|
Page 2 of 3 pages < 1 2 3 > |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 | 09:44 AM
"5 isn't WORTH 4, it HAS 4.." - Maegan
Semantics.
And anyone who reads this thread and has it solved can tell by others' posts if someone has actually solved this. |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 | 09:56 AM
Ok, all you rocket scientist out there just need to give up!!!! |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 | 10:02 AM
...I don't think your use of "semantics" is appropriate here. 😛 |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 | 10:37 AM
How so? |
Ledasmom
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 | 11:04 AM
I'm not sure if this makes me a total idiot or not, but I figured it out on the first try. Reminded me of all those idiotic games we used to play on school field trips - "Grandma likes coffee but she doesn't like tea", and so forth. |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 | 11:10 AM
Hmmmmmmm.....I wouldn't call you an idiot, at least you were able to read the instructions. J/K
I battled this for a couple of days. I had to really try my best to think like an 8 yr. old to finally get it. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 | 11:12 AM
I'm glad I helped you Maegan. I expect my payment of $500 to be mailed within the week. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 | 11:13 AM
Semantics is the STUDY of meanings. Not being petty about which one or the other is being used. Talk to my friend Merriam...he knows. I was simply being petty about which word was being used. I wasn't studying the meaning of them. Pettiness. Quite a bit cheaper than semantics.
😊
::scrapes up the rest of her pride before she closes her MOH window for the day::
I'm going now. |
Glamcat
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 | 12:10 PM
Thanks for the answer! I was about to call MENSA. Wow, I must be a friggin' genius. I couldn't figure it out to save my life.
(Of course, I only tried for about 10 minutes- I didn't say I had a lot of patience) 😜 |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 | 12:59 PM
"semantics the study of words and their meanings" - Macmillan English Dictionary
My point was that it all depends on how you define the terms WORTH and HAS.
Worth - adj. - Equal in value to something specified
Has - v. - to be in possession of
They both mean the same thing when relating to this game. |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 | 01:14 PM
Maegan, how do I contact Merriam??? I want to make sure he really knows. |
Mathematician
|
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 | 07:16 AM
there is no logic in this game juz memorize every questions and u will get the correct answers everytime! |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 | 07:28 AM
Yes, we know Math-man. We're all just imagining it. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 09:00 AM
Stephen, his full name would be Merriam Webster, I'm sure you can look him up!
...
P.S. Yes, I know those are both LAST names! |
Myst
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 05:04 PM
I finally had a chance to try out this game. It took me a couple of days to figure it out. Now how do I reach Mensa? |
MrKurto
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 05:37 PM
Use your high IQ to telepathically communicate with them? |
BuBbLeZ
|
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 | 01:30 PM
I believe I figured the puzzle out, but I still dont understand what I'm actually doing that's getting me a 90% accuracy. How can you fit that in with the Professor's statement? 😝 |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 | 02:26 PM
Ohhhhhh, it's a dictionary!!!! I seen those before, Maegan. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 | 10:32 AM
I just wanted to add, I think this game is stupid. Really STUPID. (Yes, yes...part of that comes from the fact that I couldn't figure it out, but what fun is a game you can't figure out on your own???)
Stupid game! |
Myst
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 | 11:34 AM
what fun is a game you can't figure out on your own
It's fun for those who get to watch you rend your clothes and pull out your hair while trying to figure out the game? |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 | 11:37 AM
...Well, at least no one saw that I had changed into sack cloth & gnashed my teeth. |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 | 11:38 AM
Isn't it though!!!! I am making a NUDE version of the game. That would be entertainment!!!!! |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 | 01:32 PM
YES! The nude version could be penii around the (insert your favorite vagina word here).
:lol: |
paul
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 | 05:40 PM
it took me 3 hrs in total but all the clues are misleading just think logical and it comes piece of piss really when you understand |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 | 11:49 AM
"Petals Around the Rose may be almost as great a drag on the national economy as Star Trek."
And that's from THEIR website.
