Quiz TV Puzzles

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

Just arrived on my Cable TV is "Quiz TV" - though it should probably be
named "Puzzle TV".

I've posted three of their most recent puzzles at
http://www.geocities.com/dadge.geo/qtv.html for your consideration. What are
your opinions of this type of puzzle? I have to say that I'm finding the
channel strangely addictive (well, it is new to me) but also frustrating.
The method of entry is a bit of a swizz: if you ring up (at the best part of
1GBP per call) the chances are very high that you will not be "selected" to
participate.

The first puzzle ("Colour Ring") went on for several hours yesterday without
a winning answer. (I do know what the official answer is but I won't post it
yet.) The second one ("Card Count") was solved after three or four hours
this evening, but I missed the answer. It's not "33". "Seeing Red" is the
current competition.

Adrian

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

Adrian Bailey wrote:
> Just arrived on my Cable TV is "Quiz TV" - though it should probably be
> named "Puzzle TV".
>
> I've posted three of their most recent puzzles at
> http://www.geocities.com/dadge.geo/qtv.html for your consideration. What are
> your opinions of this type of puzzle? I have to say that I'm finding the
> channel strangely addictive (well, it is new to me) but also frustrating.
> The method of entry is a bit of a swizz: if you ring up (at the best part of
> 1GBP per call) the chances are very high that you will not be "selected" to
> participate.
>
> The first puzzle ("Colour Ring") went on for several hours yesterday without
> a winning answer. (I do know what the official answer is but I won't post it
> yet.) The second one ("Card Count") was solved after three or four hours
> this evening, but I missed the answer. It's not "33".
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
38?


>"Seeing Red" is the current competition.
>
> Adrian

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

"Adrian Bailey" <dadge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EKwIe.2140$FG3.1610@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Just arrived on my Cable TV is "Quiz TV" - though it should probably be
> named "Puzzle TV".
>
> I've posted three of their most recent puzzles at
> http://www.geocities.com/dadge.geo/qtv.html for your consideration. What
are
> your opinions of this type of puzzle? I have to say that I'm finding the
> channel strangely addictive (well, it is new to me) but also frustrating.
> The method of entry is a bit of a swizz: if you ring up (at the best part
of
> 1GBP per call) the chances are very high that you will not be "selected"
to
> participate.
>
> The first puzzle ("Colour Ring") went on for several hours yesterday
without
> a winning answer. (I do know what the official answer is but I won't post
it
> yet.) The second one ("Card Count") was solved after three or four hours
> this evening, but I missed the answer. It's not "33". "Seeing Red" is the
> current competition.
>
> Adrian

ObPuzzle:

In how many different ways can someone interpret this question?

Carl G.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

"Adrian Bailey" <dadge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EKwIe.2140$FG3.1610@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Just arrived on my Cable TV is "Quiz TV" - though it should probably be
> named "Puzzle TV".
>
> I've posted three of their most recent puzzles at
> http://www.geocities.com/dadge.geo/qtv.html for your consideration. What
are
> your opinions of this type of puzzle? I have to say that I'm finding the
> channel strangely addictive (well, it is new to me) but also frustrating.
> The method of entry is a bit of a swizz: if you ring up (at the best part
of
> 1GBP per call) the chances are very high that you will not be "selected"
to
> participate.
>
> The first puzzle ("Colour Ring") went on for several hours yesterday
without
> a winning answer. (I do know what the official answer is but I won't post
it
> yet.) The second one ("Card Count") was solved after three or four hours
> this evening, but I missed the answer. It's not "33". "Seeing Red" is the
> current competition.
>
> Adrian
>

I am oddly relieved that the rules exclude me.

