 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Some of you probably know how I accomplished this.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'unholy.png' (22 KB)
Preview of image 'unholy.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> Some of you probably know how I accomplished this.
you've made a pact with the devil? :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/11/2010 6:20 AM, 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
>
>
What I simply can't believe is that he sold his soul to win at freecell
of all things. You'd think you'd go for something a little more
upmarket.. :D
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> What I simply can't believe is that he sold his soul to win at freecell
> of all things. You'd think you'd go for something a little more
> upmarket.. :D
If I sold my soul for the ability to solve the Halting Problem, would
that allow me to defy the usual laws of causality?
Could I use it to predict the outcome of somebody's mental processes
before it happens?
Would this enable me to finally get laid??
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/11/2010 8:24 AM, Invisible wrote:
> If I sold my soul for the ability to solve the Halting Problem, would
> that allow me to defy the usual laws of causality?
No.
> Could I use it to predict the outcome of somebody's mental processes
> before it happens?
No.
> Would this enable me to finally get laid??
Definitely not.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Would this enable me to finally get laid??
no, but cash would do the job fairly quickly. More appropriately, a
professional would do the job.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> If I sold my soul for the ability to solve the Halting Problem, would
> that allow me to defy the usual laws of causality?
You can't sell your soul to solve an unsolvable problem.
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.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/11/2010 9:23 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> Damn. You need to tell me your secrets...
I already have.
> ...oh, wait. American. Oh well! ;-)
That's irrelevant in the scheme of things.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> If I sold my soul for the ability to solve the Halting Problem, would
>> that allow me to defy the usual laws of causality?
>
> You can't sell your soul to solve an unsolvable problem.
It is known that a Turning machine cannot determine whether a given
machine will halt. No reason why I can't sell my soul for the ability to
be able to tell. ;-)
> 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...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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?
So that I can post a screen shot of a long winning streak.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/17/2010 6:33 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
>> But the obvious question is: Why do that?
>
> So that I can post a screen shot of a long winning streak.
>
In other words: Just because you can? ;)
Dang, I'm sure you could have just edited some values in the registry
for the same effect :D
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Dang, I'm sure you could have just edited some values in the registry
> for the same effect :D
This is why MS Paint was invented...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
