Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ghideon last won the day on February 8

Ghideon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

51 Good

About Ghideon

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
  • College Major/Degree
    M.Sc. Computer Science and Engineering
  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

1611 profile views
  1. Ghideon

    Can You Find the Number?

    I agree. Your statement made me look at the beginning of the thread again. We didn't get all rules initially, a followup said: So there is no complete English translation given yet? Speculation: What happens if the correction only applies to Jack? So that the following initial statement Actually was supposed to be something like: "Jack only know the range of the digits; meaning he knows that a>=b>=c>=d and he knows a - d (a minus d). John only knows a+b+c+d. James knows a*b*c*d." In other words, is it possible that John and James do not know that a>=b>=c>=d? I haven't yet checked what difference this would make when trying to solve the problem. A maybe even more speculative question: But then they all act in another order: Jack says... James says... John says... Is that change of order the names intentional or was the names mixed up in translation? I haven't yet checked what difference this would make. Can we see the original question? (Even if it's in Turkish it might help at this point)
  2. Ghideon

    Can You Find the Number?

    Yes. Thanks! +1 I missed that possibility because of lack of attention to details. Therefore the solution is incorrect. (I'm beginning to believe my english skills are too limited for these kind of riddles)
  3. Ghideon

    Can You Find the Number?

    Jack has 3 (range) which means he could believe James product is for instance 0 (3*0*0*0) or 4 (4*1*1*1) so therefore Jack is not sure what James has. Jack can figure out that James cannot have for instance 1 or 2 or 9*9*9*9 or any combination of digits that will let Jack know all digits. (I believe that for each number with range=3 there's more than one possible combination for John, I haven't checked this detail yet) So Jack says: I don't know all the digits but James doesn't either. James has 4 (product) so he could guess the number is 2211 or 4111. James can figure out that John’s sum is 6=2+2+1+1 or 7=4+1+1+1. He also see for instance that 6+0+0+0=6 and 7+0+0+0=7 so James, from his point of view, knows that John can’t figure out the four digits from John’s sum (6 or 7). So James says: I don't know all the digits but John doesn't either. John has 7 (sum) so he may guess that possible numbers are 7000, 6100, 5200, 5110, 4300, 4210, 4111, 3220 or 3211. John, with his sum=7 can figure out that Jack’s range is 7,6,5,4,3 or 2 from the possible numbers above. John can also see that James product is 0, 4 or 6. John then sees that if James product is 0 then James, from his point if view above, would have to see the possibility that John could have had sum=0 and the number would then have to be 0000. So John decides that James product is not 0 since James said "John doesn't know". John then sees that if James product is 6 then the number would have to be 3211. Then Jack’s range would be 2. But then, from Jack’s point of view, Jack should have seen that Jack’s range=2 means that James product could be 2 and James, from Jacks initial point of view, should have been able to see that 2111 is the number. But Jack said: "James doesn't know". John then sees that if James product is 4 there is one matching number, 4111, in the list. So John draws the conclusion that James have product = 4 and Jack has range=3 and the number is 4111. 4-1=3 (Jack) 4*1*1*1=4 (James) 4+1+1+1=7 (John) I haven’t yet figured out the very last part, if Jack must be able to tell the number when John says that he has the solution.
  4. Ghideon

    Can You Find the Number?

    I agree! I'm giving this a try. For some reason I'm having a language barrier trying to write down my reasoning... My guess is: I'll try to explain in a followup, not sure at all if my attempt is valid.
  5. bold by me: By using the same argument as above, Tolken's work The Lord of The Rings should be considered a true story? Tolken could not come up with his ideas without solid proof of something? Or did I misunderstand something in your arguments? I haven't seen that show. But I had to check, and you do sound like "Ancient Aliens"*: *) Episode 41 according to
  6. Hello, I have studied your ideas and have a few questions. Note: there are "hidden content" in the post above but in my browser they are empty sections. Yet they who have seen "bizzare objects" have failed to find or provide any kind of convincing scientific evidence that extraterrestrials are involved? First I think there needs to be scientific reasons why to think any extraterrestrials are involved at all? If you have an insane idea, why add things that makes it less credible? Why not post some kind of evidence that the initial part is something worth to consider? Do you suggest that new spices suddenly appeared? Since theres traces of evolution from earlier to later stages*, "they" had take this into account so that the evolution of species from our perspective now has support by evidence? I believe that Occam and his razor has a few things to say about the ideas. Do you have some kind of support for your claims? *) Someone with more knowledge about evolution may have to correct me, that statement is not very precise.
  7. Ghideon

    A theory of everything. The truth about creation.

    I have some questions regarding the last part* (bold by me) and Is "gravity"/"gravitational field" the same as what is known from mainstream science? In the last sentence you say "nullify"; that looks like some concept of anti gravity is involved? Or maybe you mean that there will be a Lagrange point between the machine and earth if the machine is placed at an elevated point? Please clarify if we are discussing possible misunderstandings of mainstream topics or completely new stuff. *) I might return to other issues later; other members have already commented.
  8. What happens when there's no friction?
  9. Inertial propulsion / Reactionless drive? (feeling I'm going of topic)
  10. I'm not convinced that the above statement increases the credibility of other statements in this thread. But possibly an interesting topic; maybe better discussed in separate thread?
  11. Ghideon

    A theory of everything. The truth about creation.

    Thanks for the clarification regarding neutrinos. If you post a detailed description of the experimental setup I'll take a look. Please use definitions from mainstream science or very detailed definitions to avoid further confusion.
  12. Ghideon

    The theory of space /time

    So what is your analysis of the counter example I posted? The muons are not man made and they have no knowledge of any human concepts. Yet they are affected by time dilation as predicated by special relativity. When you use a GPS you rely on mathematics models that take 4th dimension into account. I think the opposite is valid as well; If you dismiss math on an incorrect assumption you will always get an incorrect outcome.
  13. Ghideon

    The theory of space /time

    So what happens when you use other means than man made clocks to verify time dilation? Muons, caused by the collision of cosmic rays with the upper atmosphere, experience time dilation as predicted by special relativity. If no time dilation exists, muons should decay in the upper regions of the atmosphere but as a consequence of time dilation they are present at much lower heights. More info:
  14. Ghideon

    A weird idea to achieve relativistivic speed

    Can you provide some reference to such ideas? Less serous note: Intentional spelling? I think "metal image" a good name for the concept of a spaceship-shaped set of photons turned into something solid allowing it to be used for travel. (not likely to happen ...)
  15. The Scientific Background paper for the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics summarise experimental achievements regarding predictions by general relativity. The paper also contains 50 references to other papers: (There's also a "popular science" version: @swansont was quicker to respond with my favourite; GPS. +1