillhq.com/extracted/art...tools/rose.jpg. Not this: http://www.gothamist.com/weather/images/dice.jpg Those are ****ing little holes that look nothing like a rose.

If anyone ever tries to pull this shit with a group and I'm there I will promptly tell everyone the answer.

Idiots.

CrashTester · 15 Sep 2005, 10:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by madi

thats not exactly great though is it
i mean you are not dumb but not the smartest cookie either

nice parting.

JammyJim · 15 Sep 2005, 10:33

Why the hell has this been bumped by some retard account? As it has run its course and everyone on the entire interweb now knows the answer im going to close this so it can never ever ever be bumped again.

(except by a mod who no doubt will)

Dead_Meat · 15 Sep 2005, 14:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by JammyJim

Why the hell has this been bumped by some retard account? As it has run its course and everyone on the entire interweb now knows the answer im going to close this so it can never ever ever be bumped again.

(except by a mod who no doubt will)

Sorry JJ, but I had to bump this (a bit) since this below is the worst explanation of how this thing works I believe has ever been posted out of the, no doubt, five million explanations on the Internet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

There are three sides on a die that have a center dot, and only two of those three have other dots around it: the side with three dots and the side with five dots. You count all the dots (the petals) except the middle (the rose). Obviously, it follows that a 5 has 4 petals, and a 3 has 2 petals. So for each of the five dice that resulted with a side with petals around the rose you total them up and there you go.

What?

Anyway, bump over, nothing to see here, move along, thank you...