Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
  

The time now is Thu Nov 21, 2024 1:10 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)		 View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Diversions » Perplex City Puzzle Cards » PXC: Silver Puzzle Cards
[Puzzle] Silver #238 Riemann
Moderators: AnthraX101, bagsbee, BrianEnigma, cassandra, Giskard, lhall, Mikeyj, myf, poozle, RobMagus, xnbomb
View previous topicView next topic
Page 31 of 47 [697 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, ..., 45, 46, 47  Next
Author Message
locqust
Unfettered


Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 545
Location: Gloucestershire UK

 		Yeah sometimes good to ask other people and not tell them your ideas first. Might cloud their thinking. I showed my dad it and he went, "You know they haven't solved the Riemann theory yet? So how are you supposed to solve the card?" Helpful eh? Very Happy
_________________
"If you'd been listening you would know that nintendos pass through everything." Col. Jack O'Neill

PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:20 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Guin
Unfettered


Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 400
Location: Antartica

 		Tried:

Spoiler (Rollover to View):
Prime numbers are numbers that cannot be divided by any other number except themselves [sic] and 1. For example, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 and 17 are all prime numbers.Aside [sic] from their theoretical interest, large prime numbers have become increasingly important in day to day [sic] life since they underpin the cryptography that allows secure transactions to take place on the internet [sic] (such as encrypting your credit card details when you buy online).

While there are standard techniques to discover new primes, and [sic] more importantly, check whether a number really is a prime, mathematicians have not been able to discover if there is any order to the way in which primes are distributed. However, the German mathematician G. F.G. Riemann (1826-1866) noticed that the frequency of primes is highly related to the Zeta function, now known as the Riemann Zeta Function.

[Equation]

The Riemann Hypothesis is that 'the [sic] real part of any non-trivial zero of the Riemann zeta [sic] function is 1/2.' It sounds complicated (and it is!) but a lot rests on whether his hypothesis is true. There are many equations in abstract mathematics that have been solved on the assumption that the hypothesis is true - [sic] and if it isn't, then not only would we have to look at those equations again, [sic] but it would also imply that there is a [sic] certain order to primes.

(As of 2004, the largest known prime was 7235733 [sic] digits long!)

$1,000,000 prize offered upon solving this puzzle see http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann_Hypothesis/


nope
_________________
So long and thanks for all the fish! Trout

PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:41 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Bendover
Veteran


Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 111
Location: San Jose

 		"but it would also imply that there is a certain order to primes." I think it was EvilGenius that brought up the fact that this last line seems wrong.( it seems to imply that if Riemann is true, primes have no order.) What if we correct that line to read "but it would imply that there is a certain lack of order to primes" Just a thought. I hope my card gets here soon so I can join in the fun.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:50 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
EvilGenius
Decorated


Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 227
Location: Vancouver

 		Tried a few more solves in the proofing direction, leaving out the [equation] bit, trying with and without the parenthetical statement at the end. Still nothing. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Also tried "regular" as in the distribution of primes would be regular if the RH was true - no no no no no no

PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:59 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Guin
Unfettered


Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 400
Location: Antartica

 		todays effort (locked till midnight so I will leave any further alterations until tomorrow now Evil or Very Mad

Spoiler (Rollover to View):
Prime numbers are numbers that cannot be divided by any other number except themselves [sic] and 1. For example, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 and 17 are all prime numbers.Aside [sic] from their theoretical interest, large prime numbers have become increasingly important in day to day [sic] life since they underpin the cryptography that allows secure transactions to take place on the internet [sic] (such as encrypting your credit card details when you buy online). [sic]

While there are standard techniques to discover new primes, and [sic] more importantly, check whether a number really is a prime, mathematicians have not been able to discover if there is any order to the way in which primes are distributed. However, the German mathematician G. F.G. Riemann (1826-1866) noticed that the frequency of primes is highly related to the Zeta function, now known as the Riemann Zeta Function.

[Equation]

The Riemann Hypothesis is that [sic] 'the real part of any non-trivial zero of the Riemann zeta [sic] function is 1/2.' It sounds complicated (and it is!) but a lot rests on whether his hypothesis is true. There are many equations in abstract mathematics that have been solved on the assumption that the hypothesis is true - [sic] and if it isn't, then not only would we have to look at those equations again, [sic] but it would also imply that there is [sic]a certain order to primes.

