c4countdown

Well, it seems that Brian had a bit of an off day yesterday. So did I, but luckily Ross was on hand to help keep things on track.

Brian is on for show #4 today. Unfortunately, yesterday's show seems to have highlighted quite a lot of his flaws. He had hardly made any mistakes in his letters and he made mistakes aplenty yesterday. His numbers were still a bit off, but luckily for him, Cherry's numbers weren't that much to behold. And he's till only got 1 conundrum so far. Having said that, no-one in the audience got it and I didn't get it! (Yet my dad, who like Jo Brand, likes to make words up all the time, did!)

Hopefully, we'll also have more singing from Lesley Garrett as well. Having said that, those of you don't like that sort of thing, should probably cast their vote in the General section to show your displeasure.

Oh! The advantages of recording the show (And going fast forward through the boring bits- especially a boring DC guest!)

Muting is great. Is there a style of singing that makes you look more of a twat when muted than opera?

Matt Morrison wrote:Muting is great. Is there a style of singing that makes you look more of a twat when muted than opera?

Christ Almighty. No - I had to go for the full turning off .

Sue Sanders wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Muting is great. Is there a style of singing that makes you look more of a twat when muted than opera?

Christ Almighty. No - I had to go for the full turning off .

Way to spoil my premonition

If Brian had picked a final consonant in round 7 instead of a vowel, NATTINESS would have been there for 9.

RECLUSION also for 9

Nice alternative to the second numbers round without using the large number:

7 x 4 x 10 + 6

PAININGS for round 7 ?

Simple final numbers : (75x3)-50-10

Mark Kudlowski wrote:PAININGS for round 7 ?

No, although you meant round 9.

PANINIS for round 9
Oops just realised the plural of Panini is Panino

Marc Meakin wrote:PANINIS for round 9
Oops just realised the plural of Panini is Panino

No, the plural of PANINO is PANINI.
http://wiki.apterous.org/Irregular_plurals

Liam Tiernan wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:PANINIS for round 9
Oops just realised the plural of Panini is Panino

No, the plural of PANINO is PANINI.
http://wiki.apterous.org/Irregular_plurals

An interesting fact though not one that could ever be used as a chat-up line. Oh, hang on.....BEVINS?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Erm another alt final numbers solution:

((50 + 8) x 3) = 174

174 - (10 - 1) = 165

That is all

I think Brian was in a few of the early Bond films, wearing small round glasses, stroking his chin & saying "Aaaahh Meester Bond - ve meet again"

Marc Meakin wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Muting is great. Is there a style of singing that makes you look more of a twat when muted than opera?

Christ Almighty. No - I had to go for the full turning off .

Way to spoil my premonition

Ooops. But - I'm not psychic (contrary to popular belief)

Alternative alternative numbers... 50 x (3-1) + 75 - 10 =165

Sue Sanders wrote:Alternative alternative numbers... 50 x (3-1) + 75 - 10 =165

Does anyone not have an alternative to the 3rd numbers game

I've got 3 here.

3 - 1 = 2

8 / 2 = 4

4 x 10 = 40

40 + 75 + 50 = 165

(Could've said 3 + 1 = 4, but I did it this way round.)

No.2:

50 - 1 = 49

49 x 3 = 147

147 + 10 + 8 = 165

No.3:

75 - 50 = 25

8 - 1 = 7

25 x 7 = 175

175 - 10 = 165

Alternative first numbers:

(100/2) = 50 - 10 - 1 = 39 x 4 = 156

Alternative third numbers:

75 + 50 = 125, (3 + 1) x 10 = 40, 125 + 40 = 165


And I think SANITISE was a DC equaller in Round 7.

Here's a 4th method:

75 - 50 - 3 = 22

22 x 8 = 176

176 - 10 - 1 = 165

James Robinson wrote:Here's a 4th method:

75 - 50 - 3 = 22

22 x 8 = 176

176 - 10 - 1 = 165

Do you really think we want to see so many methods to an easy numbers game James?

Kirk Bevins wrote:Do you really think we want to see so many methods to an easynumbers game James?

You say easy, Kirk, but if it is so easy, why did neither of the contestants get it then?

Kirk Bevins wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Here's a 4th method:

75 - 50 - 3 = 22

22 x 8 = 176

176 - 10 - 1 = 165

Do you really think we want to see so many methods to an easy numbers game James?

It wouldn't be so bad if you used one or two lines per method James, not seven freaking lines. Have some respect for everybody's eyes/screens/scrolling fingers/sanity.

James Robinson wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:Do you really think we want to see so many methods to an easynumbers game James?

