|
Petals around the rose
|
Posted By:
MrKurto
Mar 04, 2005
|
I was wondering if anyone has tried this "game".
It's called petals around the rose, and it's quite interesting.
Supposedly, the longer it takes you to figure it out, the smarter you are.
I figured out the solution rather quickly, i guess i'm just not smart.
give it a whirl
petals around the rose
Mr. Kurto requested this thread be closed to new comments.
|
Comments
|
Page 6 of 7 pages ‹ First < 4 5 6 7 > |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 | 09:50 PM
Stephen? HE'd NEVER change somone else's posts, would he?
I mean, get real.
 |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 | 09:54 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 | 04:21 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!"
 |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 | 04:23 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 | 08:40 PM
well whoopdee furkin doo for you |
Katherine
|
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 | 08:59 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 | 09:10 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 | 06:36 AM
wtf is that about? |
Ozymandias
in Madison, Wisconsin
|
Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 | 04:36 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 | 06:14 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 | 10:31 PM
Or, Ozzy, you could just go back and read through the posts...
 |
Ozymandias
in Madison, Wisconsin
|
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 | 06:19 PM
Yes, Rod, but that would require effort. |
dumbo
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 | 06:23 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 | 03:03 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: Sat Apr 30, 2005 | 12:29 AM
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
in NY
|
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 | 01:13 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 | 10:10 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.
in Reading, England.
|
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 | 05:03 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 | 10:35 AM
This thread shoulda been closed before more people could be all boasty after getting it right.
Whatever. |
David B.
in Reading, England.
|
Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 | 05:05 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 6 of 7 pages ‹ First < 4 5 6 7 > |
In order to post comments you have to register as a member of the site. We were forced to restrict commenting because spammers were flooding the comment form with spam and crashing the server.
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