(As of 2004, the largest known prime was 7235733 [sic] digits long!)

$1,000,000 prize offered upon solving this puzzle see http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann_Hypothesis/

_________________
So long and thanks for all the fish! Trout

PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 10:07 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
locqust
Unfettered


Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 545
Location: Gloucestershire UK

 		The web address is correct isnt it? I seem to remember when you click on it it redirects to another page, so perhaps we should put that page address in?
_________________
"If you'd been listening you would know that nintendos pass through everything." Col. Jack O'Neill

PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:08 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Guin
Unfettered


Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 400
Location: Antartica
locqust wrote:
The web address is correct isnt it? I seem to remember when you click on it it redirects to another page, so perhaps we should put that page address in?


The one on the card is it's the one in the hint that was wrong - this sort of made this more logical to me that it was about errors / proof readings. I can still see things hidden in the text but thats probably my madness or another part of the game and i am going to keep on this track for now (its much more sane!)

Ive been reading the papers today and have found a few more possible errors. Can only but try.

Confused
_________________
So long and thanks for all the fish! Trout

PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:15 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
EvilGenius
Decorated


Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 227
Location: Vancouver

 		The web address?! If you are taking that to be the last line of of the puzzle as discussed above then we aren't quite in sync. What I meant (and should have more clear about) is that the last line of the last paragraph that ends with ". . . that there is a certain order to the primes" is wrong. It says that if the RH is false then that implies there is a certain order to the primes. It's the other way around; if the RH is true then it implies a certain order to the primes. The web address is fine, as far as I know.

Not that this is helping me move forward Mad

PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:44 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
locqust
Unfettered


Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 545
Location: Gloucestershire UK

 		I meant with Guin and his attempts. I noticed he had been inputting everything on that card including the star with the URL on. I remembered something about the web address being slightly wrong and wondered if Guin had checked that. But I forgot it was Von's clue, not the card, that had the wrong address.
_________________
"If you'd been listening you would know that nintendos pass through everything." Col. Jack O'Neill

PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:06 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Guin
Unfettered


Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 400
Location: Antartica
EvilGenius wrote:
". . . that there is a certain order to the primes" is wrong. It says that if the RH is false then that implies there is a certain order to the primes. It's the other way around; if the RH is true then it implies a certain order to the primes.


I think I have a solution to this whole sentence - if you look at the sentinel letters the last one (clue?) they use [sic, for the entire sentence] - i am using this format for the time being.

The only problems I have now are that looking at all my books on grammar and the discussion with my bro we have identified certain "grey areas"

For example - I teach key skills and IT and generally Internet has a capital although technically this is incorrect. But pretty much all training materials are in a capital. However, my brother as an editor would mark that as incorrect. We also disagree about the use of an explanation mark mid sentance in brackets. I have read my OED grammar book today and it pretty much backs me up but its not that clean cut as there are extenuating curcumstances (as with all English grammar!)

I have stuck to the full text as if you proff read a document you are proof reading the whole. I may start removing it on certain tries when I start to get desperate.

Sorry I didnt make myself clear I dont think - it was late and I was drunk

Ahhh happy days work in 8 hours Sad
_________________
So long and thanks for all the fish! Trout

PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:22 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Guin
Unfettered


Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 400
Location: Antartica

 		have tried yet 2 more variations but am now locked out until 2pm.

So rather than post my entries I am going to break down the errors and an explanation (with my trusted grammar book on hand with said explanations)

Spoiler (Rollover to View):


Line 1 - themselves and 1 - should read itself as I beleive it should be an emphatic pronoun. for example "The house itself is small, but the garden is enourmous. The house is small not the garden and when we say these sentences we stress self in this case the self being the number.

Line 3 - numbers.Aside - should read numbers. Aside as there is a missing space

Line 4 day to day - should read day-to-day

Line 6 internet - could read Internet - this is contensious. As a teacher virtually all the materials I use have Internet as a proper noun. Having discussed this with my brother who is an editor he said it is wrong so the jury is still out.

Line 6 when you buy online). - depending on your thoughts it can be written when you buy online.) For example reading the Telegraph I noticed they use the latter. But reading my OED book they use the former. I am inclined to say it is correct as its the convention I was taught.

Line 7 new primes, and more - could read new primes and, more - this is also contensious as it depends on if the sentence reads discover new primes and check... by removing the aside more importantly. I am inclined to think it is wrong as the sentance new primes check whether would make no sense.

