Fwd: Re: [math-fun] ANSWER Insomniacs Problem Revisited:
On Monday 20 October 2003 07:55 am, you wrote:
Otto, I somehow missed the original posing of this problem. The problem statement makes a point of identifying your physical location, but I fail to see how that could impact the solution. Could you please tell me if this is relevant?
Yes.. Because daylight savings does not exist everywhere. Local time implies the daylight savings change. That is also why I said approximately one year. The change occurs in the spring, and the repeat does not occur until the next spring. The day for the change is chosen according to the week and so the number of seconds, even without taking leap years and leap seconds into account is variable. As I said, the problem is more tricky; I didn't claim it was better. It occurred to me because it is what I assumed the answer to the original Conway problem was going to be. Actually I was a little disappointed when the original problem was easily solved with a seven line program. Regards Otto otto@olympus.net Regards Otto otto@olympus.net
Regards, Nick
otto wrote:
John Conway posted the original insomniacs problem below, which assumes a 12 hour clock with no leading zeros.
The following trickier problem also assumes a 12 digit clock. """ Here in washington state I am watching palindromic numbers go by in local time on my on my computers 12-hour clock without leading zeros. I count 281 seconds between two palindromes. How long will it be before I count 281 seconds between two numbers again?
The answer is approximately one year.
Regards Otto
John Conway's Original Problem:
There's a digital clock at my bedside that shows hours minutes and seconds, and which I usually look at the moment I wake up. A few days ago, I happened to wake up at a palindromic time, and out of interest, waited until the next palindromic time, and noticed the interval between them.
Last night exactly the same thing happened, but the interval was exactly four times as long as in the previous case. What did the clock read when I woke up last night?
John Conway
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, otto2hoh wrote:
As I said, the problem is more tricky; I didn't claim it was better. It occurred to me because it is what I assumed the answer to the original Conway problem was going to be. Actually I was a little disappointed when the original problem was easily solved with a seven line program.
Regards Otto otto@olympus.net
And I'm more than a little diappointed that anyone should even think of solving it any other way than mentally! John Conway
On Thursday 23 October 2003 08:28 am, John Conway wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, otto2hoh wrote:
As I said, the problem is more tricky; I didn't claim it was better. It occurred to me because it is what I assumed the answer to the original Conway problem was going to be. Actually I was a little disappointed when the original problem was easily solved with a seven line program.
Regards Otto otto@olympus.net
And I'm more than a little diappointed that anyone should even think of solving it any other way than mentally!
John Conway
Woops, Didn't mean that as a criticism of the problem. It is really just a comment on my work environment and what I do for a living. Often my first approach is to use the computer, and then, when it fails, as is often the case, to sit down and work it out in my head. Saying I was a "little disappointed" was simply a comment on my reaction when I got the solution with little brain work on my part. The same reaction I have when I take the bus and realize when I arrive, that I could have walked. If I had done it in my head, I probably would have been more satisfied with the result. Regards Otto otto@olympus.net
participants (2)
-
John Conway -
otto2hoh