Puzzle: Sum all the "numbers" in the "Quiz TV Terms and Conditions" at:

http://www.quiz.tv/docs/Quiz_TV_TCs.htm

Carl G.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

On 4 Aug 2005 15:46:32 -0700, "mensanator@aol.com"
<mensanator@aol.com> wrote:

>
>Adrian Bailey wrote:
>> Just arrived on my Cable TV is "Quiz TV" - though it should probably be
>> named "Puzzle TV".
>>
>> I've posted three of their most recent puzzles at
>> http://www.geocities.com/dadge.geo/qtv.html for your consideration. What are
>> your opinions of this type of puzzle? I have to say that I'm finding the
>> channel strangely addictive (well, it is new to me) but also frustrating.
>> The method of entry is a bit of a swizz: if you ring up (at the best part of
>> 1GBP per call) the chances are very high that you will not be "selected" to
>> participate.
>>
>> The first puzzle ("Colour Ring") went on for several hours yesterday without
>> a winning answer. (I do know what the official answer is but I won't post it
>> yet.)

I can see arguments for
A. 32, if you count all the circles of various colors, (including the
black ones the separate other colors, )

B. 33, if you count as for A., and if there's another colored ring
separating the green from the white in the upper right nest (I can't
tell from the screencap--there might be a yellow of pale green
separator, or there may not,)

C. 34, if you count as for B, and if there's a similar colored
separator between the red and white in the lower right nest,

D. 28, if you don't count the four inner-most circles, on the grounds
that they aren't "rings", but are "dots", and if the ghost separators
of B. and C. aren't there, or

E. 27 if you count as for D, and if you leave out the large white
background between the outer black/blue/black ring and the four
internal circles on the grounds that it isn't of a constant diameter,
and therefore isn't a "ring"

Taking that into account, I wouldn't enter if there's any kind of
fee--even the cost of a phone call.

>>The second one ("Card Count") was solved after three or four hours
>> this evening, but I missed the answer. It's not "33".
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>38?
>
>
>>"Seeing Red" is the current competition.
>>
>> Adrian

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

"Adrian Bailey" <dadge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EKwIe.2140$FG3.1610@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Just arrived on my Cable TV is "Quiz TV" - though it should probably be
> named "Puzzle TV".
>
> I've posted three of their most recent puzzles at
> http://www.geocities.com/dadge.geo/qtv.html for your consideration. What
> are
> your opinions of this type of puzzle? I have to say that I'm finding the
> channel strangely addictive (well, it is new to me) but also frustrating.
> The method of entry is a bit of a swizz: if you ring up (at the best part
> of
> 1GBP per call) the chances are very high that you will not be "selected"
> to
> participate.
>
> The first puzzle ("Colour Ring") went on for several hours yesterday
> without
> a winning answer. (I do know what the official answer is but I won't post
> it
> yet.) The second one ("Card Count") was solved after three or four hours
> this evening, but I missed the answer. It's not "33". "Seeing Red" is the
> current competition.
>
> Adrian
>
>I suspect that this type of programme is nothing more than a rip off
>lottery.To make it fair they should explain how they got the answer which
>at present they do not do.
I won't be wasting my money on this - unless I can enter for free online.
Just wondering do they have to have a NPN route for this type of
competition?
Eric

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

<mensanator@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123195592.001805.241260@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Adrian Bailey wrote:
> > Just arrived on my Cable TV is "Quiz TV" - though it should probably be
> > named "Puzzle TV".
> >
> > I've posted three of their most recent puzzles at
> > http://www.geocities.com/dadge.geo/qtv.html for your consideration. What
are
> > your opinions of this type of puzzle? I have to say that I'm finding the
> > channel strangely addictive (well, it is new to me) but also
frustrating.
> > The method of entry is a bit of a swizz: if you ring up (at the best
part of
> > 1GBP per call) the chances are very high that you will not be "selected"
to
> > participate.
> >
> > The first puzzle ("Colour Ring") went on for several hours yesterday
without
> > a winning answer. (I do know what the official answer is but I won't
post it
> > yet.) The second one ("Card Count") was solved after three or four hours
> > this evening, but I missed the answer. It's not "33".
> .
> 38?

