An interesting spot

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:39 pm

Watching any Countdown episode on Youtube (well, specifically, the few from series 58 on there) when it comes to the numbers game - if you pause the video when CECIL is deciding a target, you find something interesting. The hundreds digit and the units digit are always the same and the tens digit is always one more, e.g. you will only ever see:

121, 232, 343, 454, 565, 676, 787, 898, 909, and, interestingly, 010. Why is this? Is it something to do with computers or is it when CECIL is pretending to be circulating through numbers it actually just reels off multiples of 111 starting at 010?

Innis Carson · Post by **Innis Carson** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:27 pm

My uneducated guess would be that this was set deliberately as it creates the illusion of the numbers cycling about "randomly". If it really was random, you'd get the same number occurring more than once in a row and making it look jerky instead of smooth. And the middle one is one digit ahead of the others so that it looks like the three digits are moving independently. Maybe.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:35 pm

But the interesting thing is that 010 comes up and of course the first digit is never 0. I'm sure they can program around that - that's not my forte.

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:57 pm

They probably could, to appease the one or two people who have ever noticed it. If only Damian still came here...

Dan Vanniasingham · Post by **Dan Vanniasingham** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:50 pm

Sorry Kirk, but I found Jason's observations on Seattle's weather (much) more interesting than this.

Pete Fraser · Post by **Pete Fraser** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:14 pm

It's come up before that CECIL will repeatedly generate the same number until reset by a second button on the back, to facilitate retakes. So it sounds to me as if the big red button only initiates the display, and the actual number generation is initiated by the reset button. In other words, the numbers have nothing to do with the pseudorandom generation process at all.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:04 am

Actually I think this is kinda interesting, but I have nothing to add since Innis already gave the answer I would've given.

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:09 am

Dan Vanniasingham wrote:Sorry Kirk, but I found Jason's observations on Seattle's weather (much) more interesting than this.

Or what about Jason's observations on Bangers & Mash

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:48 pm

Why do you only see this when you watch Countdown episodes on Youtube? You would think that this is a normal pattern of CECIL whether you watch Countdown on TV or not.

One of my old math teachers said, "You should never put a 0 in front of a number." She was absolutely right!

By the way, Charlie locked my topic that stated my encounter with bangers and mash, but he still found it funny. He pointed it out in the special podcast he did for my birthday this year. I don't know why, though.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:51 pm

Jason Larsen wrote:Why do you only see this when you watch Countdown episodes on Youtube? You would think that this is a normal pattern of CECIL whether you watch Countdown on TV or not.

Err - what you see on TV is exactly the same as on Youtube (for most episodes). You only see this if you pause the computer during the randomisation. Similarly, if you paused the TV (or video if you'd recorded) at the same point, you'd see the same thing.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:54 pm

Oh, now I understand it, Kirk!

If you watch it live, you don't see that!

Gary Male · Post by **Gary Male** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:59 pm

Jason Larsen wrote: One of my old math teachers said, "You should never put a 0 in front of a number." She was absolutely right!

Try telling that to James Bond

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:02 pm

Jason Larsen wrote:Oh, now I understand it, Kirk!

If you watch it live, you don't see that!

If you watch it on Youtube, you don't see that either. It's only when you pause the video. Your last post really wasn't necessary as all relevant information was given to you in my first post. All you had to do was read carefully, Jason.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:09 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:Your last post really wasn't necessary

That's new.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:12 pm

You're funny, Gary, and I'm sorry, Kirk.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:12 pm

Jason Larsen wrote:One of my old math teachers said, "You should never put a 0 in front of a number." She was absolutely right!

She was absolutely wrong. Octal constants in many of the most widely used programming languages would be impossible to specify otherwise.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:14 pm

Phil, maybe she said that because she wasn't planning on teaching what you just wrote.

David Roe · Post by **David Roe** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:46 am

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Jason Larsen wrote:One of my old math teachers said, "You should never put a 0 in front of a number." She was absolutely right!
She was absolutely wrong. Octal constants in many of the most widely used programming languages would be impossible to specify otherwise.