Line 10 G. F. G. - the fact this is on the answer page leads me to beleive that when this was set up MC missed it and as a result put this in as part of the answer text (think back to other cards!) As such telling us they know it is wrong should mean we ignore it.

Line 13 to 14 is that 'the real part...is 1/2 - okay this is going to require a bit of research. If this is a direct speach (which means the actual words spoken) it is correct. However, if it is reported speech it is incorrect and the quotation marks are wrong as in reported speech we only give the meaning of what was said - eg Simon says he is tired, rather than Simon: 'I am tired.' Equally if it is right then we would need to consider using a colon so it reads is that: 'the real

Line 14 (and it is!) - this is very problamatic. There is no right or wrong and I have looked in about 4 of my reference books. Personally I would say it is wrong as I would never put ! mid sentence even in brackets. To quote the OED reference

Used after an exclamatory word, phrase, or sentance. It usually counts as the concluding full stop, but need not, e.g. Hail source of Being! universal Soul!...[/b]

Line 17 is true - and - the hyphen is incorrect as it is a minus sign - if you type it in word it will change to the correct one

The last sentence makes no sense either. Based on the sentinel letter on the last page which says [sic, for the entire sentence] I wonder if this is a hint as it is the last sentence on the letters page that we use this mark up to identify the whole sentence as problematic. Either that or we need to change there is a to read there is not a There is also a problem with equations again, but as it should read equations again but it so I am more inclined to the whole sentence idea.

Line 20 7235733 should read 7,235,733 - I have also checked the stats for the end of 2004 and it is assertion is correct.

Finally (at last I hear you cry!) the text in the star may not be part of the proof text. If we are proofing the main text then it isnt required, but if we are proofing the card we could need to look at all the text.


This all said I have still to get a magical correct (and 60 valuable points). So nothing is set in stone. If this is correct there are so many variables (I have about 1550 characters with marked amendments) that keying exactly what MC are after is just quite franly as much fun as really solving the RZ function

Shocked

Any ideas always welcome though[/spoiler]
_________________
So long and thanks for all the fish! Trout

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:29 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Guin
Unfettered


Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 400
Location: Antartica

 		speechless
okies I emailed MC about the variables if it is proof reading and here is their reply:

Spoiler (Rollover to View):
Hello Tim,

Thanks for your email.

For card #238 Riemann you need to solve the Riemann hypothesis.

Regards,

Perplex City Customer Services




Shocked
_________________
So long and thanks for all the fish! Trout

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:05 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Jakeo
Decorated

Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 159
Location: Edinburgh

 		Odd that they say you have to solve it and not prove it. Probably a slip if the keyboard, but you could always post back and ask them what value you should solve it for.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:12 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Guin
Unfettered


Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 400
Location: Antartica
Jakeo wrote:
Odd that they say you have to solve it and not prove it. Probably a slip if the keyboard, but you could always post back and ask them what value you should solve it for.


I know but frankly I didnt expect a reply and even told them as much as it would be blatant if they sent me something which said "oh you are so right heres a few pointers..."

hey ho probably just there little joke - besides if i did decide to sit down and attempt to solve Riemann's hypothesis I wouldnt have anytime to buy cards let alone look for a cube which is worth at least 1 fifth the Millenium award.
_________________
So long and thanks for all the fish! Trout

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:08 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
donstobbart
Veteran


Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 96
Location: Cumbria

 		So we have to "solve" not "prove" the Riemann Hypothesis then?

OK, so.....


Quote:
There are some values of s for which the Riemann zeta function gives the output 0. These values are known as zeroes. It has been known for a long time that s = -2, -4, -6, -8, -10, ... -2n (where n is a positive integer), ... are all zeroes. In 1859, Riemann conjectured that the only other zeroes for the Riemann zeta function all lie on a critical line with the equation Re(s) = 1/2. This is known as the Riemann Hypothesis.

To this day, the Riemann Hypothesis has resisted all attempts to prove it.


Does this mean that we have to take a value e.g. -2 and follow it through the equation until we get a 0 at the other end? If thats the case then all I can say is HELP!!!!Dunno

Don
_________________
“Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.”
Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:05 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 31 of 47 [697 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, ..., 45, 46, 47  Next
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Diversions » Perplex City Puzzle Cards » PXC: Silver Puzzle Cards
Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group