c4countdown

Ray Folwell

I don't know who I want to win.

It would be great if there was a tie after 15 rounds and they decided not to have a 2nd conundrum

Ray Folwell

My wife thought that the challenger said 'a 3rd' (consonant) in R13 when the U came out. Whether it was from the wrong box or Rachel picked wrong I'm not sure. I will record it on C4+1 and check. I thought the challenger said RAVERS in one round and there was only one R and they gave her the points...

Ray Folwell

There are only two of each small number in the pack. Don't know if you knew that, but I think it might require a rejig of the calculations. I think the calculations are correct - 2 of each number 1-10 = 20 in total. It easier to think about if you imagine that one set of small numbers is blue and t...

Ray Folwell

My wife thought that the challenger said 'a 3rd' (consonant) in R13 when the U came out. Whether it was from the wrong box or Rachel picked wrong I'm not sure.
I will record it on C4+1 and check.

Ray Folwell

(75-9-8) x 6 -1 = 347

Ray Folwell

Jordan F wrote: I fear the day when 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3 happens.

I estimate that if 6 small was chosen once per game, this would happen about once every 150 years on average.

Ray Folwell

Marc Meakin wrote:GORMLESS as a DC beater in round 2.

Err no - that's tomorrow

Ray Folwell

Probably not a classic game, but very enjoyable and played in great spirit.
Bad luck Lee, you seemed to have an off-day. But well done Nicki and good luck in the final

Ray Folwell

GORMLESS for a DC beater

Ray Folwell

Spoiler for Pauls' trick :

He just offers the "SAVED" cards to Jeff and the "LOST" cards to Rachel.

Ray Folwell

Niall Seymour wrote:
Got 574 (1 away on the numbers).

Which is as close as you can get.

Ray Folwell

All three numbers games could be solved with just 3 numbers
9x50 + 1
(100-1) x 2
(9+7) x 8

Is this a record?

Ray Folwell

Michael Wallace wrote:CF got REMORAS in round 13 - were the letters really there?

Yes - I got ROAMERS which is an anagram of that.

Ray Folwell

Neater 2nd numbers : (100-1) x 2

Ray Folwell

The smallest number than cannot be solved with any set is 62663.

Ray Folwell

All very interesting stuff. But just out of interest, could you work out which number set can solve the most consecutive numbers starting with 100 or 101 (I'm sure the answer would be the same)? I never can resist a challenge. :) 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 100 can solve everything between 101 and 1912. The nex...

Ray Folwell

Not easily, the data I've got is for the valid targets of 101-999. I don't think it would be simple to modify my program to get the result you want.

Ray Folwell

Ray Folwell wrote: With 6 small, you are 32 times more likely to get 1,2,3,4,5,6 than 1,1,2,2,3,3.

I think it's actually 64 times more likely.

Ray Folwell

One definition of 'best' would be which set used the least number of numbers in total to solve all 899, so count 2 if you can solve with 2 numbers up to 6 if you have to use all 6 ( does that make sense?). It's also something I could extract fairly easily. On that method, the 'best' set is 4, 7, 9, ...

Ray Folwell

TICKLIER for a DC beater

Ray Folwell

Here are some boring statistics extracted from my data : There are 13,243 different sets of 6 numbers, giving a total of 11,905,457 possible numbers games. Of these 10,858,746 (91.21%) are solvable. 1,226 sets can solve any target between 101 & 999. The most difficult target is 947 which can be ...

Ray Folwell

I've seen somewhere what assumption the ERS used, I think they assumed peoples first choice would be as they voted in FPTP and second choice was based on some vague opinion poll. ERS campaign for STV, so they are not unbiased, describing 38% more LibDem MPs as "a negligible difference" is ...

Ray Folwell

Has anyone seen any estimates of the likely composition of the House if that had been used this time? Based on estimates of who the second preferences may have been, obviously. The Electoral Reform Society has done some research which show Labour up 4 seats, Torys down 25 and LibDems up 22. But tha...

Ray Folwell

I remember doing some analysis of this, probably back in 2007, and posting the results on the old forum. I've still got the spreadsheets I created then and could dig out some facts if folks are interested. Large primes, like 937, tend to be hardest. One interesting point if that you are about twice ...

Ray Folwell

Michael Wallace wrote:Was LOITERER there in round 9? I thought it was but then for Susie not to mention it when someone got LOITER suggests I just mis-saw.

There was only 1 E

Ray Folwell

Alternative 2nd numbers : (6x10 + 6/2) x 7

Ray Folwell

Slightly simpler version of the 3rd numbers : (6x25+2) x (10-6)
I do hope Rachel gets well soon

Ray Folwell

Presumable Chris was going for
7x(75-4) +6+3-5

Ray Folwell

Kirk Bevins wrote: Even Rachel commented on it.

