Acme

10-4 10-oz.

Indeed we have been down the random rabbit hole ad nauseam. Bunch of damn nonsense in my humble opinion. Anyway, my point is that there is no guarantee life has to start, or will start, or is predestined in the sense that life is predetermined by the simple presence of chemicals. Whatever circumstances led to DNA coming together on Earth, be it happening in water, or clay, or at a particular pressure or temperature etcetera, those circumstances occurred by chance. Whether we can reproduce those circumstances or not is irrelevant to them having happened at least once here.

It doesn't matter if you mark the balls or not. That is, it's neither 'against the rules' or necessary. As Imatfaal pointed out, you can 'identify' individual balls by how you place them when handling them. For example you could line them up in a row and in your minds eye 'number' them and then just keep track of which 'numbers' you use by counting and reordering them in rows during and after handling. While Commander said his illustration wasn't a clue when I asked about it, my thought was prompted by the idea of numbering. Some of the solutions that I read to the classic 12-ball problem used such 'numbering', some did not. (Note that I asked the question before I read solutions.)

The N. Koreans just want to 'work' with us so they can find out how we tracked the hack to them so they can improve their attacks in the future. Duh!

Then point them out in a spoiler. Your hit & run one-liners are unhelpful.

Are you alive? Probability of life in the Universe is 1. PS Someone put this page up a while back; it may be of some help. Index of Creationist Claims

Who else would it represent? It is dependent on the ability of the writer and the ability of the reader. It conveys that you are argumentative with a dash of Galilean complex.

Predestined? Yes; as in Chemistry is only deterministic insomuch as under the right conditions certain chemical reactions take place. That the right conditions occur, is random.

Using upper case is considered shouting and there is no need for that. Changing the number of balls from the 'traditional' puzzle is mildly clever, but only insomuch as to make it not easily recognized. Having a general algorithm is rather more interesting and I -and I'm sure the others- look forward to your posting it.

A couple of thoughts. First, the hardest part of this technology seems to be the inputting of instructions, so making some intermediate software for consumers than can translate 'simple' input into printer instructions would forward the use of the technology. Second, rather than using polymers or metals as is now being done, a printer using papier-mâché could produce items not requiring much durability as well as being recyclable.

So I get the idea concerning magnetism when there is an alignment, but I'm unclear about heat adding [effective] mass. Could you expound on that?

Roger & thanks. By-the-by, your Bachet link is wrong and goes back to this thread. At any rate, cleverness is no anathema to mathematics.

You piqued my interest in history and I committed the unpardonable sin of consulting the oracle, i.e. I did a web search. (I just finished reading The Archimedes Codex by Netz & Noel and they revealed that Archimedes used combinatorics to solve the puzzle of the stomachion. The authors also put the problem to modern mathematicians who solved it a couple different ways. The Wiki article on the puzzle that I just linked to is not up to these current efforts, but it does have an illustration of the puzzle.) While I can't say how old the weighing problems are, they are not new. I can say that the solution is not a matter of the definition of 'weighing'. While Commander says this is a puzzle of his own invention I can only see that may be so in his choice of the number of balls and/or his solution. In light of the weight of my sin I must of course withdraw from further discussion here. Good luck!

Roger. Is it possible fellas that we are overlooking an inference that we can take from an earlier weighing in your algorithms that would tell us heavier/lighter? I'm thinking this because Commander said something about paying attention to Left-up [pan], Balanced [pans], and Right-up [pan]. I got a late start today and am still wiping the bleary from my eyes and will go over the solutions again when I get my java on. Acknowledged. So possibly some element of 'trickery' aside from the math. The thought crossed my mind when I was asking Commander about the illustration he gave. Mmmmmm......

Did you mean 'ball' problem? And by all means please expound on the issue of definition. If you think it's necessary, then put your explication in spoilers.

OK. Thnx. So when you say: Does this mean you can do the 39 balls in 4 weighings?

Although I imagine the effect described by xyzt would result in an immeasurably small change in mass. Roger. Took me a momenta there to differentiate between Commander's XYZ and xyzt the person. So while the difference may be immeasurable by a scale, it is calculable using xyzt's formula if we give specific values to the variables?

Why does Food Stick to Pans @ Science of Cooking

OK, thank you. I think we have some language barrier issues as 'wisecrack' refers to a joke and I don't understand a joke in the context of your reply. I would also point out that you said pen and paper were helpful and that implies visual clues. Sensei can of course reply himself, however I'm unclear on what you have written. (Language barrier again perhaps.) What I get from it is that the solution for 39 balls [b39 ] is 38 weighings [b39-1 ]. However since we have solutions of as few as 5 weighings that doesn't make sense. Can you clarify?

Fortunately you can test your thinking with experiments. Sensei said he has done the experiment with magnets and will do it again and make photographs and post them. By no means let this prevent you from performing your own experiments as reproducibility is a keynote of science.

Let's not overthink this. The stack weighs the same even with levitation. Every action has an opposite & equal reaction don't ya know. . PS Without some mechanism to hold the floating disk in place, it won't stay in place. A clear containing cylinder would do nicely, which of course must be in place for all weighings.

Didn't we, at some point in the not-so-distant past, discuss using "ignorant" instead of "stupid" because even saying "that's a stupid idea" implied it came from a stupid person? Right you are; I amend my statement: Don't cosset the ignorant, or the stupid, or the sniveling little rat-faced trolls.

'Not good' is a subjective measure. The fact remains that I have accurately described a solution and one which uses fewer weighings than other respondents. While I'm here, I'm still waiting for an answer from Commander on my questions. Please do me the courtesy of a response. Edit: PS My questions rely on intuitive Human inference.

This seems to be the thrust of many of your arguments. What are you, the word police? Get over it.

You are well within the purview of the rules and your authority to do something about wrongitudinalityness. Whaaaaaa! They called people irritating! Shouldn't that read 'simply causing a physiological response to a stimulus'? Here here! Don't cosset the ignorant.