Math conundrum, can somebody explain why?
Thread Rating:
who IS the author?Quote: CyrusVFollowing communication with the author, they had no objection to me re-posting here.<snip>
where did this paper come from?
and they, Oh, more than one?
who are they?
the rest is trivial, imo, in a math way that is
Quote: CyrusVFollowing communication with the author, they had no objection to me re-posting here.
...
Sorry, but this is not acceptable sourcing due to copyright laws and this forum's rules. Who are you quoting, and where did it come from? I'll give you a day to answer, but it may have to come down.
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: CyrusVFollowing communication with the author, they had no objection to me re-posting here.
...
Sorry, but this is not acceptable sourcing due to copyright laws and this forum's rules. Who are you quoting, and where did it come from? I'll give you a day to answer, but it may have to come down.
It was NOT copyrighted, as it has already been posted on a few other forums, the author is an associate, if I said their name is Jeff would that suffice?
But never mind, I think your response is pathetic, hence I have removed it myself.
Quote: CyrusVQuote: beachbumbabsQuote: CyrusVFollowing communication with the author, they had no objection to me re-posting here.
...
Sorry, but this is not acceptable sourcing due to copyright laws and this forum's rules. Who are you quoting, and where did it come from? I'll give you a day to answer, but it may have to come down.
It was NOT copyrighted, as it has already been posted on a few other forums, the author is an associate, if I said their name is Jeff would that suffice?
But never mind, I think your response is pathetic, hence I have removed it myself.
Welcome to the forum, CyrusV! Hope you enjoy the fine hospitality.
Quote: MrVRule number two: "Respect copyright: Don't post entire articles from other sources. If you must quote without permission, do so sparingly, and properly indicate the source."
It's from www.betselection.cc . Johno, aka Rolex-Watch, wrote it, and removed it today. It was up for a week or two.
B79 was posting there up until a couple of days ago.
Betting systems fail for the same reason money-management systems fail.
Musical chairs with the numbers.
Quote: DoubleOrNothingIt's from www.betselection.cc . Johno, aka Rolex-Watch, wrote it, and removed it today. It was up for a week or two.
B79 was posting there up until a couple of days ago.
Betting systems fail for the same reason money-management systems fail.
Musical chairs with the numbers.
Thanks. I thought I recognized the writing.
i say it is, as to the law that is, imoQuote: CyrusVIt was NOT copyrighted,
Hi JeffQuote: CyrusVas it has already been posted on a few other forums, the author is an associate, if I said their name is Jeff would that suffice?
But never mind, I think your response is pathetic, hence I have removed it myself.
i still have it (the OP) and might look at what is in it
during the Angel game tonight as i will not be at the Big A tonite
(last night they had many chances to score more than 1 run)
for entertainment that is
extra credit
when IS 1+1=10
yes, bet selection is important
Sally
Quote: mustangsally
extra credit
when IS 1+1=10
yes, bet selection is important
Is there a complex solution to that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_base_systems
Quote: DoubleOrNothingIs there a complex solution to that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_base_systems
You don't need a complex base - just a bit of binary thinking.
And I have a feeling that the "answer" to the OP problem is, it's not taking into account runs of 4 or more. The basis is, a run of 3 is just as likely to start in any of five positions of a group of five, and only one of them loses when using this method, but a run of 4 includes two runs of 3 that start at different positions.
Quote: ThatDonGuyYou don't need a complex base - just a bit of binary thinking.
In that case, I'll settle for base-1 and Fibonacci's rabbit.
while he thought about
"how many pairs will there be in one year?"
Fibonacci was born around 1170
so they had no tv or radio to be entertained by
watching rabbits...
Oh
base 1
what is 1+1
i think chickens count in base 1
llll
This is incorrect, you win against any runs of four within a series of bets.Quote: ThatDonGuyYou don't need a complex base - just a bit of binary thinking.
And I have a feeling that the "answer" to the OP problem is, it's not taking into account runs of 4 or more. The basis is, a run of 3 is just as likely to start in any of five positions of a group of five, and only one of them loses when using this method, but a run of 4 includes two runs of 3 that start at different positions.
The nemesis is an exact and precise repeat of three, but that wasn't the point of the OP.
I'm surprised you still have a presence here Garnabby, after all Beach~ professed to be able to identify writing styles. Your jumbled incoherent sentence structure, not to mention the brazen use of using the same avatar gives the game away, I thought you would have been 'sussed' long ago.Quote: DoubleOrNothingIt's from www.betselection.cc . Johno, aka Rolex-Watch, wrote it, and removed it today. It was up for a week or two.
B79 was posting there up until a couple of days ago.
Betting systems fail for the same reason money-management systems fail.
Musical chairs with the numbers.
Quote: mustangsallyOh
base 1
what is 1+1
i think chickens count in base 1
llll
So, 1+1 = 11 base-1? Only problem is, base-1 doesn't really follow from the rules of the other bases.
I merely hinted that Fibonacci might bridge this gap in the rules in a seminal manner. One adult rabbit (or chicken) as 1, and one baby as 0, makes for 10. Put another way, one adult of itself makes for one adult and one baby, again 10. It's all rabbits (or chickens).
"0 → 1 (a [male-female] pair of newborn rabbits becomes a [male-female] pair of mature rabbits); 1 → 10 (a [male-female] pair of mature rabbits begets a [male-female] pair of newborn rabbits, where the offspring stands to the right of the parents)." http://oeis.org/wiki/Fibonacci_rabbits
And bridge the gap also to the complex numbers... http://indigo.ie/~peter/Fib24.htm . A sort of quantum relativity in the fifth dimension.
Garnabby still spooks 'em.Quote: CyrusVI'm surprised you still have a presence here, Garnabby, after all Beach~ professed to be able to identify writing styles. Your jumbled incoherent sentence structure, not to mention the brazen use of using the same avatar, I thought you would have been 'sussed' a long time ago.
