Hi Agnishom,
Tulip is my dog.
This link, and the links there, and other posts on the "I have the cheese!" thread in the Members Only forum, will acquaint you more with Tulip.
Very Good, now I have confirmed that you really are phrontister.
]]>Tulip is my dog.
This link, and the links there, and other posts on the "I have the cheese!" thread in the Members Only forum, will acquaint you more with Tulip.
]]>Do you know who tulip is?
]]>Post #28
... how can it work out so that each couple ... is never with any other couple more than once?
Post #32
Last year I was able to work it out for 16 couples ...
If applying the condition from post #28 (which in post #36 you said we could now ignore), I'm pretty sure that no solution is possible, neither for a 16-couple group nor a 20-couple group, so I'd be very interested to see the solution you mention in post #32.
Have you seen my solution in post #45 and my comments to bobbym in post #62?
]]>You will always have to violate one condition on this problem because I believe that it is impossible.
From my understanding of allan1085's posts here I think that my answer in post #45 doesn't violate his conditions.
Anyway, a solution in which no couple serves with other couples multiple times is just not possible, and that is easily shown.
But he is not applying that condition...
If some couples are together more than once, then so be it. They just can't serve the same course more than once.
Hath ye seen the Sulemann challenge?
Nay, I hathn't (sic). Dost thou have a link to it?
]]>I feel wonderful, so I post wonderfully. I thought my reply would brighten up Olinguito's day.
It did, thanks!
Yeah, I was just commenting on the statement – not referring to anyone in particular.
]]>Then why were you trying to find the author?
I was kidding.
The quote is not his
]]>