I never bothered to look before, but they've got a <a href="http://www.borrett.id.au/computing/petals-frat.htm">guestbook</a> for people who have figured it out. |
Michael MacKinnon
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 | 05:30 PM
I don't think he meant that the longer it took the smarter you were. The more a person is educated in logical areas, like math and physics, they weaker their aptitude at things like this. It is like the nothing question that kids get, but adults have a hard time with. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 | 11:01 AM
I have a deep loathing now, of this game. Every time it gets back in the top 10 I think of those dice spinning & haunting me. It's like torture. |
punkdacid
|
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 | 04:22 AM
i tryed working it out, i had been at for hours. so i typed the game up on google and looked for the answer. now im diapointed coz its such a crappy answer |
Peri Craig
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 | 11:04 PM
My brother sent me this puzzle 10 days ago, and I JUST got it!
He sent me three clues to help:
1. The answer will always be even or zero.
2. All roses have stems.
3. Not all dice have petals. |
andychrist
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 | 04:55 AM
Technically the title of the game is a bit misleading; it should more accurately be called "Petals around the Roses," as you must total the "petals" around the "roses" of all the dice to get the correct answer. That was what threw me originally and made it take a couple of seconds longer to figure out the solution. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 | 09:36 AM
Good for you, tootypants.
😛 |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 | 11:11 AM
Jeepers, Andy, you think maybe that's part of the puzzle?
😕 |
MrKurto
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 | 07:40 PM
rod, andy's right.
they should be more specific.
infact, the whole game should be called; count the spots known as "petals" surrounding the center spot known as the "rose", when 5's are worth 4 and 3's are worth 2. |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 | 08:22 PM
Sorry, you have pointed out the eror of my ways.
:down: |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 | 08:23 PM
Damn, I can't believe I just spelled error wrong.
😕 |
Winona
in USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 | 08:26 PM
I can. 😉
(ducking) |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 | 08:29 PM
And your error will be there for as long as Alex runs the site...(thought about saying forever, but that's another can of worms...) 😉 |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 | 08:45 PM
I mean, of all the freakin words to spell wrong, ERROR?
Damn.
What are you ducking for, Winona? My arm's not THAT long.
Nice dig, Smerk 😊
(Bradbury 😊) |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 | 08:47 PM
Ya know, Rod, you could always suck up to Stephen, of "THE POWER" fame, and get him to change it for you, thereby hiding your shame and disgrace.
😜 |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 | 08:48 PM
Ray Bradbury 😛 |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 | 08:50 PM
Stephen? HE'd NEVER change somone else's posts, would he?
I mean, get real.
:lol: |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 | 08:54 PM
Rod, for the next 24 hours, people will just be reminding you how to spell the word error now (remember, there are three 'r's in it...)
Thank goodness for the ever-changing internet, so that by tomorrow, every one will have forgotten about it (hopefully).
Hmm, should I mention Ray Bradbury, too? Too late, I have now! |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 | 03:21 PM
My solution to figuring this damn thing out...
Forget it, and come back in about 2 months when it's grown old, everyone else has it figured out, and someone posts the solution...
So, some time later, here I am to put my mind at rest by retrieving the solution... all without going crazy in the meantime! 😡
I'm with Glamcat... I have NO patience for stuff like this. Spent maybe 30 minutes on it when first posted and then said... "To hell with this, I'll be back after someone posts the solution!"
:cheese: |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 | 03:23 PM
PS - Sure you misspelled error Rod... but at least you recognized the fact. And didn't dismiss the error by saying "Oh well, who really cares. It's just my native language..." |
Silent Fish
in an endless forest of wooden chairs
Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 | 07:40 PM
well whoopdee furkin doo for you |
Katherine
|
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 | 07:59 PM
Most thirteen-year-old boys (whether they have an IQ of one hundred thirty-five or not) should probably know that it's a bad idea to post your real full name online. There are a lot of sickos out there, you know.
We're pretty innocuous around these parts, though, I hope.
Well, except for Hairy... 😉 |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 | 08:10 PM
Don't call me innocuous- I've had my shots, and my license is up to date |
Razzle Berry
|
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 | 05:36 AM
wtf is that about? |
Ozymandias
|
Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 | 03:36 PM
Alright, in 6th grade, my pep teacher (pep was a thing everyone had to go too between 4th and 5th period that was playing games to 'build teamwork. How throwing balls at each other is building team work I don't know...) made us play it.
I have never figured it out.
This was in 2001.
How the heck do you do it? I'm tired of trying to figure it out-can someone just explain what the big secret is?
