Hey Steve/Horst
weird - i sent this msg this morning and it should have shown up as msg#6569, but it didn't show up at all.
I regularly have weird things happen with the group mail. Up until recently, all my posts appeared twice and I would have to delete one of them. So maybe you having to post twice to have one message appear is just the yahooniverse balancing itself out ;-). Also currently, some posts are either not being sent to me or are arriving very late. (eg. Yozara's #6564 was sent at 17 Feb 2006 22:07:48 UT and posted to the group 2 minutes later but I have only just received it at 19 Feb 2006 01:08 UT. I have yet to receive Suyono's #6565 but got your #6570! I've given up trying to work it out and now check the group regularly for "missing mail").
I'm totally looking fwd to your new
sorting, converting and fibonacci levels. I hope you have seen Alexis's sequence
"Prime numbers generator" #436 Special-I.lvl:
Seen it, played
it, liked it, got the GHS. I had looked at doing something very similar around
May/June 2005 but had done little more than place the tunnels (horizontally in
my case). I sort of lost interest in it as other things took my interest. The
trouble for me with it (and this is not meant to take anything away from Alexis)
is that you have to build in the first few primes and it fails from the square
of the first prime not built in.
For example, with
Alexis' version, she has built in 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 (green to white tunnels).
These effectively remove each and every number that has one (or more) of these
primes as a factor. However, when we get to 289 (17 x 17) the machine considers
it to be a prime because it doesn't have 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, or 13 as a factor.
(Actually, Alexis' version doesn't get to 289 as she has quite correctly
designed it so you can reach the flag before then).
Obviously if
there was another colour of tunnel available and the field was large enough we
could build in the prime '17' and correctly test every number up to 361 (19 x
19) before we ran into the same problem. It's a deficiency with Eratosthenes'
Sieve not with Alexis' design which is very nice.
I think the furthest I got in making a difficult solvable sim type of levels was "hard", by rating of ghs solver, in "Trinary - Triple Guns" #1295 (Challenge-II.lvl) and the two "Enigma" levels #1293 and #1294
I will have to
have a look at these (so many levels, so little time...)
I wouldn't give up on trying some real
"solvable" levels. This is not to say that you should give up on the
simulation.lvl, though.
Ok, I will see
what I can come up with. Trouble is my LT time is split between playing other
people's levels and making my own as I like to do both.
I have a couple of ideas that I should
put down in a level... maybe I will... maybe I will... first the time
generator...
TIME generator!? wtf is that? Mind you, if you get it working, I could do with another hour each day ;-)
TIME generator!? wtf is that? Mind you, if you get it working, I could do with another hour each day ;-)
If anyone ever DID modify LT playbacks,
it would need only a relatively simple compression algorithm to record them,
like, instead of "UP UP UP UP..." it would be read "UP times a zillion and
3".
Uh, Steve, "zillion" is not a real number. I think you mean "Godzillion". Now THAT's big!
Uh, Steve, "zillion" is not a real number. I think you mean "Godzillion". Now THAT's big!
I'll think about your series... meanwhile
my answer is "42", what
with "42" being "The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything", so it must be right :)
with "42" being "The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything", so it must be right :)
I have a level
called "Life, the Universe, and Everything" and The Answer is required to start
:-)
0, 1, 2, ...?
I think probably has a bit too many possibilities.
0, 1, 2, 5, 26, n^2 + 1, ...
0, 1, 2, ...?
I think probably has a bit too many possibilities.
0, 1, 2, 5, 26, n^2 + 1, ...
could fit. Without imaginary "i" (square
root of -1, which is just a number imagined by humans to do certain kinds of
(ironically) real-world math applications), one can't have solution for:
n^2 + 1 =0
so there is no extrapolation "left".
This is one series that satisfies the boundaries of your series, as specified, so far :)
n^2 + 1 =0
so there is no extrapolation "left".
This is one series that satisfies the boundaries of your series, as specified, so far :)
I beg to differ.
If you accept that 'i' is not involved in the solution (hence no left
extrapolation) then there can be no first term 'zero' using your formula. Since
there is a 'zero', if your formula was an answer, there would be a lot of
COMPLEXity coming out of left field (tee hee). I tell you now, the 4th term is a
big surprise.
(Imaginary numbers - is that like "umpteen" and
"eleventy-six"?)
funny how there's no singular "sery", just singular and plural "series".
That's Latin for you... Same with
"thrips".
how about this one-
0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 16, 24, 34, ...?
(base ten, whole numbers, nonalphabetical, nothing to the left, etc.)
Maybe 46, 61, 79, 100,... ?
0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 16, 24, 34, ...?
(base ten, whole numbers, nonalphabetical, nothing to the left, etc.)
Maybe 46, 61, 79, 100,... ?
The fact that the first few terms are triangular
gave me a clue.
I used T(n) = n (n - 1) / 2 +
T(n-4)
Am I close?
Mark