Petals around the rose.

[niviene]

It took me about 3 minutes to figure it out.... I guess that makes me pretty dumb, LOL!!!

 

If you haven't figured it out, send me a PM and I'll tell you at least what I think the solution is....

[C1ay]

What different method can be used??

It really is all in the name.....

[rockytriton]

I'll PM you with how I figured it out.

[niviene]

I'll PM you with how I figured it out.

 

I wanna know what you did, too.... I just started guessing and noticed a pattern. ;)

[Smokinjoe9]

I like it, but man I had a hard time figuring it out...It took me like 15 minutes. Ha, my kind of puzzle.....I never dig to deep into something, so this one's for me.

[Dark Mind]

If you haven't figured it out, send me a PM and I'll tell you at least what I think the solution is....

 

I already know the "right" way to do it, but thanks! :eek:

[Dark Mind]

I'll PM you with how I figured it out.

 

Thank you. :eek:

 

Very nice explanation, and I was proven wrong. :eek:

[niviene]

Thank you. :shrug:

 

Very nice explanation, and I was proven wrong. :o

 

LOL :o As was I.... that's why I wanted to ask you how you did it... I wasn't sure if I was right or just getting lucky every time. :P He does have a much more scientific method about it than I did.....

[Dark Mind]

Me too, I just used the more... I can't think of anything without giving it away... I guess, the less "mathematical" way. Good job rockytriton!

[UncleAl]

The solution is a bad pun. One is reminded of the game Jessica Tanner,

 

Jessica Tanner likes noodles but not pasta,

accountants but not CPAs,

slippers but not shoes,

books but not newspapers,

sheep but not goats,

mutton but not lamb,

actresses but not actors,

missiles but not rockets,

rabbis but not priests,

grasshoppers but not crickets,

etc.

 

You see it or you don't.

[Chacmool]

This is a nasty little puzzle. Very sneaky.

[GAHD]

This hurts my brain, e verytime I think I've got it it throws me a new loop...owowowow

[Tormod]

He he. I got in after about 10 attempts. That is one cool puzzle!

[Queso]

i still don't get it. i try many times.

[C1ay]

i still don't get it. i try many times.

Maybe this version will help...

[skuinders]

I solved it in about 9 minutes... but then I tried to see if a neural network could find a way to generate correct petal counts.

 

The dice roll data was encoded as follows:

N = number of rolls

ND = number of dice in each roll

 

the input is a NxND matrix of random values from 1 to 6

the class (desired output) vector holds the petal count corresponding to each row (roll) of the input matrix

 

 

using a simple backpropagation NN, it is not possible to solve this problem as encoded the above way because of the inherent non-linearity of the problem. (if you plot the 2D case, you can clearly see that the petal counts are not linearly separable and a simple non-linear function is not immediately clear either).

 

there are other (more trivial) ways you could encode the roll information and make it work, but these would be of little use.

[nkt]

I got it wrong three times, right twice (for the wrong reason), then got it wrong twice, then got it right consistently, and for the right reason.

 

Reminds me of the Good Dragon, Bad Dragon thing! *shuudddder* Learned my over-analysis lesson the hard way with that one, shouting down 400 other graduates from the stage...