Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #26 20131213 01:59:12
Re: Look at this!I know. I think that she was a moron but she was right about me too. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #27 20131219 17:57:53
Re: Look at this!
Yup! Now, nothing is possible you can find the answer immediately in a blink of an eye. So if you have any fact to find the first thing to do is search in google. #28 20131220 06:55:52
Re: Look at this!There are 4 progressive dinners, 5 groups of 4 couples each (20 couples alltogether). Each dinner has 4 courses. Using each couple as a number from 1 to 20, how can it work out so that each couple (number) does only 1 course and is never with any other couple more than once? Last edited by allan1085 (20131220 09:11:38) #29 20131220 11:53:25
Re: Look at this!Hi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #30 20131220 12:10:41
Re: Look at this!Hi bobbym, I guess I didn't explain myself very well. There are only 4 dinners. 5 groups of 4 each. The numbers must be scrambled so that each course is by a different couple. For example, you have #1 serving the 1st course each dinner. #31 20131220 12:18:47
Re: Look at this!I probably can permute those first numbers, but if days = dinners then it is impossible to have 4. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #32 20131220 12:26:56
Re: Look at this!bobbyum, Last year I was able to work it out for 16 couples, 4 to a group, 4 dinners. This year we added 4 more couples, but still only 4 dinners having 5 groups for each dinner. Yes, days=dinners. #33 20131220 12:38:17
Re: Look at this!Not everyone of these progressive dinners has a solution, most do not. I am looking at the charts for all known solutions. 16 couples I believe is possible. I am seeing no solution for 20 couples, 4 dinners, 5 groups. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #34 20131220 13:18:15
Re: Look at this!bobbym, Yes, your suggestion is fine. Any solutions you can give me would be gresatly appreciated. #35 20131220 13:38:42
Re: Look at this!Hi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #36 20131220 13:43:42
Re: Look at this!bobbym, No, there are still 20 couples. However, if some of the couples see each other more than once, than so be it. They just can't serve the same course more than once. I really appreciate ypour help. #37 20131220 13:56:19
Re: Look at this!Look at couple #1. Take the first 4 dinners 1, 2, 3, 4. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #38 20131220 14:07:13
Re: Look at this!bobym, The problem is that you have #1 serving the 1st course of 5 dinners. I am trying to get it so that no couple serves the same course more than once. If some couples are together more than once, than so be it. They just can't serve the same course more than once. #39 20131220 14:21:45
Re: Look at this!I am working on that, I will post an answer as soon as I get it. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #41 20131220 14:39:40
Re: Look at this!How does this look? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #43 20131221 03:19:06
Re: Look at this!Hi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. 