You say easy, Kirk, but if it is so easy, why did neither of the contestants get it then?

Did you get all these methods in the 30 seconds James? If not, maybe that's your answer. I do agree with you that it's easy, but once the easy solutions (got in the 30 seconds) have been shown, why post more obscure ones, got well out of time, which aren't at all interesting? (if you were doing some cool method that went up to 8000 and back down, that would be interesting)

Matt Morrison wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Here's a 4th method:

75 - 50 - 3 = 22

22 x 8 = 176

176 - 10 - 1 = 165

Do you really think we want to see so many methods to an easy numbers game James?

It wouldn't be so bad if you used one or two lines per method James, not seven freaking lines. Have some respect for everybody's








eyes/




















screens/
















scrolling fingers/


























sanity.

Jon Corby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:Do you really think we want to see so many methods to an easynumbers game James?

You say easy, Kirk, but if it is so easy, why did neither of the contestants get it then?

Did you get all these methods in the 30 seconds James? If not, maybe that's your answer. I do agree with you that it's easy, but once the easy solutions (got in the 30 seconds) have been shown, why post more obscure ones, got well out of time, which aren't at all interesting? (if you were doing some cool method that went up to 8000 and back down, that would be interesting)

Unfortunately Jon, I'm rubbish at doing stuff like working out from a sky high number like 8000, so I leave that to people like Alec or Kieran who can do stuff like that.
P.S. I did get all those within the 30 seconds.

James Robinson wrote:P.S. I did get all those within the 30 seconds.

No you didn't.

James Robinson wrote:P.S. I did get all those within the 30 seconds.

Yeah, that's right. You just split them between two posts with twelve hours between just to keep us excited, right?

James Robinson wrote: P.S. I did get all those within the 30 seconds.

All of them?

Whether he got them all in 30 seconds or not (he clearly didn't) it's irrelevent: posting multiple solutions like that is tedious. If anything it shows the contestants who were on the show "look - I had 4 ways in 30 seconds and you were 1 away, how shit are you".

Davy Affleck wrote:

James Robinson wrote:P.S. I did get all those within the 30 seconds.

All of them?

Yes, I am starting to sound a bit smug now, aren't I? I do apologise for that.

In answer to Matt's question, I wrote it about an hour after I watched the show, but I forgot the 4th method, so I posted it this morning after remembering what it was.

I could have been even more smug and said I did it Rachel's way as well, but I didn't. End of story.

James Robinson wrote:

Davy Affleck wrote:

James Robinson wrote:P.S. I did get all those within the 30 seconds.

All of them?

End of story.

Oh no it's not. (Countdown panto season opens early)

James Robinson wrote:

Davy Affleck wrote:

James Robinson wrote:P.S. I did get all those within the 30 seconds.

All of them?

Yes, I am starting to sound a bit smug now, aren't I? I do apologise for that.

In answer to Matt's question, I wrote it about an hour after I watched the show, but I forgot the 4th method, so I posted it this morning after remembering what it was.

I could have been even more smug and said I did it Rachel's way as well, but I didn't. End of story.

Firstly you steal his name and now his reputation

James Robinson wrote: Yes, I am starting to sound a bit smug now, aren't I?

James Robinson wrote:I'm rubbish at doing stuff like working out from a sky high number like 8000, so I leave that to people like Alec

Thanks, but not in 30 seconds I can't!

Here's one: 8 + 3 = 11 ; 11 × 10 × 75 = 8250 ; 8250 / 50 = 165

Alec Rivers wrote:

James Robinson wrote:I'm rubbish at doing stuff like working out from a sky high number like 8000, so I leave that to people like Alec

Thanks, but not in 30 seconds I can't!

Here's one: 8 + 3 = 11 ; 11 × 10 × 75 = 8250 ; 8250 / 50 = 165

Did you use some kind of custom solver for that?

Kai Laddiman wrote:

Alec Rivers wrote:

James Robinson wrote:I'm rubbish at doing stuff like working out from a sky high number like 8000, so I leave that to people like Alec

Thanks, but not in 30 seconds I can't!

Here's one: 8 + 3 = 11 ; 11 × 10 × 75 = 8250 ; 8250 / 50 = 165

Did you use some kind of custom solver for that?

My solution was 50/10=5;75/5=15;8+3=11;11x15=165 all within 30 sec - presumably James rearranged to achieve his big number

Peter Mabey wrote:My solution was 50/10=5;75/5=15;8+3=11;11x15=165 all within 30 sec - presumably James rearranged to achieve his big number

Erm, not that it matters, but it was me using the big number. Nested-quote parsing error, I think.