Posts for arflech

arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
DaTeL237 wrote:
I kind of liked this one when someone presented it to me
In mobile phone transport, these devices are mass-packed into a large without their retail packing. In our case, we have only (equal) phones of size DxWxH cm (given D<=W<H>0 of phones. The 'best' size is the one that has the least external volume. (unfilled space in the box is disregarded) The solution should also work for unrealistically large N (assume all phones to be box-shaped, so no space can be gained by interleaving them)
I think it has something to do with the cube root of N, like stacking them n times in the D direction, where n is the smallest factor of N that is not smaller than the cube root of N, and stacking them m times in the W direction, where m is the smallest factor of N/n that is not smaller than the square root of N/n, and finally stacking them N/(mn) times in the H direction. This algorithm would, for example, have 110 phones packed 5 times in the D direction, 11 times in the W direction, and 2 times in the H direction. hmmm...maybe in that first step it would be better to use "square root" instead of "cube root" and in that case, 110 phones would be packed 11 times in the D direction, 5 times in the W direction, and 2 times in the H direction, which intuitively looks like the optimal packing but then this fails for 64 phones, because it would say 8*4*2, although 4*4*4 would be better More generally, you need to find three integers n, m, and r with the properties that N=nmr, r<=m<=n, and the three integers are in some sense as close as possible; then the optimal packing is n times in the D direction (to use the larger H*W*2cm pieces of foam as efficiently as possible), m times in the W direction, and r times in the H direction. ...but maybe that only works if H and D are very close, because evidently it is more efficient to pack 4 iPhones in a single stack of 4 than 2*2*1
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
Randil, you're winner
Warp wrote:
That reminds me of another problem related to spheres: Assume you have four identical spheres. Three of them are laying on a plane so that they touch each other. The fourth sphere is resting on top of the other three (so that it touches all of them). What is the height of this structure? Bonus: Assume there's a fifth, smaller sphere in the middle of this structure, touching all the other four spheres. What is the radius and height (distance from the plane) of this fifth sphere?
If the radius of each sphere is r, the tetrahedron connecting the 4 spheres has edge length 2r; then the median of each face has length r*sqrt(3), and the circumradius of each face is 2r/sqrt(3), so using the Pythagorean theorem, the height of the tetrahedron is 2r*sqrt(2/3), and then the height of the structure is 2(1+sqrt(2/3))r. The circumradius of this tetrahedron is r*sqrt(3/2), so the radius of the smaller sphere is (sqrt(3/2)-1)r, and the distance between the top of this sphere and the plane is 2r*sqrt(2/3); the distance between the center of the tetrahedron and the plane is (1+1/sqrt(6))r.
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
If three spheres are tangent to each other and to a plane, and their points of tangency to this plane form a triangle of side lengths 6, 8, and 10, what are the radii of the spheres?
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
I always had the impression that Flygon was a lot older, like about to graduate from university. On a similar note, if this idea works out and you matriculate, consider posting flyers around your university, or actually buying ad space again if you feel like it.
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
In order for an infinite series to converge, its terms must approach 0; if |x|<1, the general term 1/x^n grows without bound, and if |x|=1, the general term still has absolute value 1 but never approaches 0. Anyway the solution offered by petrie911 is correct, and Tub's solution begged the question "what about for complex numbers?" When I mentioned "resembles a Laurent series" I was being a bit coy, because it is a Laurent series, although most Laurent series are centered around a singularity rather than a point at which the function is analytic, and the behavior of their terms can be used to determine whether it's a removable singularity (no terms of negative order), a pole of order n (the terms don't go beyond 1/(x-a)^n where a is the singularity), or an essential singularity (the order of the negative terms goes to -infinity). Essential singularities are awesome sights to behold in the study of complex analysis: In every neighborhood of (open set containing) an essential singularity of a function, every complex number with possibly one exception is attained as a value infinitely many times. If you look at the graph of e^(-1/x^2) on the real number line, it looks smooth and extremely flat near the origin and going out to infinity, but if you visualize its behavior as a function of a complex variable it looks like utter chaos near the origin; in the following links let z=x+y*i, where x and y are real. |e^(-1/z^2)| arg(e^(-1/z^2)) Re(e^(-1/z^2)) Im(e^(-1/z^2)) It looks well-behaved enough when you look at its absolute value, but looking at the other plots is enough to elicit screams of WTF.
