c4countdown

Jack Creswell won again yesterday - can he do so again today to survive until a second week?

Just for a laugh, listen to Nick's player introduction then put up a winning player and margin prediction.

Jack by 25 points.

Rachel did badly on the impossible six small - best is 108 not 96 - you add the 1s to the 2s and not to each other before multiplying.

DAYSIDES for a beater in R10

Tony Atkins wrote:Rachel did badly on the impossible six small - best is 108 not 96 - you add the 1s to the 2s and not to each other before multiplying.

If Countdown allowed powers and indices: ((3 x 4 x 2) - 1)) ^2

What a hard show - I think the max was only 107.

Tony Atkins wrote:What a hard show - I think the max was only 107.

Hmmm. Presumably it was the end of the recording day too! Not much to test anyone's numbers skills with 2 impossible, one ridiculously hard and one ridiculously easy, which was just Cecil taking the pee!

I actually risked outwind but as in winding a watch, but I don't need to pronounce it correctly, lol

Three Rs in a row in Rounds 4-5! When was the last instance of a consonant being thrice repeated?

Mark Kudlowski wrote:

Tony Atkins wrote:Rachel did badly on the impossible six small - best is 108 not 96 - you add the 1s to the 2s and not to each other before multiplying.

If Countdown allowed powers and indices: ((3 x 4 x 2) - 1)) ^2

If you could have 0/0 then (1-1)/(2-2) gets you there!

Tony Atkins wrote:What a hard show - I think the max was only 107.

111 it says here, I think that's the lowest in the new 15-round format.

TOTSIENS in round 13 for me.

Tony Atkins wrote:Rachel did badly on the impossible six small - best is 108 not 96 - you add the 1s to the 2s and not to each other before multiplying.

Yeah, you'd think she would know that 3x3 is more than 2x2x2.

I know it must be difficult under the lights with all the pressure and so on, but still. Fuck me.

Fred Mumford wrote:

Tony Atkins wrote:Rachel did badly on the impossible six small - best is 108 not 96 - you add the 1s to the 2s and not to each other before multiplying.

Yeah, you'd think she would know that 3x3 is more than 2x2x2.

I know it must be difficult under the lights with all the pressure and so on, but still. Fuck me.

Nice.

By the way, if you have 1, 1, 2, 2, the best you can do is (1+2) * (1+2), but with 1, 1, 3, 3 you're better off doing (1+1) * 3 * 3. So what number between 2 and 3 gives the tie between (1+x) * (1+x) and (1+1) * x * x? It's 1+root 2. So if you've got two 1s and two 2.414...s in the selection then it doesn't matter which way you do it.

Interesting! So that made me wonder what if you only have one 1. Do you always add it to the lowest number in the selection? Looking at it it seems so, and this bit surprised me - for every pair of consecutive numbers I tried, it only makes a difference of 1 in each case. eg using a 2 & 3 gives 8 or 9, 3 & 4 gives 15 or 16 etc. I didn't know that anyway

Philip Wilson wrote:Interesting! So that made me wonder what if you only have one 1. Do you always add it to the lowest number in the selection? Looking at it it seems so, and this bit surprised me - for every pair of consecutive numbers I tried, it only makes a difference of 1 in each case. eg using a 2 & 3 gives 8 or 9, 3 & 4 gives 15 or 16 etc. I didn't know that anyway

Yeah, always add it to the lowest other number.

And if you have 1, 1, 2, 3, you can do (1+1) * 2 * 3 or (2+1) * (3+1) or (2+1+1) * 3 and they all make 12.

Right. So a 2 and a 3 actually works as the tie you wrote about before (in the absence of a 1 + root 2)!