GingerAle

avatar
UsernameGingerAle
Score675
Stats
Questions 0
Answers 202

 #5
avatar+675 
+2

Rosala, we may sometimes forget your birthday, but none of us will forget you!

 

This may be the post to which Melody is referring.

https://web2.0calc.com/questions/lets-end-the-day-by-learning-something#r4

 

  This is why you are like springtime and flowers.

   … ….

   Your polite and pleasant manners and your willingness to communicate sincere, compassionate  empathy, ranks you among the most unique of human beings.

I am sure, someday, no matter what you choose to do in life, you will be a diplomat – an ambassador to the world. Your posts represent a great beginning.

Happiness to you.

The ghost of web2.0calc

---

 

Here is the original reference:

https://web2.0calc.com/questions/which-sentence-contains-a-linking-verb-he-asked-questions-about-terms-he-did-not-understand-sarit-answered-all-of-the-questions-correctly#r13

 

Rosala is like springtime and flowers, even for parts of the world that are going into winter. ….

---

 

Here is another reference:

https://web2.0calc.com/questions/kitty-3-and-cphill-wait#r10

 

Rosala, do you know who the Ghost is\was?

 

smiley

GingerAle Sep 18, 2017
 #20
avatar+675 
+1

I dont even know what to say ginger. 

 

Well, you sure do say a lot for someone who doesn’t know what to say. Are you just shooting off words in the dark hoping some of them find the light of day? 

 

I was not trying to be arrogant, nor i was trying to attack her or any other moderator.

 

Maybe not, but just because you are unaware of your arrogance doesn’t mean you are not arrogant.

 

I thought the way she presented her answer was a bit complicated and hard to find. That's it.

 

Critiquing a presentation is fine. But your choice of words (“sad,” “much, much”) creates an artificial  hyper-emotional atmosphere that’s conducive for dismissal of a presentation that has a high potential for explaining the iterative nuances of a complex oscillating combinatorics problem to any student that would want to learn from it. Only a dedicated teacher would spend the time to do this.   These are labor intensive and time consuming to do manually on a spreadsheet –I know, I’ve done them.

 

Heureka made a similar presentation for the exact same question, here, by writing a C++ program.  I expect his program parsed and sorted these in a fraction of a second. I don’t know how long it took him to write and debug the program—an hour maybe, but I’m sure it was only a fraction of the time Melody spent on her presentation.  Heureka’s presentation was well received—as it should have been, by Sir CPhill, Mr. BB –the Blarney Banker (amazing) and others who didn’t comment.  Melody’s presentation is well received too. Mr. BB was intrigued enough to search for and find the missing combinations. I do hope he writes about it in The Case of the Missing Combinations.

 

Im sure melody can take a little bit of criticism.

 

I’m sure she can take a banana-boatload of it. She’s a teacher –a successful one, and that means her skin has to be as thick as rhinoceros hide. How many parents have blamed her because their children are too stupid to learn?

“My Johnny did good at math, until he was in your class!”   

“Buffy doesn’t understand her homework and I can’t explain it to her, which means you did a crappy job teaching her. Let me tell you how to do your job.”

 

The question isn’t whether Melody can take a little bit of criticism, it’s whether her post is worthy of it.  It wasn’t. It most defiantly wasn’t when contrasted with your alternative method for a solution. A method so complex, that there probably isn’t one person on here that knows how to use it—that includes you. 

 

But when im complimenting jz1234 for coming up with an idea that was closer than everyone else in the thread? (Again, this might seem like im attacking melody. You can calm down, ginger! Take a deep breath, drink a glass of water, because im not attacking her, im mentioning a fact)- no, dont even THINK about complimenting him, because he didng give the EXACT formula for the solution.

 

I didn’t think you were attacking Melody, I just think you are full of blarney! (Blarney is a euphemism for Bullshít.)  You blòw blarney smoke like it has substance. You seem to think that if you say something with a certainty that makes it true.  Congratulations to JZ for thinking along binomial lines for a solution—he is defiantly thinking in the right direction.

 

However, you are not thinking in the right direction. Saying that formula is very close to correct and that it works for unbounded ceilings is blarney. 

 

He also realized that the number of solutions to the equations is the number of solutions to the exuation  x 1+....+x r=A-r where 0= i= i-1. Now, Jz1234's solution holds when there is no upper bound S i to any of the dices,

 

Your “proof” is blarney: you present a plop of incomprehensible ASCII slop but fail to present a final formula.  The Stars and Bars method is among the most simple of combinatoric formulas to use and present. Why didn’t you demonstrate it after your complex presentation?  The reason is simple: you are full of blarney  Bullshít!