197 (!) according to this interesting thread:
http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=187276&page=21&pp=25

Adrian

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

Adrian and Barbara Bailey (any relation?) write:
>>> Just arrived on my Cable TV is "Quiz TV" - though it should probably be
>>> named "Puzzle TV".
>>>
>>> I've posted three of their most recent puzzles at
>>> http://www.geocities.com/dadge.geo/qtv.html for your consideration...

>>> The first puzzle ("Colour Ring") went on for several hours ...

> I can see arguments for
> A. 32, if you count all the circles of various colors, (including the
> black ones the separate other colors, )
>
> B. 33, if you count as for A., and if there's another colored ring
> separating the green from the white in the upper right nest (I can't
> tell from the screencap--there might be a yellow of pale green
> separator, or there may not,)
>
> C. 34, if you count as for B, and if there's a similar colored
> separator between the red and white in the lower right nest,
>
> D. 28, if you don't count the four inner-most circles, on the grounds
> that they aren't "rings", but are "dots", and if the ghost separators
> of B. and C. aren't there, or
>
> E. 27 if you count as for D, and if you leave out the large white
> background between the outer black/blue/black ring and the four
> internal circles on the grounds that it isn't of a constant diameter,
> and therefore isn't a "ring"

In addition to these issues, there is the issue of the two right-hand
nests overlapping slightly. I suspect that the outer black of the upper
right next is not to be counted, and the yellow could go either way.
However, if the puzzle went on for hours, it sounds as though some
still less obvious answer was intended.

> Taking that into account, I wouldn't enter if there's any kind of
> fee--even the cost of a phone call.

Hear, hear. This game amounts to guessing what the authors thought the
question really meant. And even then you're trusting them not to have
a list of possible answers and choose to reject the first N answers
that people try.
--
Mark Brader "Nicely self-consistent. (Pay no attention to
Toronto that D-floating number behind the curtain!)"
msb@vex.net -- Chris Torek, on pasta

My text in this article is in the public domain.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

Adrian Bailey wrote:
..
..
..
..
..
..
Spoiler.
..
..
..
..
..
Spoiler.
..
..
..
..
..
Spoiler.
..
..
..
..
..
Spoiler.
..
..
..
..
..
Spoiler.
..
..
..
..
..
Spoiler

>> The first puzzle ("Colour Ring")

25

>> The second one ("Card Count")

39

>> "Seeing Red" is the current competition.

13

I've applied the same logic to all of the answers, so they're all wrong!

--
Kev

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

"Mark Brader" <msb@vex.net> wrote in message
news:11f5abmt9nsr848@corp.supernews.com...
> Adrian and Barbara Bailey (any relation?) write:
> >>> Just arrived on my Cable TV is "Quiz TV" - though it should probably
be
> >>> named "Puzzle TV".
> >>>
> >>> I've posted three of their most recent puzzles at
> >>> http://www.geocities.com/dadge.geo/qtv.html for your consideration...
>
> >>> The first puzzle ("Colour Ring") went on for several hours ...
>
> > I can see arguments for
> > 32, 33, 34, 28, 27
>
> In addition to these issues, there is the issue of the two right-hand
> nests overlapping slightly. I suspect that the outer black of the upper
> right next is not to be counted, and the yellow could go either way.
> However, if the puzzle went on for hours, it sounds as though some
> still less obvious answer was intended.

234. I haven't tried to check it, but it must involve counting rings within
rings. For example, the inner line of the outer blue ring makes a ring
together with the outer line of the inner blue ring, etc. etc. (Some people
have suggested that the producers just pluck a number out of the air to
designate as the answer, but I doubt that.) Afair, almost all the callers'
guesses were in the range 1-39.

> > Taking that into account, I wouldn't enter if there's any kind of
> > fee--even the cost of a phone call.
>
> Hear, hear. This game amounts to guessing what the authors thought the
> question really meant.