Did she really say "Let's hope for a hard one"

?

Ray Folwell

Sue Sanders wrote:That seemed like a complicated solve to the 2nd numbers round.

I did 6x50 + 5x25 +3

Ray Folwell

Alternative 2nd numbers without using 50:
(10x4-9)x5x5

Ray Folwell

Marc Meakin wrote: Mind you if they had of declared it, would it have edited it out anyway.

I wonder if it was edited out, judging by Jeff's reactions.
Alternative 1st numbers : (50x10-6x2)x2 -75

Ray Folwell

It helps to know that 3x37=111. Do they keep the same big number for all the specials ?

Ray Folwell

2nd numbers (10+10+6/2)x7 + 100
Out of time though

Ray Folwell

REFLEX for a DC equaller.
Can James recover from 5 non-scoring rounds ?

Ray Folwell

Fantastic game, just watched it on C4+1.
Congrats to both Chris and Innis.
It looked as though Chris spent about 15 secs looking at the conundrum without getting it and then wrote the letters down to see if that helped (which it did).

For what it's worth yet another 1st numbers : (10+6) x (9+2)

Ray Folwell

SURPLICE for a DC equaller

Ray Folwell

16 for me - much of it seems pretty irrelevant.

Ray Folwell

Alternative 2nd numbers ((6+3)x100 + 50) /2 +4

Ray Folwell

Started off with FORTRAN more than forty years ago. Moved on to PL/1 and IBM 360 assembler.
I used various flavours of BASIC including VBA.
Since retiring, I've taught myself HTML, PHP and JAVA (just to prove to myself that I can still hack it)

Ray Folwell

What, 2 Q's in one show. Unheard of Good spot. This continues into next week's shows as well as two Ws which I think isn't right either. There were two Ys as well today in rounds 2 & 3. This does seem odd. Have they changed the letter distribution or were the letters reshuffled for some reason?

Ray Folwell

(8+5) x ((3+2)x6+4) = 442

Ray Folwell

Simpler 3rd numbers (25-2) x (9+6)

Ray Folwell

COFFEE in round 2 (TEA was there as well

)

Ray Folwell

This must be some sort of record for John. It's not the lowest score by a champion, which doubtful honour belongs to Kate Strong.
It must be the lowest score by a centurion and probably the largest difference in successive scores.

Ray Folwell

Alexander Armstrong is playing Clive Sinclair in Micro Men at 2100 on BBC4 tonight. Radio Times describes it as a "comedy drama".

Ray Folwell

It looks as though tomorrow is the last in the series, there's snooker for the rest of this week and "Are you an Egghead?" starts next week.
Maybe we should mark the occasion by doing a Recap

Ray Folwell

Alternative 2nd numbers : (50-9) x (6x4-4)

Ray Folwell

Phil Reynolds wrote: Or, closer to home, the characters LL, DD, CH etc. in Welsh.

Do they have Welsh Countdown on S4C ?

Ray Folwell

MASSAGER in R6

Ray Folwell

Was WOODIER there ?

Alternative 2nd numbers 3x4x75 - 7x7 -10

Ray Folwell

Marc Meakin wrote:3 successive impossible numbers rounds?

And the last one is possible, but I would never have got it without using a solver.

Ray Folwell

Another point to consider is that you probably don't need to understand every word in in a definition to understand the meaning of a word. For example : Chambers defines "elephant" as "a mammal (genus Elephas) of the order Proboscidea" and "Proboscidea" as "the ele...

Ray Folwell

I watched this for the first time today having seen this thread.
Very enjoyable - and Carol Vorderman was a Pointless answer

Ray Folwell

From the solutions given, it looks as though the R5 selection was 75,1,3,3,2,8

Ray Folwell · Re: Recap for Friday 26 September 2003 R2 441 = (25x2+10+3) x 7

R2 441 = (25x2+10+3) x 7

Ray Folwell

Louise Bambury wrote: What has happened to the wardrobe budget? Rachel has worn that dress loads!

It always seems silly to me that female presenters are expected to have different clothes every day. No one would comment that Jeff was wearing the same suit.

Ray Folwell

Craig Beevers wrote:Err SUMMATE surely?

My god ODE is shite.

Chambers has it but not ODE.

Ray Folwell

Are we going for a record number of postings in a Spoiler thread before the program starts ?
Roll on 3:25

Ray Folwell

Also 2 away 25 x (100-75) + 50 - 8 -1 = 666
But I think it's possible

Search found 153 matches