....Does taking that long mean you're a freaking genius? Or does giving up mean something? |
Katherine
|
Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 | 05:14 PM
Eh, Google it. Something like "petals around the rose" AND "solution" should get you to it eventually. I don't want to post it in case I'm giving it away to someone who doesn't want to hear it. |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 | 09:31 PM
Or, Ozzy, you could just go back and read through the posts...
😕 |
Ozymandias
|
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 | 05:19 PM
Yes, Rod, but that would require effort. |
dumbo
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 | 05:23 AM
duh I must be dumb (or genius) - I just read the javascript source of the game. never tried the game with live moderator... |
Alex Crust
|
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 | 02:03 PM
It definitely takes a while if you're exploring all the mathematical possibilities. Someone told me how it works, and if it weren't for that, it would've taken who knows how long to solve. It's an easy concept, but it's a more complicated simple answer than you would think. The frustration can build quickly. |
Honarud
|
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 | 11:29 PM
Well I'm usually one to be really good at these sorts of things and definately an outside of the box thinker as well as a genious when it comes to math. However, I've been working on this for 3 days, somewhere around 9hours on it, six sheets of paper filled with patterns and solutions, and the only reason i can get it right everytime is because i have every possible pattern. This is really distressing. Ive only come to one infalliable conclusion, that the resultant number has to be even. |
Matt
|
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 | 12:13 PM
the one in the middle is the rose and count the dots around it... 3's are worth 2 and 5's are worth 4...everything else is zero |
Honarud
|
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 | 09:10 PM
Actually i did manage to come by the answer after about the 15th hour. However it was by the wrong means, it was entirely mathematical reasoning that led me to the solution...it wasnt for another hour that i figured out the significance behind the values... |
David B.
|
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 | 04:03 AM
Hmmm.
I read the page, looked at the name of the puzzle ('petals *round* the rose'), guessed what the trick might be, rolled the dice, got it right, rolled the dice, got it right, etc.
Correct in 0 tries! Wow, I'm so dumb I could run for office! (I'm still way too smart to join MENSA though.) |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 | 09:35 AM
This thread shoulda been closed before more people could be all boasty after getting it right.
Whatever. |
David B.
|
Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 | 04:05 PM
* WARNING SPOILERS *
But, according to the game. All these people (me included) are boasting about how dumb they are!
What's more the game is right, we are dumb.
A smarter person, like a hard-science/hard-maths professor would be expected to know the foolishness of jumping to conclusions. People are *assuming* that the answer is the number of dots (petals) around the central dot (rose); hence
[1] = 0 (rose, but no petals)
[2] = 0 (no rose)
[3] = 2 (2 petals round the rose)
[4] = 0 (no rose)
[5] = 4 (4 petals round the rose)
[6] = 0 (no rose)
Roll the 5 dice, add the value for each dice from the above table and enter it.
Working from variable amounts of data (previous trials), people are proposing this hypothesis (maybe after several other, failed hypotheses), then testing it, and getting a correct prediction.
Then people either (a) accept that their hypothesis is right, claim to have a 'solution', or (b) test it again.
Repeat as necessary.
The problem is that all they have really done is moved from a 'hypothesis' to a 'theory'. It makes usable predictions, but is not absolutely proven. As more tests are successful the probabilities swing in the theory's favour. After about 3000 successful tests I'm sure most people will have given up.
But what about the dice combination [1][1][1][1][1]? What if that particular arrangement has 'one petal round the rose'? There are 7776 arrangements of 5 dice, and no one here has checked them all, so no-one here 'knows' the solution. A truly 'smart' person would still be checking his hypothesis a month from now, or perhaps (and this is more likely) given it up as a waste of time.
And how long do you carry on checking for? After 10000 tries there's still a 1/4 chance that five [1]s hasn't come up, and it's still 1/13 after 20000! And what about five [6]s? Or [1][2][3][4][5]? Or [4][2][1][6][5] followed by [5][4][1][4][3]?
If you haven't checked them, how can you know that they aren't the 'ugly fact' that's gonna slay your 'beautiful theory'? If you've examined/reverse-engineered the actual code, can you prove that some server-side script doesn't substitute a slightly different applet on every thousandth try? Every ten-thousandth? Every millionth?
Perhaps the only true intelligence test posed by the problem is not how quickly (or not) you arrive at the solution, but how quickly you give up! |
|
Page 2 of 3 pages < 1 2 3 > |