I don't mind that aspect of the game too much, as long as the chosen answer
is legitimate. And it's hard to tell when they never explain the answers.

> And even then you're trusting them not to have
> a list of possible answers and choose to reject the first N answers
> that people try.

That's an interesting suggestion, though I doubt they'd go that far.

Adrian

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:34:05 GMT, "Adrian Bailey" <dadge@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Mark Brader" <msb@vex.net> wrote in message
>news:11f5abmt9nsr848@corp.supernews.com...
>> Adrian and Barbara Bailey (any relation?) write:
>> >>> Just arrived on my Cable TV is "Quiz TV" - though it should probably
>be
>> >>> named "Puzzle TV".
>> >>>
>> >>> I've posted three of their most recent puzzles at
>> >>> http://www.geocities.com/dadge.geo/qtv.html for your consideration...
>>
>> >>> The first puzzle ("Colour Ring") went on for several hours ...
>>
>> > I can see arguments for
>> > 32, 33, 34, 28, 27
>>
>> In addition to these issues, there is the issue of the two right-hand
>> nests overlapping slightly. I suspect that the outer black of the upper
>> right next is not to be counted, and the yellow could go either way.
>> However, if the puzzle went on for hours, it sounds as though some
>> still less obvious answer was intended.
>
>234. I haven't tried to check it, but it must involve counting rings within
>rings. For example, the inner line of the outer blue ring makes a ring
>together with the outer line of the inner blue ring, etc. etc. (Some people
>have suggested that the producers just pluck a number out of the air to
>designate as the answer, but I doubt that.) Afair, almost all the callers'
>guesses were in the range 1-39.

OooooK. Yeah, I can see that you could get that high by counting all
the different combinations of different colors. The outermost black is
#1, the outermost black and the blue immediately inside it is #2, then
black/blue/black for #3, and black/blue/black/white is # 4 And so on.

I call bullshit..
>
>> > Taking that into account, I wouldn't enter if there's any kind of
>> > fee--even the cost of a phone call.
>>
>> Hear, hear. This game amounts to guessing what the authors thought the
>> question really meant.
>
>I don't mind that aspect of the game too much, as long as the chosen answer
>is legitimate. And it's hard to tell when they never explain the answers.
>
>> And even then you're trusting them not to have
>> a list of possible answers and choose to reject the first N answers
>> that people try.
>
>That's an interesting suggestion, though I doubt they'd go that far.
>
>Adrian
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

Somebody claiming to be "Carl G." <cginnowzerozeroone@microprizes.com>
wrote in news:NsxIe.12$Zl.6@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com:

> ObPuzzle:
>
> In how many different ways can someone interpret this question?

Would you like to see my ballet interpretation of your question?

--
Ted <fedya at bestweb dot net>
Lisa, if you don’t like your job you don’t strike. You just go in there
every day and do it really half-assed. That’s the American way. --Homer
Simpson

 

[Annette]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

"Eric Jones" <ejones999@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dcu5jm$4gg$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Adrian Bailey" <dadge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:EKwIe.2140$FG3.1610@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Just arrived on my Cable TV is "Quiz TV" - though it should probably be
>> named "Puzzle TV".
>>
>> I've posted three of their most recent puzzles at
>> http://www.geocities.com/dadge.geo/qtv.html for your consideration. What
>> are
>> your opinions of this type of puzzle? I have to say that I'm finding the
>> channel strangely addictive (well, it is new to me) but also frustrating.
>> The method of entry is a bit of a swizz: if you ring up (at the best part
>> of
>> 1GBP per call) the chances are very high that you will not be "selected"
>> to
>> participate.
>>
>> The first puzzle ("Colour Ring") went on for several hours yesterday
>> without
>> a winning answer. (I do know what the official answer is but I won't post
>> it
>> yet.) The second one ("Card Count") was solved after three or four hours
>> this evening, but I missed the answer. It's not "33". "Seeing Red" is the
>> current competition.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>I suspect that this type of programme is nothing more than a rip off
>>lottery.To make it fair they should explain how they got the answer which
>>at present they do not do.
> I won't be wasting my money on this - unless I can enter for free online.
> Just wondering do they have to have a NPN route for this type of
> competition?
> Eric
>
http://www.quiz.tv/entry.php
They call you back

