Anaru
Inkling Cadet
You're not supposed to guess a letter twice in succession. I'll let it slide this time. There's no R.
_ _ A _ (1/4)
O R E (3/10)
_ _ A _ (1/4)
O R E (3/10)
Sorry, no one else is up. If you're still accepting, my last letter is S.You're not supposed to guess a letter twice in succession. I'll let it slide this time. There's no R.
_ _ A _ (1/4)
O R E (3/10)
Right, yes, that's what I thought. I know I say that all the time but I only say it if it's true.The people guessing could win with 3 penalties. This would work without any chance of failure on any word with less than 10 unique letters.
That “minor spoiler”, unless my logic is extraordinary flawed, is one of the most misleading “hints” I’ve ever been given. How did you solve it? I'm pretty sure what I did works just fine without having to use a sequence of Fibonacci Numbers, that seems unnecessarily confusing. The problem seems fairly simple.A few months back, I came up with and solved a probability-related problem which I really loved. So... you have two inputs connected to an output through an OR gate: if either or both inputs are ON, the output is ON. You wish to switch the output OFF. It is ON to start with. By pressing an input, you randomise its state, regardless of what it was before. In attempting to turn the output OFF, you decide to press inputs 1 and 2 alternately until it goes off. What is the expected number of button-presses required to turn everything OFF?
Minor spoiler, but I'm pretty sure you need to know the general term for the Fibonacci sequence to solve this; I couldn't come up with any way without using it. That term is:
F(n) = c(a^n - b^n), where:
a and b are the two roots of x^2 - x - 1 = 0 and a > b
c = 1/sqrt(5)
One logical follow-up to this question would be to ask if there's any more efficient method to switch everything OFF (like, say, always pressing whatever's most likely to be ON, but that might just be the method that we used). I don't know!
Very interesting! I found the problem a lot more complicated, taking a few hours of calculation and ending on the answer 16/3. My father ran a computer simulation of the set-up and got an average result equal to that within a few significant figures (after 1,000,000 trials, I think), so I'm not backing down! First thing I did was make a somewhat extensive probability tree, and the pattern of recurrence in that brought about Fibonacci numbers.So I’d expect to need to alternatively press the switches 5 times before if turns OFF.
Yeah I meant to type in sial but I misclicked. Don't know why I put Saul in there.So I stopped getting notifs for this…I'll see what we have and take a guess
I've got nothing. And Dual's previous guess had the A in the wrong place :p
How about an U just to get rid of the definite vowels