You are not logged in.
Guess 3: 4579 (cc)
Guess 2: 1234 (c)
( 'c' for each cow, 'B' for each bull )
Guess 1: 2468 (c)
I've got it, Guess away!
breakdown:
Guess 1: 9876 (c)
Guess 2 : 8132 (cc)
Guess 3 : 7893 (c)
Guess 4 : 4501 (c)
Guess 5 : 6320 (ccc)
Guess 6 : 3265 (Bcc)
Guess 7 : 3604 (Bcc)
Guess 8 : 3426 (cccc)
Guess 9 : 6234 (Bccc)
Working with the assumption that two, three, four and six are the numbers;
Based on Guesses 1-5 (ignoring the bulls and 4 cows);
numerical locations not available are:
**22
*333
4***
6**6
therfore:
3264
is the only guess for 1-5
However, with the bulls:
G6: 3265
G7: 3604
G9: 6234
therfore:
2364
is the only guess for 6,7,9
minimize:
let's presume the least amount of errors.
3264 disagrees with all guesses 6-9
whereas
2364 only disagrees only with guess 5
"
justlookingforthemoment : Guess 5 : 6320
Reply : 3 cows.
"
so what, the first bull was a cow or something?
CONCLUSION:
In order to prove the game was not impossible, but instead to suggest that an error occured in the process of the game, the most likely solution being that which incurs the least mistakes.
Guess 11: 2364
4501
says you! ha!
... try looking up "up".
on the other hand,
1/∞ aproaches, but never quite goes up to zero.
... or is it down to zero?
languages aren't at all outdated ...
... words ... said ... mean ... things ... ugh!
languages are tricky in that there are multiple meanings for many words and therefore context is critical. speaking simply, languages need to evolve (and do) to suit our uses for communicating ideas and stuff. they are tricky because in order to properly create new meanings for words yet spoken we must follow parameters established by what has already been said, splitting infinitives here, to advancingly and prescriptively create useful, new context.
it computes, and is therefore proclaimed a "computer"
it looks like a mouse, let's call it a "mouse"
they speak! ... they call themselves "speakers"
in terms of the rate at which language changes versus the recent alarmingly fast rate of new technology in parallel with an evolving understanding of reality, the universe, etc. ...
still, you'd think we would have a word for the formula:
1/∞
try this angle;
looking up at ∞ we see the solar system, the galaxies, the whole of the cosmos ... and more, imaginably ...
looking down at 1/∞ we see the micro-organisms, the molecules, the atoms ... and less, perceivably ...
inifinity from our vantage point ...
+∞ as UP
-∞ as DOWN
strictly talking about size here.
or is that non-PC to short persons?
how about "ytinifini" ?
eh?!
any takers?
a bargain at twice the price!!!
UP ... is directional ... but only in relation to established norms.
your mouth is presumably DOWN from your eyes ... and eye-brows are generally considered UP from the eyes.
what if you stand on your head? or look UP? then UP changes ... or does it?
is UP in relation to ones body or in relation to the ground (the Earth)?
is UP, the direction opposite of the net gravitational force affecting an object at point "zero"?
for me, UP would then be a direction quite different from the UP of someone on the other side of the globe. to the Earth (as a body) ... is there an UP ? or would there be infinite "UPs" radiating into space ... ? or is the Earths UP, the singular direction opposite the Sun? or is there no UP for the Earth, because it is an orbital body?
depending on the interpretation, there could be infinite or one or zero UP classifications.
therefore, it's important to keep in mind, in any determination of characteristics:
what are we defining?
for what purpose?
how many dimensions / parameters are we defining?
what are the definitions of the related parameters and how do they relate?
arguably, definitions of a single word can vary depending on the application.
like i said, language is tricky.
Suppose, inifinity is a single number that is the sum total of every number, and that there is no limit to the number of numbers.
Directly we could compare inifinity to zero, as they are opposites in that zero is the sum absence of any number.
Indirectly, dividing everything by it's components, the only way to split it, and keep track of the size of any of it's pieces ...
each 1/∞ would equal anywhere from the smallest possible number above zero ("primary logic" says that is what 1/∞ defines), or to inifinity itself *; necessarily, referencing the range of the component (numerator in relation to surrounding points or comparable elements).
example:
digital waveform
time - pitch - volume - frequency - shape
given zero for volume ... how many zeroes? if not the whole of time, then the NUMBER of zeroes becomes absolutely relevant. From that perspective, zero (as a constant), given multiple measurable qualities, requires the record of it's reference points.
and so,
0/∞ = inifinite zeroes
unless "primary logic" dictates the use of only one dimension at all times.
i'm guessing you meant;
"according to the single scope of numbers themselves"
*(seeing as with zero being a limit, and infinity having no limit, there should be two inifinities ... inifinitely large and infinitely small ... large being the common interpretation, language is tricky.)
This is ignoring "negative numbers". Standard use of negative numbers, as i understand it, present zero as a reference item. This readily presupposes the number zero as a set-up starting point rather than a value ... any value it is given is created as reference for the intended parameters measured. In my interpretation then, "negative numbers" themselves are wholy man-made and mainly used for pre-judged interpretation of values in relation to the reference. Common sense tends to point us in the same direction though.
to the Earth, is UP towards or away from the Sun? does Earth have an UP?
and so,
what are we looking at?
how much?
how many?
how many different things?
how many same things?
what kinds of things?
what is the resolution of our perception?
what is the quantity of parameters?
"randomity is relative to the starting values"
to what extent?
i doubt anyone here get's annoyed by theories
Think i'll start compiling a list a of philosophical math formulas:
0-∞
0/∞
∞*0
0^∞
An artists perspective on math:
0/0 = 0
when nothing is absolute
0/0 = ∞
when something between nothing is everything
0/0 = 1
when zero is unique
0/0 = any and all real or imaginary #s
when spontaneous generation exists
1/∞ > 0
when everything excludes nothing
∞/∞ = 1
except when;
∞ ≠ ∞
How about -∞ (negative infinity)?
Subtracting infinity, would that be equal to zero or with the difference of its co-additive(s)?
or is it simply included as a part of inifinity itself?