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
Here's one that any careful student of Calculus II should be able to figure out: The Maclaurin series of 1/(1-x) is 1+x+x^2+x^3+...+x^n+... That is, it's the sum from n=0 to infinity of x^n Also, by continuing polynomial long division, 1/(x-1) can be shown to be 1/x+1/x^2+1/x^3+... and it resembles a Laurent series centered at 0 That is, it's the sum from n=-infinity to -1 of x^n So it would seem that the doubly-infinite sum, from n=-infinity to infinity, of x^n, which looks like ...+x^3+x^2+x+1+1/x+1/x^2+1/x^3+... must be the same as 1/(1-x)+1/(x-1), which equals 0. However, it is obvious at least for positive real values of x that this sum grows without bound (i.e., goes to infinity) because the terms in one direction or the other grow without bound. How can this happen?
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
no, all I meant by that is that, for example, an out-shuffle with 52 cards is the same as an in-shuffle with 50 cards to put it another way, an out-shuffle with 54 cards would take 52 iterations to return to the original order
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
Kuwaga wrote:
How come it takes 50 shuffles and not 8 then? Wouldn't the lowest common multiple of all different orbit sizes determine the number of required iterations?
it doesn't take 50 shuffles, that's the point should I make an animated GIF showing what happens?
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
Kuwaga, as you may have noticed, there are in fact no orbits of 50; there are however 6 orbits of length 8, an orbit of length 2, and 2 orbits of length 1, and I spelled all of them out already.
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
Kuwaga wrote:
I'll completely disregard the top card and the bottom card, as they never change positions at all. For the remaining 50, you can also completely disregard the exact path they'll take through the deck. It's only important to note that the only thing, that determines the position in the deck each card will arrive at, is their position in the deck before each shuffle. And that they all arrive at unique positions, obviously. To arrive back home again after the first shuffle, a card first has to reach the position the card that now has taken its original place had before the first shuffle. And to reach that position... So, in the process, each card will have taken each of all possible 50 positions once. That makes it 50 shuffles. Btw, the path they take is "new position=(position*2)%(number of cards+1)". (Only counting (among) the moving cards!)
Truncated wrote:
For simplicity, let's say the top card of the top half is first, so it always stays on top.
Ironically, this makes the problem harder to solve. ;)
sorry, it actually did make the problem easier to solve, and your analysis is flawed; read the post just above yours, in which I show exactly where each card goes and what the orbits are
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
This algorithm can be described like this: If the initial position n is 26a+b or equivalently (a,b), where a is 0 or 1 and b ranges from 0 to 25 (positions range from 0 to 51, equivalently b=n mod 26 and a=(n-b)/26), then the position after shuffling is 2b+a. Notice what happens to the card in position 1 (the card just below the top), a.k.a. the orbit of this element under the map... 1 (0,1) start 2 (0,2) 1 shuffle 4 (0,4) 2 shuffles 8 (0,8) 3 shuffles 16 (0,16) 4 shuffles 32 (1,6) 5 shuffles 13 (0,13) 6 shuffles 26 (1,0) 7 shuffles 1 (0,1) 8 shuffles so it takes at least 8 shuffles to bring the deck back to its original order; more specifically it takes a multiple of 8 let's look at the card in position 3... 3 (0,3)->6 (0,6)->12 (0,12)->24 (0,24)->48 (1,22)->45 (1,19)->39 (1,13)->27 (1,1)->3 (0,3) also 8 shuffles it looks like there are 2 orbits of length 1 (card 0 (0,0) and card 51 (1,25)), 6 orbits of length 8, and 1 orbit of length 2: 17 (0,17)->34 (1,8)->17 (0,17) just to check, I will lay out the remaining 4 orbits of length 8... 5 (0,5)->10 (0,10)->20 (0,20)->40 (1,14)->29 (1,3)->7 (0,7)->14 (0,14)->28 (1,2)->5 (0,5) 9 (0,9)->18 (0,18)->36 (1,10)->21 (0,21)->42 (1,16)->33 (1,7)->15 (0,15)->30 (1,4)->9 (0,9) 11 (0,11)->22 (0,22)->44 (1,18)->37 (1,11)->23 (0,23)->46 (1,20)->41 (1,15)->31 (1,5)->11 (0,11) 19 (0,19)->38 (1,12)->25 (0,25)->50 (1,24)->49 (1,23)->47 (1,21)->43 (1,17)->35 (1,9)->19 (0,19) I cheated by looking it up on MathWorld and found that it really does simplify things: the so-called "in-shuffle" in which the top card of the bottom half ends up on top requires 52 iterations to get to the original order! The in-shuffle sends a card in position 26a+b, where a is 0 or 1 and b ranges from 0 to 25, to 2b+1-a, and the single orbit (starting at the top card) is 0 (0,0)->1 (0,1)->3 (0,3)->7 (0,7)->15 (0,15)->31 (1,5)->10 (0,10)->21 (0,21)->43 (1,17)->34 (1,8)->16 (0,16)->33 (1,7)->14 (0,14)->29 (1,3)->6 (0,6)->13 (0,13)->27 (1,1)->2 (0,2)->5 (0,5)->11 (0,11)->23 (0,23)->47 (1,21)->42 (1,16)->32 (1,6)->12 (0,12)->25 (0,25)->51 (1,25)->50 (1,24)->48 (1,22)->44 (1,18)->36 (1,10)->20 (0,20)->41 (1,15)->30 (1,4)->8 (0,8)->17 (0,17)->35 (1,9)->18 (0,18)->37 (1,11)->22 (0,22)->45 (1,19)->38 (1,12)->24 (0,24)->49 (1,23)->46 (1,20)->40 (1,14)->28 (1,2)->4 (0,4)->9 (0,9)->19 (0,19)->39 (1,13)->26 (1,0)->0 (0,0) I'm sure that someone has studied the orbits of the in-shuffle on more general sets (the out-shuffle on a deck is equivalent to the in-shuffle on a deck with 2 fewer cards); for decks of size 2k, the group action can be defined by letting each position n be represented as (a,b) where b=n (mod k) and a=(n-b)/k, so that n=ak+b, and then the action sends n->2b+1-a.
