The mind boggles, oh well only another 6.5hrs to go
![Surprised :o](./images/smilies/icon_e_surprised.gif)
Kind Regardz,
Gavin
Welcome to the forum Gavin.Gav Grant wrote:Forgive me if this has been asked before but if, after choosing your six numbers and Carol presses her magic button, the random number lands on one of the selected numbers. Would it be fair to assume that one could therefore solve the sum with one number?
I have had a look on the Coundown page but I can't find this game. Have you got a link to this game please?Martin Gardner wrote:100 has definitely been used before, in a Tony Vick game available on the Countdown Page, so it definitely was possible at one point.
I can't find it either, the nearest I could find was this: http://www.thecountdownpage.com/gotw-001001.htmJoseph Bolas wrote:I have had a look on the Coundown page but I can't find this game. Have you got a link to this game please?
Haha.Damian E wrote:
Why don't we have a small compeitition?
Pick a random number from 100 (or 101) to 999, and see who's comes out first, starting from tomorrow's show. I'll donate a good Countdown prize to the winner.
I'll take a guess at 774.
Well if we have a 100 in the selection and 101 to be impossible, we need the 5 small numbers to not be consecutive (since if you have say 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, then you can do 7-6 to make the 1). This means the only two plausible selections are: 100, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 100, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9. Taking the first, it's clear 1 can be made by 6/(4+2) and taking the second it's clear that the 1 can be made by just, well, using the 1. So in a 1 large selection, it will be always possible to get 101 if there was a 100 in the selection sadly.Paul Howe wrote:If a target of 101 was unattainable and there was a 100 in the selection the 100 could count as a single number "solution". Whether such a numbers game exists is unclear, I just spent a few minutes trying to make one and was unsuccessful.
You're right, there are a handful of other targets that haven't come up (including 999) but it does seem odd that 100 is one of them.Damian E wrote:Seriously, i do think that 100 is the lowest, but if its not been 'chosen' by Cecil in 2484 numbers games, it doesn't mean that much. If you were to list all the targets from 100 -999 that HAVE come out in that time, there must be dozens that have not been picked surely?
I'll go for 774. Gut feeling.Damian E wrote:Why don't we have a small compeitition?
Pick a random number from 100 (or 101) to 999, and see who's comes out first, starting from tomorrow's show. I'll donate a good Countdown prize to the winner.
I'll take a guess at 774.
I'm confused. http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic. ... =999#p7025Charlie Reams wrote:
You're right, there are a handful of other targets that haven't come up (including 999) but it does seem odd that 100 is one of them.
I only considered games which are on the wiki. That one isn't.Kirk Bevins wrote:I'm confused. http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic. ... =999#p7025Charlie Reams wrote:
You're right, there are a handful of other targets that haven't come up (including 999) but it does seem odd that 100 is one of them.
There are none. Do I still get a prize?Kirk Bevins wrote: For 2 large and 3 large, it's a bit trickier. An imaginary prize for anybody who can give me a selection with a 100 in with a target of 101 which is impossible to obtain.
No. Prove it.Charlie Reams wrote:There are none. Do I still get a prize?Kirk Bevins wrote: For 2 large and 3 large, it's a bit trickier. An imaginary prize for anybody who can give me a selection with a 100 in with a target of 101 which is impossible to obtain.
Okay, proof for 2 large:Kirk Bevins wrote:No. Prove it.
I can't remember how I found it but I did, if Mike Brown could read this I'm sure he could find it in a flash.Charlie Reams wrote:I can't find it either, the nearest I could find was this: http://www.thecountdownpage.com/gotw-001001.htmJoseph Bolas wrote:I have had a look on the Coundown page but I can't find this game. Have you got a link to this game please?
Martin Gardner wrote:Ok found it, this seems to settle the argument: Link
The final numbers game, pity he didn't go for 4 large.
That was 12 years ago! Like I said above, I think it has been changed at some point.Damian E wrote:You see Charlie, I told youMartin Gardner wrote:Ok found it, this seems to settle the argument: Link
The final numbers game, pity he didn't go for 4 large.![]()
It was actually me that found the page.Damian E wrote:Well researched, Martin.
Oh yes. Almost exactly ten years ago. Given that he can't be much over 20 now, he must've been pretty young back then. Seems fair enough to give him another shot, but I'm looking forward to the inevitable voices of dissent.Damian E wrote:Am surprised though that nobody has yet spotted that Junaid Mubeen has been on before.:
Not at all, but it would be good to put it to rest. Martin and I were talking about it last night on MSN. He remembered that the large number was 50, although he misremembered the contestant being Tony Vick, but I eventually tracked it down with the awesome power of Google.Damian E wrote:I'll find out for definite and let you know.
Its not that crucial anyway is it, but even so its good to put it to rest. How did you research the 100 game if Martin posted it?
I think he may well be the singing love child of host Des. I am sure I can remember "Nothing Compares 2 U" by Junaid O' Connor.............Damian E wrote:
Am surprised though that nobody has yet spotted that Junaid Mubeen has been on before................
100-999 is 900 numbers so if 100 is available then the chances of it not appearing in 2484 consecutive games is (899/900)^2484 = 0.063. So doing 1 minus that and multiplying by 100 you get your 93.7%. Not significant at the 5% level even! However, the way you've worded it seems to be a bit of a misuse of statistics. All we can really say is that in a situation where 100 is possible, then over the course of 2484 games there is a 93.7% chance that it will come up. You wouldn't say after three heads in a row that there is a 7/8 chance (or 3/4 using a two-tailed (as opposed to two headed) test I suppose) that it's a doubled-headed coin.Charlie Reams wrote:Yep, CountGen does 101-999 only, although as you rightly say, it's still potentially worthwhile to declare anything as low as 91.
I have to say I think someone has changed CECIL without informing Damian, because 100 has not come up in any of the last 2484 numbers games, which makes it 93.7% likely that CECIL can't generate it. (Perhaps one of our resident statonerds can confirm my back-of-the-envelope calculation.)
Obviously this and the following discussion may have assumed perfect contestants, but 100 could still be offered as a single number "solution" if the contestant simply failed to see how to get 101.Paul Howe wrote:If a target of 101 was unattainable and there was a 100 in the selection the 100 could count as a single number "solution". Whether such a numbers game exists is unclear, I just spent a few minutes trying to make one and was unsuccessful.
I meant that a solution is any method that gets you as close as possible to the target, not just anything the contestants happen to offer.Gavin Chipper wrote:Obviously this and the following discussion may have assumed perfect contestants, but 100 could still be offered as a single number "solution" if the contestant simply failed to see how to get 101.Paul Howe wrote:If a target of 101 was unattainable and there was a 100 in the selection the 100 could count as a single number "solution". Whether such a numbers game exists is unclear, I just spent a few minutes trying to make one and was unsuccessful.
But Richard always pronounced it Cecil! Is this humour? I never can tell.Damian E wrote:Cecil.........(pronounced SeeSill), is programmed to select ANY 3-figure number, so 100 is legitimate.
RW:Soph K wrote:If, for example, the target was 100 and one of the large numbers was 100, could the method just be 100 or would you have to do, say, 9-8=1 and 4-3=1 and 100+1-1=100? If you know what I mean...?