 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> > However, if you sell it for the proof to the P=NP question and the
> > Riemann hypothesis, that would be something. (Or at least you would get
> > 2 million dollars richer, and famous among the scientific community.)
> Unfortunately, we're dealing with the Devil here. He'd probably agree to
> buy my soul in return for the proof of P=NP, and then it turns out that
> actually P /= NP so I get nothing (but He still gets my soul...)
Of course you have to negotiate. When the scientific community accepts
the proofs, then the soul ownership is transferred, not before.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2010-06-10 18:45, John VanSickle wrote:
> Some of you probably know how I accomplished this.
Only on 77 wins/77 played, myself.
However, I do know that only one of the games in its repertoire is
actually unsolvable.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>> Unfortunately, we're dealing with the Devil here. He'd probably agree to
>> buy my soul in return for the proof of P=NP, and then it turns out that
>> actually P /= NP so I get nothing (but He still gets my soul...)
>
> Of course you have to negotiate. When the scientific community accepts
> the proofs, then the soul ownership is transferred, not before.
Ah. I see you've delt with Satan before? ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 11.06.2010 22:15, schrieb Tim Cook:
> However, I do know that only one of the games in its repertoire is
> actually unsolvable.
There /is/ an unsolvable game??
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2010-06-12 12:29, clipka wrote:
> There /is/ an unsolvable game??
Wikipedia is your friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell_(Windows)#Unsolvable_combinations
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Some of you probably know how I accomplished this.
>
> you've made a pact with the devil? :P
No, it's simpler. When I see that I am not going to lose, but before
the program declares the game lost, I simply stop playing and leave the
game and application running. When Windows shuts down, it closes the
app without finishing the game (or even bothering to ask) and does not
record the game as either a win or a loss. As far as the record goes,
the game never happened.
This is all on the version that comes with WinXP. Later versions may
not be as forgiving.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>>> Would this enable me to finally get laid??
>>
>> Definitely not.
>
> Damn. You need to tell me your secrets...
>
> ...oh, wait. American. Oh well! ;-)
Being an American never got me anything in Britain, except interminable
arguments about American foreign policy.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> No, it's simpler. When I see that I am not going to lose, but before
> the program declares the game lost, I simply stop playing and leave the
> game and application running. When Windows shuts down, it closes the
> app without finishing the game (or even bothering to ask) and does not
> record the game as either a win or a loss. As far as the record goes,
> the game never happened.
But the obvious question is: Why do that?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> No, it's simpler. When I see that I am not going to lose, but before
> the program declares the game lost, I simply stop playing and leave the
> game and application running. When Windows shuts down, it closes the
> app without finishing the game (or even bothering to ask) and does not
> record the game as either a win or a loss. As far as the record goes,
> the game never happened.
>
> This is all on the version that comes with WinXP. Later versions may
> not be as forgiving.
In that case, killing it from Task Manager probably has the same effect
(but faster).
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-6-2010 18:13, John VanSickle wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> Some of you probably know how I accomplished this.
>>
>> you've made a pact with the devil? :P
>
> No, it's simpler. When I see that I am not going to lose, but before
> the program declares the game lost, I simply stop playing and leave the
> game and application running. When Windows shuts down, it closes the
> app without finishing the game (or even bothering to ask) and does not
> record the game as either a win or a loss. As far as the record goes,
> the game never happened.
>
> This is all on the version that comes with WinXP. Later versions may
> not be as forgiving.
A faster, but more boring, approach would be to use the option of
selecting a game number. Always choose a number you know how to win.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