 

 I said your commentary was arrogant and useless, and it is, but your math presentation is so delusional and chaotic, it indicates a serious mental illness. The best part of your presentation is  “0= i= i-1” and that, by itself, is truly worthy of a blòódy Field’s medal!

 

You do have great mindreading skills though, else how would you know what Jz1234 realized? Of course, maybe he’s one of your puppets, PM.   How many do you have on here?

 

Now, you may not believe me, but i knew you'll criticize me for my post.

 

I believe you. You have demonstrated advanced mind reading skills, so predicting the future isn’t much more advanced.

 

I knew you'll call me a blarney banker,

 

Ah, you prognosticated this one wrong.  I only address the Blarney Banker as such, and he’s not one of your puppets, so you shouldn’t take it personally. 

 

 i knew you'll defend melody.

 

Yep! I don’t really need to though; she’s quite capable of defending herself.  There’s an instinct in us Chimps to protect and warn the troop when any kind of threat comes near. Your toxic offal fits the bill. 

 

This leaves two options:

1.Im the oracle!

 

Did you mean orifice? If you did, then Ok.

I think you are most likely TPM. Did you know (via your mind reading ability) that one of my favorite piano pieces is Funeral March of a Marionette? Rather fitting, I think.

https://youtu.be/gkjNeHlSoko?t=45

 

 

2. You're just getting predictable.

 

You are partly right. I’ve been predictable for a long time. Most of us genetically enhanced chimps are predictable, except when we are not. 

 

 

 tl;dr:

 

I’m not surprised; you do seem lazy. 

 

grow up

 

Never!

 

 

Until next time, don’t let wagging heads, jointless gestures, and long monologues wear you out.

 

GA

GingerAle Aug 30, 2017
 #17
avatar+675 
+1

Guest all you gave was an example of arrogance squared.

 

Sadly, melody's way of answering the questions is clumsy and complicated, and takes a lot of time when the numbers get larger (assuming you remember to count every combinations exactly once).

 

This isn’t sad, nor is this clumsy. It may be unwieldy because of its size, but it’s not clumsy. Complicated? Yes, of course, it is, and no matter how it’s answered it’s a complicated question.  Melody’s presentation explains what is going on inside the formulas and algorithms used to solve this. Very un-advanced students are the target audience, here. They don’t know what generating function is. I doubt there are five members that know what a generating function is –let alone how do one.  

 

This question is a famous one in combinatorics and has a much, MUCH simpler answer than the answers you gave. after reading Jz1234's last post i see he ALMOST got the right answer (and that is VERY impressive, well done!).

 

No, he didn’t almost get the right answer. 

 

jz1234's answers works only if we dont mention any upper bound in the question.

 

No it doesn’t. If the goal is Mars, that formula doesn’t get you the moon.

 

Let me explain:

 

[Sadly] Your explanation is laborious [Clumsy] and doesn’t produce a very usable result.

 

As far as i know there is no general, nice formula that finds the number of rolls, but that is the best way i can think of for solving this question

 

Well you don’t know much! I know of a general, [nice] formula that gives the exact result.  (Lancelot Link gave it to me when I was studying AOPS.)

 

\(\sum \limits_{k=0}^{m}\binom{n}{k} (-1)^k \binom{p – s*k – 1}{p – s*k – n} \leftarrow \text {where p is the point (sum) target, n is the # of die, }\\ \hspace {47mm} \text{s is the number of sides, and } m=\lfloor \dfrac{p-n}{s}\rfloor \\\)

 

 

This formula is from J. V. Uspensky’s Introduction to Mathematical Probability (1937). There is an extensive derivation here

 

Here’s the Wolfram code for this fromula:

This is compliments of Lancelot Link. (I think that Chimp could program Wolfram to bring back a burning sample of brimstone from heII.)

 

The variables are preset.  Paste this into Wolfram Alpha.

 

p=20,n=10,s=6;  sum (binom(n,k)*(-1)^k*(binom((p-s*k-1),( p-s*k-n))) from k=0 to  Floor[(p - n)/s])

 

Or click here.

 

Now, take your [much, much] arrogant and useless commentary and shove it up your [sad, sad] áss!

GingerAle Aug 28, 2017