Annette

Annette

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:24:21 -0700, "Carl G."
<cginnowzerozeroone@microprizes.com> wrote:

>
>"Adrian Bailey" <dadge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:EKwIe.2140$FG3.1610@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Just arrived on my Cable TV is "Quiz TV" - though it should probably be
>> named "Puzzle TV".
>>
>> I've posted three of their most recent puzzles at
>> http://www.geocities.com/dadge.geo/qtv.html for your consideration. What
>are
>> your opinions of this type of puzzle? I have to say that I'm finding the
>> channel strangely addictive (well, it is new to me) but also frustrating.
>> The method of entry is a bit of a swizz: if you ring up (at the best part
>of
>> 1GBP per call) the chances are very high that you will not be "selected"
>to
>> participate.
>>
>> The first puzzle ("Colour Ring") went on for several hours yesterday
>without
>> a winning answer. (I do know what the official answer is but I won't post
>it
>> yet.) The second one ("Card Count") was solved after three or four hours
>> this evening, but I missed the answer. It's not "33". "Seeing Red" is the
>> current competition.
>>
>> Adrian
>
>ObPuzzle:
>
>In how many different ways can someone interpret this question?
>
>Carl G.
>
>
With sufficient creativity, the question can be interpreted in an
infinite number of ways. But is it a counatble inifinity, or
an uncountable one?

George

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

In article <f437f1ptohb2afdtoe3opeoma2qphnu10k@4ax.com>,
George Weinberg <eorgeweinberg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:24:21 -0700, "Carl G."
><cginnowzerozeroone@microprizes.com> wrote:

[snip all meaningful context ]
>>ObPuzzle:
>>
>>In how many different ways can someone interpret this question?
>>
>>Carl G.
>>
>With sufficient creativity, the question can be interpreted in an
>infinite number of ways. But is it a counatble inifinity, or
>an uncountable one?

Countable infinity, clearly (assuming that an interpretation can be
expressed as an English sentence).

Alan
--
Defendit numerus

 

[user]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

A friend of mine rang me about this the other day, and a number puzzle that seemed straightforward had loads of answers, many of which "could" have been correct on the face of it, but they said they were all wrong and at the end just announced a number as the answer - it was not at all obvious why this number was the correct answer, and no explanation was offered, couple this with the inane twerp who was "Presenting" and I won't be bothering with this one! Oh, and the prize was a rather pathetic £75.
Not for me! )

Mike

"Eric Jones" <ejones999@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:dcu5jm$4gg$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Adrian Bailey" <dadge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:EKwIe.2140$FG3.1610@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Just arrived on my Cable TV is "Quiz TV" - though it should probably be
>> named "Puzzle TV".
>>
>> I've posted three of their most recent puzzles at
>> http://www.geocities.com/dadge.geo/qtv.html for your consideration. What
>> are
>> your opinions of this type of puzzle? I have to say that I'm finding the
>> channel strangely addictive (well, it is new to me) but also frustrating.
>> The method of entry is a bit of a swizz: if you ring up (at the best part
>> of
>> 1GBP per call) the chances are very high that you will not be "selected"
>> to
>> participate.
>>
>> The first puzzle ("Colour Ring") went on for several hours yesterday
>> without
>> a winning answer. (I do know what the official answer is but I won't post
>> it
>> yet.) The second one ("Card Count") was solved after three or four hours
>> this evening, but I missed the answer. It's not "33". "Seeing Red" is the
>> current competition.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>I suspect that this type of programme is nothing more than a rip off
>>lottery.To make it fair they should explain how they got the answer which
>>at present they do not do.
> I won't be wasting my money on this - unless I can enter for free online.
> Just wondering do they have to have a NPN route for this type of
> competition?
> Eric
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

