Pure maths, physics, logic (braingames.ru): non-trade-related brain games - page 123
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I'm totally against chemicals. Free the apple moths! The planet is on the verge of apocalypse. Under the guise of improving production, storage, living and life in general, chemistry is penetrating deeper and deeper into our bodies.
It must be stopped. Chemistry or the end, that is the choice facing us today.
// I'm blocked, I'm sorry.
Eat sea buckthorn jam, it's definitely healthier.
At least the kids from Bangladesh won't get first-class apples from Brainiac, considered to be the best in the world. It's either the starving death of two tonnes of kids or the death of a quintal of fruit eaters.
TheXpert: So you have to test 53 packs on six apple trees at a time?
Yes, come up with such an algorhythm to know everything in exactly three days.
Yes, to come up with an algorhythm so that in exactly three days you know everything.
Eat sea buckthorn jam, it's healthier for sure.
But the Bangladeshi children will not get first-class apples from Brainiac, considered to be the best in the world. It's either the starving death of two tons of babies or the death of a quintal of fruit beetles.
I was just imagining two tons of babies...
No, Mr. Moderator, it's not about brainghams.
And I have even more than 53, but by how much - I won't say. For a clue would be.
Mischek: Just asI was picturing two tons of kids...
No, Mr. Moderator, it's not about brainghams.
Yeah, right. Two weigh-ins is enough.
I take it back. Found a hole in my solution. Did some more digging. Didn't help. Still missing half a bit of information.
I don't know of a guaranteed solution with two weighings. My answer is three minimum.
All two-weighted options are hole-in-the-wall, there's always a spread that creates uncertainty after two weightings.
I was just picturing two tons of kids...
No, Mr. Moderator, it's not about brainghams.
I take it back. I found a hole in my solution. I did some more digging. It didn't help. Half a bit of information is still missing.
I don't know of a guaranteed solution with two weighings. My answer is three at least.
All two-ball variants are holes, there is always an uncertainty creating uncertainty after two weighings.
Who else is going to try?
At first I presented the dumbest solution with three (each time one of the same colour) and even tried to justify it with the theory of information. But the justification turned out to be holey, and the moderator hinted that three is a bit much. After several hours of scrolling in unconsciousness the solution finally found itself - clear, without holes. But it's not obvious.
I mean, you can get three in the dumbest way possible. And all the wealth of other ways - when more than one ball is weighed on the bowl - is unexplored.
Who else is going to try?
My point is that you can get three in the dumbest way possible. And the wealth of other ways - where more than one ball on a bowl is weighed - has not been explored.
It has been explored, and quite extensively. There are many interesting options out there, but so far I've managed to find a hole in every one. // Of the ones I've considered, of course.
OK. I'll try again.
Explored, and quite extensively. There are lots of interesting options out there, but so far I've managed to find a hole in every one. // of the ones I've considered, of course.
OK. I'll try again.