c4countdown

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Oh, now I understand it, Kirk!

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

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

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.

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

That's new.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.)

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

Right, Gavin.

I still like you, Kirk!

Well said Gavin.

That's right.

We never know, but all of us make mistakes!

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..

That's fine, Kirk.

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.

Thank you for understanding me, Gavin.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Gavin Chipper wrote: Maybe but maybe not.

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

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.

Quite a good joke (for a twat)

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote: Maybe but maybe not.

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

Thankfully, no