"Adrian Bailey" <dadge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EKwIe.2140$FG3.1610@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Just arrived on my Cable TV is "Quiz TV" - though it should probably be
> named "Puzzle TV".
>
> I've posted three of their most recent puzzles at
> http://www.geocities.com/dadge.geo/qtv.html for your consideration. What
are
> your opinions of this type of puzzle? I have to say that I'm finding the
> channel strangely addictive (well, it is new to me) but also frustrating.
> The method of entry is a bit of a swizz: if you ring up (at the best part
of
> 1GBP per call) the chances are very high that you will not be "selected"
to
> participate.
>
> The first puzzle ("Colour Ring") went on for several hours yesterday
without
> a winning answer. (I do know what the official answer is but I won't post
it
> yet.) The second one ("Card Count") was solved after three or four hours
> this evening, but I missed the answer. It's not "33". "Seeing Red" is the
> current competition.

"Answers": 234, 197, 198. If anyone figures out how any of these answers
were arrived at, I'm sure we'd all be glad to know!

I've added a fourth puzzle (with special guest!).

I've come to the conclusion that watching Quiz TV (or the likes of Bid TV)
is akin to a living death.

Adrian

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:47:05 GMT, "Adrian Bailey" <dadge@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>"Adrian Bailey" <dadge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:EKwIe.2140$FG3.1610@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Just arrived on my Cable TV is "Quiz TV" - though it should probably be
>> named "Puzzle TV".
>>
>> I've posted three of their most recent puzzles at
>> http://www.geocities.com/dadge.geo/qtv.html for your consideration. What
>are
>> your opinions of this type of puzzle? I have to say that I'm finding the
>> channel strangely addictive (well, it is new to me) but also frustrating.
>> The method of entry is a bit of a swizz: if you ring up (at the best part
>of
>> 1GBP per call) the chances are very high that you will not be "selected"
>to
>> participate.
>>
>> The first puzzle ("Colour Ring") went on for several hours yesterday
>without
>> a winning answer. (I do know what the official answer is but I won't post
>it
>> yet.) The second one ("Card Count") was solved after three or four hours
>> this evening, but I missed the answer. It's not "33". "Seeing Red" is the
>> current competition.
>
>"Answers": 234, 197, 198. If anyone figures out how any of these answers
>were arrived at, I'm sure we'd all be glad to know!
>
>I've added a fourth puzzle (with special guest!).
>
>I've come to the conclusion that watching Quiz TV (or the likes of Bid TV)
>is akin to a living death.
>
>Adrian
>

After skimming the forum you posted earlier in this thread, it's obvious
that your VERY CUTE special guest stands as good a chance as you do of
winning a prize on your "unique" TV channel.

I find it humerous that their rules specify that they are under no
obligation to, and indeed will not, explain any of their "answers."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 17:13:43 -0700 (PDT), amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU
(Alan Morgan) wrote:

>In article <f437f1ptohb2afdtoe3opeoma2qphnu10k@4ax.com>,
>George Weinberg <eorgeweinberg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:24:21 -0700, "Carl G."
>><cginnowzerozeroone@microprizes.com> wrote:
>
>[snip all meaningful context ]
>>>ObPuzzle:
>>>
>>>In how many different ways can someone interpret this question?
>>>
>>>Carl G.
>>>
>>With sufficient creativity, the question can be interpreted in an
>>infinite number of ways. But is it a counatble inifinity, or
>>an uncountable one?
>
>Countable infinity, clearly (assuming that an interpretation can be
>expressed as an English sentence).
>
>Alan

I was hoping for an uncountable infinity, on the theory that some
of the proposed interpretations are pretty irrational. It's true that
if you can actually write down all the proposed solutions then it
must be a countable subset, but I was hoping to come up with
a way of describing a class of interpretations without actually
listing them. In which case if I'm lucky I'll come up with
somewhere between Aleph null and Aleph one interpretations.