Writing down phone numbers could be a bit tricky, too.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:26 am

And writing down bearings - she'd definitely teach that as we teach that to 14 year olds.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:23 pm

David, I have an easier time writing down numbers than I do remembering them.

And Kirk, are you ready for this? This old math teacher of mine is still alive and her name is Mrs. Curtis-Morris. That is quite a tongue twister! (She has gotten married since the end of the last day she had me as a student.)

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:18 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Jason Larsen wrote:Oh, now I understand it, Kirk!

If you watch it live, you don't see that!
If you watch it on Youtube, you don't see that either. It's only when you pause the video. Your last post really wasn't necessary as all relevant information was given to you in my first post. All you had to do was read carefully, Jason.

That's a bit harsh! Sometimes people miss things.

Edit - like http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 905#p15905

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:28 pm

Right, Gavin.

I still like you, Kirk!

Ralph Gillions · Post by **Ralph Gillions** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:44 pm

Well said Gavin.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:10 pm

That's right.

We never know, but all of us make mistakes!

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:33 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: That's a bit harsh! Sometimes people miss things.

Edit - like http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 905#p15905

It's not just the one-off occasion though, I get fed up of repeating something that's already been clearly said. Anyway, I didn't understand why you pointed me to that thread of the spelling of EMBARRASS because you didn't know what you were talking about in that thread and I just let you win that argument as I couldn't be bothered.

And yes I know this reply has just meant I'm rising to the bait..

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:52 pm

That's fine, Kirk.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:10 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote: Anyway, I didn't understand why you pointed me to that thread of the spelling of EMBARRASS because you didn't know what you were talking about in that thread

No, you didn't know what I was talking about, just like Jason didn't know what you were talking about and needed clarification.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:21 pm

Thank you for understanding me, Gavin.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:26 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: No, you didn't know what I was talking about, just like Jason didn't know what you were talking about and needed clarification.

Stop trying to be a champion of the oppressed, you sound like a twat. Kirk is right that it's annoying. However my advice is just to ignore such pointless requests for repetition.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:29 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote: No, you didn't know what I was talking about, just like Jason didn't know what you were talking about and needed clarification.
Stop trying to be a champion of the oppressed, you sound like a twat. Kirk is right that it's annoying. However my advice is just to ignore such pointless requests for repetition.

I'm not trying to be any sort of "champion". But Kirk's post did seem overly harsh (nothing to do with it being Jason). To be honest, some of your posts about the posts you don't like (of which there are many on this forum) make you look like a twat.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:35 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:To be honest, some of your posts about the posts you don't like (of which there are many on this forum) make you look like a twat.

Thanks for your input! I'll put it in a pile with all the other valuable things you've contributed to this place, along with...

Oh wait, I guess I'll have to start a new pile.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:49 am

Do you all understand that that's a common problem?

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:53 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:Thanks for your input!

Yes, I feel really silly lowering the tone of this thread by introducing the word "twat" into it. Oh hang on...

I'll put it in a pile with all the other valuable things you've contributed to this place, along with...

Oh wait, I guess I'll have to start a new pile.

Pile reached the ceiling already has it?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:32 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:Pile reached the ceiling already has it?

It took you a whole day to come up with that? Very disappointing.

Edit: Maybe I should make you post under your real name, and we'll see whether you're so bold in your opinions then.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:50 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:Pile reached the ceiling already has it?
It took you a whole day to come up with that? Very disappointing.

Too busy at work!

Edit: Maybe I should make you post under your real name, and we'll see whether you're so bold in your opinions then.

Maybe but maybe not.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:58 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: Maybe but maybe not.

Hmm, why bold - is this cryptic? Are you Peter Mabey?

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 1:27 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote: Maybe but maybe not.
Hmm, why bold - is this cryptic? Are you Peter Mabey?

Ha ha - no it was just because Charlie said about me being bold in my opinions.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 1:41 pm

Quite a good joke (for a twat)

Peter Mabey · Post by **Peter Mabey** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:56 am

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote: Maybe but maybe not.
Hmm, why bold - is this cryptic? Are you Peter Mabey?

Thankfully, no