c4countdown

No-one's mentioned the objectively best method for the second numbers yet: 5*7*9 + 6 + 2 = 323

You don't need to be able to define where the distinction is exactly to recognise that there is one. I think we can all agree that (for example) it's stupid to call you an influencer but quite sensible to call (e.g.) James Charles an influencer. "Ooo-er, shades of grey exist so what does it eve...

Not everyone knows their blood type I just asked my missus (in her mid fifties , as am I) what her blood type was and she didn't know. I guess unless you have had a surgical procedure , why would you ? Pregnant women find out their blood type too, which is something that describes a significant pro...

There was a significant increase in the number of people willing to disregard lockdown rules following the Cummings story breaking: https://theconversation.com/we-asked-people-if-they-were-breaking-lockdown-rules-before-and-after-the-dominic-cummings-scandal-heres-what-they-told-us-139994 In particu...

What on Earth was happening when they came up with that first TTT? With the two definitions of "nubile" being "sexually attractive" or "suitable for marriage", for the clue to suggest that it's something you're born with is disgusting - especially with Nick's "expl...

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 3:40 pm There is a pandemic, Sam. The leadership ratings are hardly in normal times, with mid-term blues effect etc

Silly me. I had neglected to factor in that approval ratings normally increase during times of national emergency. This makes the drop even more stark. Thanks for reminding me.

An 80 seat majority would suggest otherwise. I think the 35-point drop in approval rating over the last month is more significant. We're British. Our politicians are usually hopeless with approval ratings. . And given his approval rating shot up two months ago, I guess the curve really has been fla...

Trying to work out if Jack's hesitation at the end was because he was deciding how to tell Nick that he wasn't in fact playing Jack Worsley next, or if it was because he was trying to work out how to admit he definitely did know Jack W without revealing any trade secrets.

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 12:25 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 11:48 am

Oliver Garner wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:55 pm
Ah, interesting. I wondered. The only thing I like about the party is Boris. Far more interesting and less irritating than Ken IMO.

This didn't age well.

An 80 seat majority would suggest otherwise.

I think the 35-point drop in approval rating over the last month is more significant.

I seriously can't believe you're defending the media scrumming around him, though, Jen. Not least because it's hypocrisy in the extreme (we're going to break the rules to moan about a guy allegedly breaking the rules), but there is a big difference between being scrutinised and being harassed, not ...

Yeah, I think I just have this sense of unease that the exit point comes after a long post without any chance to respond. But then again, if it didn't, that would mean there would have been unaddressed points from the other point of view. In fact, whenever you choose to exit the conversation, someth...

Tangentially, don't you love it when someone gets into a heated discussion and then says they're going to stop responding to anything anyone says? Because if you continue to try to change their mind, you look stupid for talking to someone who has said they aren't going to talk to you, and if you say...

EDIT: Sniped by David who has explained much the same thing. I mean, in your situation Rhys, saying "six" was obviously the right choice, for much the same reason as David's line of reasoning for the 21-point situation. If your opponent says "six", then if their word is valid you...

Probably the fact that it starred well-known Countdowny person Graeme Cole.

⦁ I now state the problem as playing the game once and finding a strategy to win with probability > 1 / 2. This sidesteps questions around multiple iterations of the game (e.g. shouldn't I be able to learn from previous iterations, does the person picking the numbers play in an adversarial manner, ...

Looks shockingly similar to the method that Johnny posted nearly 3 years ago. This standard method stuff is subtle eh?

Depending on exactly which numbers are written on the pieces of paper, the chance that my number falls between them certainly can be made as close to 0 as you desire. In any specific case though, it's still strictly greater than 0. I think that's what you're saying, and if so, we agree.

I know what a normal distribution is. It was you that brought it up and it's got nothing to do with the question. I suggest you read my first post replying to you more carefully then. It's not part of the question but it's definitely part of the answer. There are two numbers on pieces of paper. I p...

Looks like you don't actually know what a normal distribution is, then. It's not one in which intervals of the same size have equal probabilities, which you seem to imply by your post. In fact, your argument correctly shows that it's impossible to have such a distribution (called a uniform distribut...

But the difference between the two numbers is finite, so the probability of the number you pick being between them is zero. Not necessarily. In particular, if you choose your own random number according to, e.g. a normal distribution, then it has a non-zero probability of landing in any given finit...

And MORTALIZE would be available in R12, meaning a potential ambulance is there were this game to be played under the current dictionary.

Maybe I'm a hardened sceptic. But I reckon that all of the changes that would have happened in the next ~10 years or so (but have been accelerated by the pandemic) will remain, and everything else will fairly rapidly reset to exactly how it was before.

But the difference between the two numbers is finite, so the probability of the number you pick being between them is zero. Not necessarily. In particular, if you choose your own random number according to, e.g. a normal distribution, then it has a non-zero probability of landing in any given finit...

INCISURES in the round where DC had CUISINE
(Looks like I was beaten to posting this by one minute!)

ECOTONAL in round 7.

Thoroughly enjoyed reading through this, especially as I couldn't follow it all while it was happening. Mega kudos to all involved. I feel a bit mean saying this now, especially in my first post here... In the proposed solution for round 365, you should add the 1 on at the end, not subtract it. Sorry!