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
I actually compressed my entire Program Files folder and saved a few gigs but you should not compress your WINDOWS folder or any of the files necessary to boot Windows, like NTLDR, your registry hives, or boot.ini, or else you won't even be able to get into Safe Mode; basically anything that loads before the driver that compresses and uncompresses files does should not be compressed.
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
Warp wrote:
Do all existing gamepads physically stop left+right being pressed at the same time?
not the PS2 controller
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
Sticky wrote:
adelikat wrote:
Also, I want to point out the rercord count is quite wrong. The actual count is probably about 3000. There seems to be a bug in mednafen's counting.
I think you should spend more time with your wife than waste 3000 rerecords on a shitty game. My $0.02.
I think adelikat should temp-ban you for your insolence. My 2¢.
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
Sir VG wrote:
It may be possible that since it's trying to install off of a non-CD/DVD drive, that it's looking at the USB drive you're installing off of? It's a weird possibility, cause since it's writable, it may be looking there?
I have actually pirated Office 2003, so I could fix an issue with my Office 2003 installation that I had gotten for free from a university I no longer attend, and the installation files ran fine when I unpacked them to an external drive.
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
...Microsoft Office was not meant to be portable. Are you trying to run pirated software? If you really need a portable office suite, try OpenOffice.org Portable: http://portableapps.com/apps/office/openoffice_portable This should be updated soon for the new OOo 3.2
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
Post subject: Re: hurly-burly with rules and permissions
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
mz wrote:
those High Definition uploads are one of the most retarded things I've seen in my life
Is this because the native resolutions of the consoles are much less than HD? Upscaling is a beautiful thing IMO.
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
CtrlAltDestroy wrote:
When pronouncing it to real-life people who know what a TAS is, always say "tool-assisted run". It just sounds less weird.
I prefer "tool-assisted speedrun" speed is important after all
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
Install Unlocker (functionality like this ought to be built into all OSes): http://ccollomb.free.fr/unlocker/ then try to delete the file again, and when Unlocker tells you what process is using the file, kill all those processes using Task Manager and try to delete the file again it may help to open a Command Prompt window and navigate to your Desktop, because there's a good chance you'll end up needing to kill explorer.exe and then you'll only be able to delete the file by using the command prompt: "del /f (filename)" A couple of other tips: Use Shift-Delete to delete right away and skip the Recycle Bin; also, you may want to use µTorrent 2.0, which is more lightweight than the original BitTorrent client and is still made by BitTorrent, Inc.: http://www.utorrent.com/
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
I pronounce it as an initialism rather than an acronym: ti-ei-es
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
Nach wrote:
I must say this run was amazing. I always liked the runs of this game, but this one was really special. You really abused this game big time. I want to nominate this for a star. BTW, anyone getting ridiculous error message playing this back with the new VBA? I keep getting that message like 5 seconds after save and quit.
Under Options->Preferences->Directories... try clearing the entry for "Save Game"
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
Post subject: Science has colored a dinosaur.
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
also plz lrn2spel
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
arflech
He/Him
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
All the cool people use the Windows Classic theme then again when I tried out the Windows 7 Beta, Classic made a bunch of shit look terrible so for the first time I used the "Vista Basic" theme :-(
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png