|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 07/07/07 04:31
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 04:04:10 GMT dorayme scribed:
> In article
> <doraymeRidThis-FD88C1.03080801072007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> [1] Here is something that can be solved using either mathematics
>> or just logic really.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2qzgqz
>
> I became nervous when I looked at my solution last night (there
> is a url to it). I stand by it, but wish to forewarn whoever
> eventually holds me to account on this one that my reasoning is
> not a strict proof. But it is not all that flakey or incorrect as
> far as it goes. It also provides me with a reductio ad absurdum
> of many other attempts. Simply because it certainly succeeds in
> concluding with a provably sensible figure (if not an optimum
> one?) and if any other attempt produces a larger figure, the
> smaller one that results from my reasoning can clearly prove that
> the argument to the larger figure must be faulty (without saying
> what is wrong).
So what is the number in your solution?
--
Neredbojias
Q: Do you speak Turkish?
A: Gobble gobble, dude.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|