George

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:24:09 GMT, George Weinberg
<eorgeweinberg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 17:13:43 -0700 (PDT), amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU
>(Alan Morgan) wrote:
>
>>In article <f437f1ptohb2afdtoe3opeoma2qphnu10k@4ax.com>,
>>George Weinberg <eorgeweinberg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:24:21 -0700, "Carl G."
>>><cginnowzerozeroone@microprizes.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip all meaningful context ]
>>>>ObPuzzle:
>>>>
>>>>In how many different ways can someone interpret this question?
>>>>
>>>>Carl G.
>>>>
>>>With sufficient creativity, the question can be interpreted in an
>>>infinite number of ways. But is it a counatble inifinity, or
>>>an uncountable one?
>>
>>Countable infinity, clearly (assuming that an interpretation can be
>>expressed as an English sentence).
>>
>>Alan
>
>I was hoping for an uncountable infinity, on the theory that some
>of the proposed interpretations are pretty irrational. It's true that
>if you can actually write down all the proposed solutions then it
>must be a countable subset, but I was hoping to come up with
>a way of describing a class of interpretations without actually
>listing them. In which case if I'm lucky I'll come up with
>somewhere between Aleph null and Aleph one interpretations.
>
>George

Well, since it's a bounded figure, it can't be an uncountable
infinity, can it? (That's an honestly ignorant question, by the way
-- infinity iand all it's variations give me the gibbering
whim-whams.) I mean, even if you were to interpret the "rings" on a
pixel-by-pixel basis, you're going to a have a countable number when
all is said and done? It'll be freaking enormous, but countable.
Right?

Barb

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.rec.competitions,rec.puzzles,rec.games.trivia (More info?)

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 11:48:26 -0500, Barbara Bailey
<rabrabbjb@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:24:09 GMT, George Weinberg
><eorgeweinberg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 17:13:43 -0700 (PDT), amorgan@xenon.Stanford.EDU
>>(Alan Morgan) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <f437f1ptohb2afdtoe3opeoma2qphnu10k@4ax.com>,
>>>George Weinberg <eorgeweinberg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:24:21 -0700, "Carl G."
>>>><cginnowzerozeroone@microprizes.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip all meaningful context ]
>>>>>ObPuzzle:
>>>>>
>>>>>In how many different ways can someone interpret this question?
>>>>>
>>>>>Carl G.
>>>>>
>>>>With sufficient creativity, the question can be interpreted in an
>>>>infinite number of ways. But is it a counatble inifinity, or
>>>>an uncountable one?
>>>
>>>Countable infinity, clearly (assuming that an interpretation can be
>>>expressed as an English sentence).
>>>
>>>Alan
>>
>>I was hoping for an uncountable infinity, on the theory that some
>>of the proposed interpretations are pretty irrational. It's true that
>>if you can actually write down all the proposed solutions then it
>>must be a countable subset, but I was hoping to come up with
>>a way of describing a class of interpretations without actually
>>listing them. In which case if I'm lucky I'll come up with
>>somewhere between Aleph null and Aleph one interpretations.
>>
>>George
>
>Well, since it's a bounded figure, it can't be an uncountable
>infinity, can it? (That's an honestly ignorant question, by the way
>-- infinity iand all it's variations give me the gibbering
>whim-whams.) I mean, even if you were to interpret the "rings" on a
>pixel-by-pixel basis, you're going to a have a countable number when
>all is said and done? It'll be freaking enormous, but countable.
>Right?
>
>Barb

It depends on how vague you're allowed to be.
You have a finite number of boundary pixels,
but if you say the "ring" is a convex curve that
goes through the center of each pixel, then
you've got uncountably many different curves
that could serve as the definition of the boundary for
each ring. Of course, which of these curves you choose
won't change your final answer for the number of rings,
but one could arrgue that they're still different interpreations of
the problem.

George