like in sorting you get to keep going until you get it, thats why i was thinking, you make it so its 1/2 steps less than would be possible using "optimal" so there's a limited number of guesses, you HAVE to kinda "go for it" or figure out a On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > lol i dont think so :P > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:39 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> ya cuz they are cowards, no guts no glory man >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> well check it out >>> >>> in computer science they teach this method as the quick way to search for >>> something in a sorted list (it's called a binary search). >>> >>> They don't teach or even mention trying the first third to "get lucky" or >>> anything. >>> >>> I'm pretty sure it's just the best way period >>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:34 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> im thinking about it like w/ bayem's theorem >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: >>>> >>>>> The bigger the sample group, the less luck matters so i think itd be in >>>>> the smaller sample groups that it had a chance of doing worse >>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:30 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> it is mathematically the most efficient but i bet if you counted on a >>>>>> little luck in combination w/ a system like that you could get it quicker >>>>>> and have a quicker average if you ran a series of tests enough to get a >>>>>> big >>>>>> sample group >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm pretty sure it is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:09 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> hey alan... i think we should make you have to get it in a couple >>>>>>>> places less than optimal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wait, hey alan, are you SURE that is the most efficient way? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:05 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> it could be like for a password for a backalley secret club >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Alan Wolfe >>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hey you know what would be a cool puzzle to put somewhere too >>>>>>>>>> would be the number guessing game >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IE someone is thinking of a number between X and Y and you have to >>>>>>>>>> guess it within so many guesses. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Whenever you guess, they tell you higher or lower. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The most efficient way to solve it is by starting in the middle >>>>>>>>>> and seeing if higher or lower and chopping the resulting numbers >>>>>>>>>> down the >>>>>>>>>> middle etc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We could make it so you have enough guesses that usign the >>>>>>>>>> "optimal solution" could get you there for sure, and so that way you >>>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>> either guess at it til you got it right, or if you knew the "trick" >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> could get through it first time >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:00 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> i think this will be really good too because it gives people an >>>>>>>>>>> option other than trial and error when building hteir character. a >>>>>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>>>>> neat trick to find right off the bat! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx >>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds rad, let me sponge some knowledge from josh and see if i >>>>>>>>>>>> can come up w/ some basics for you to refine etc >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:50 AM, eric drewes < >>>>>>>>>>>> figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hey alan i think thats a great idea and i think it'd be a funny >>>>>>>>>>>>> little minigame puzzle. because its steam powered we could make >>>>>>>>>>>>> it be about >>>>>>>>>>>>> connecting the right hoses and pipes together, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Alan Wolfe < >>>>>>>>>>>>> alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cool that would be fun (: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We could make it where you actually are confronted with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplified sort of circuit board and have to literally hack it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like you chip >>>>>>>>>>>>>> devices, or how you do hardware hacking (bridging connections >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and things). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you like that idea, we could base it on the real thing. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> know you've done chipping. I know a little about how logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> circuits work, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Josh knows a lot more about the details of hardware circuit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> design though. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We could probably design somethin kinda neat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, we already have the ability to make a 2d user interface >>>>>>>>>>>>>> come up for such things. We'd just have to set it up in such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> way where it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be controller friendly as well >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:23 AM, eric drewes < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laying on the bookshelf... hey i have a pretty sweet idea in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regards to this... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of the books could be accessible and by picking it up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (using it) you would learn how to sabotage the automaton and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe by doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that instead of the questions defining your character you'd be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manually do it (for those people that would prefer that) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it'd be neat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cuz youd do it by hacking an analog device >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Alan Wolfe < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Eric are these books gonna be in the book case or lyin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around on the ground? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:34 AM, katie cook < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ktmcook@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds good. I will put something together. =) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- On *Wed, 7/1/09, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>*wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [project1dev] Re: BookModels >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 5:56 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> books look great katie, i like them. How about if we put >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> titles on the cover? we could have fortune telling with some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kinda >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mysterious logo, tarot card books, along with maybe a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintance manual for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Fortune Teller 2000 - complete automated predictor of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you dont have to but it might be nice for a little "flavor" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what do you think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:55 AM, katie cook < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ktmcook@xxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc361.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ktmcook@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Guys, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is a snapshot of the book models I have done. I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to work on making that folder that Alan/Chris >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned and helped >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with. I didn't have a chance to tinker with it tonight, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to work in out in the next couple of days. I will upload the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there when I get it worked out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a good night guys. =) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Katie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >