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 Mon Nov 18, 2024 7:10 pm
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 15 of 47 [697 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, ..., 45, 46, 47  Next
Author Message
TeamMfM
Boot

Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 17

 		hmmm
ok i recon the answer might be something to do with the sentence on the card

(such as encrypting your credit card details when you buy online)


i recon it could be an encrypted message like the answer is hidden in this sentence or something like that.... i dont know if anyone with more time can take a look at the above Rolling Eyes ..just a thought!!

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:19 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
stevewh
Greenhorn

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 4

 		'PROOF'
Further to the orther 'errors' mentioned the comma in '... new primes, and more...' on the first line of the second paragraph should be on the other side of the and to read '... new primes and, more ...'. Alternatively keep that comma where it is and remove the one after 'importantly'.

This goes with the previously mentioned ':' in the equation, 'not' missing from the last sentence and 'z' in zeta (although the answer does say it is case insensitive as all the others do).

Does anybody know the shorthand editor's use when adding or removing characters or words when proof reading text?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 5:02 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
hturan
Greenhorn


Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 9

 		What I meant was that (considering the size of the text box) we should write the card out again, but with perfect spelling/punctuation.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:41 am
 View user's profile MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
poozleModerator
Entrenched

Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 1090
hturan wrote:
What I meant was that (considering the size of the text box) we should write the card out again, but with perfect spelling/punctuation.


I think that sounds right, its just finding them all I think. I may have a go at finding any from this thread and maybe some I notice and putting them together.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:00 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
travelling performer?
Veteran

Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 77

 		this is terribly terribly easy and your all making it sound so hard.

THINK!

It asks for proof. Give them the proof. Its that simple.

Cant wait til i get this card and solve it.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:15 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
The First Speaker
Boot


Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 55
Location: UK

 		I have tried the following (bold is my emphasis on corrections)

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

While there are standard techniques to discover new primes and, 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. B. Riemann (1826-1866) noticed that the frequency of primes is highly related to the zeta function, now known as the Riemann zeta function.

The Riemann Hypothesis is that 'the real part of any non-trivial zero of the Riemann zeta 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 - and if it isn't, then not only would we have to look at those equations again, but it would also imply that there is not a certain order to primes.

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

which wasn't correct.
_________________
"If I were to awaken after having slept for a thousand years, my first question would be: Has Perplex City card #238 been solved?"

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:30 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
The First Speaker
Boot


Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 55
Location: UK
Quote:
It asks for proof. Give them the proof. Its that simple.


Could you elaborate a bit more on your thinking?
_________________
"If I were to awaken after having slept for a thousand years, my first question would be: Has Perplex City card #238 been solved?"

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:33 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Juxta
Unfettered

Joined: 28 Aug 2005
Posts: 675
travelling performer? wrote:
this is terribly terribly easy and your all making it sound so hard.

THINK!

It asks for proof. Give them the proof. Its that simple.

Cant wait til i get this card and solve it.


Gosh. Neither can we. Perhaps if you were to add something aside from misplaced arrogance and unsubstantiated smugness to this discussion - which is, after all, a discussion of the card, and how to answer the question which it poses, as opposed to idle boasting with absolutely nothing to back your claims up - then your post would be worth something.

I look forward to the day when/if this card is solved, when you'll undoubtedly be back to tell us all "Ha! I knew it all along! See?"

Rolling Eyes


J

N.B. You should all be grateful that I haven't solved this one yet myself, but I figured that I'd better let you have something to do - after all, I'm already using the Cube to prop up one of my kitchen table's legs.
_________________
zzzshusoharuxpfrp

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:00 pm
 View user's profile MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
GasparLewis
Unfettered


Joined: 19 Nov 2005
Posts: 474
Location: vicinty of NYC
Juxta wrote:
You should all be grateful that I haven't solved this one yet myself, but I figured that I'd better let you have something to do - after all, I'm already using the Cube to prop up one of my kitchen table's legs.


Yeah, well when I called Violet after solving "Bar None", she answered and gave me her home number! She was sounding very amorous at the time, might I add... Wink

----------------------------^ ^ SILLY ENDS HERE ^ ^---------------------------

I suppose the best thing we can do as of right now is start from scratch and/or try to start striking out things that would not make sense.

Of course, I'm not devalidating any of these means, since we really have nowhere to particularly start from. It's just a matter of trying to be logical about what exactly is wanted of us.

-V-V-V-

They do not want the proving or disproving of the Riemann Hypothesis. Such a feat would send shockwaves through the world as a whole; waves far greater than a value of 60 Perplex Points. Internet security could crumble in months, the creator would get good deals of cash prizes, and every mathematician around the world would be getting sloshed in celebration of the occasion. Jeb's "FLIPPITY FLOO" on Page 1 about sums that end of it up.

Both the Clay Institute and the Wolfram site (from the hint) are fully and completely out-of-game. The Clay Millenium Prizes were around far before, and further inspection on the Wolfram databank shows that there's far, far more on it than Riemann alone. These may still be essential to the solve, such as specific text on them, but are not related by means of contact, having existed far before.

Personally, I don't see how in the world it would be a matter of proofreading the text. The fact that a specific mistake had to be given on the site alone (G.F.G. -> G.F.B. [which is only one key away on your usual Qwerty keyboard, might I add]). Yes, it would be a feasible play on showing a proof, the clue's mis-capitalization would also feed into this, but the flighty nature of diverging sets of editorial rules might drive it all wonky.

"Proof" also means "half of alcohol content by percent". Maybe they want a chemical analysis of the human body for alcohol by percent? "Show your proof" and all... Rolling Eyes

The line does not appear on every card, so it would not be fair to anyone not in possession of a lined card if it was related to the solve.

----------

I'm just as bogged as everyone else, but I just get the feeling that we're chasing our tails at the moment. Not that we haven't been busy with other things, but rather that we've let our attention on certain cards slack or fall into a repetitive state.

Everybody seems so set on this being a matter of editing, when in reality there's very little we're still certain about at all.

Dare I say it, but perhaps a topic-restart might serve to catalyze some new thoughts; closest thing to a "fresh start" as you can get. Of course, I wouldn't delete this, because who knows what things we may or may not have done right; lock it and pretend it's not there is all. Just to start from the very, very beginning of this insanity and see if we can find another direction of thought to arc in.

</rant>

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:24 am
Last edited by GasparLewis on Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:45 am; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile AIM Address
 Back to top 
BBuck
Decorated

Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 184
Quote:
this is terribly terribly easy and your all making it sound so hard.

THINK!

It asks for proof. Give them the proof. Its that simple.


If you mean give them the proof that you've bought the card - the code under the scratch-off panel - then I think you're on the wrong lines (at least, mine didn't work). Might I suggest that if you are certain about your idea being correct that you buy a copy of the card, either on eBay or from one of the sites offering single cards? Surely 13 or 14 pounds is a small price to pay for Perplex City immortality?

Quote:
Dare I say it, but perhaps a topic-restart might serve to catalyze some new thoughts


Seconded. Might be worth starting it with a post summarising the ideas expressed on this forum, similar to the rest of your post.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:29 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Arramond
Greenhorn

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 9

 		just a clear definition of proof in mathematical terms.

http://www.jimloy.com/math/proof.htm

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:39 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
hturan
Greenhorn


Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 9

 		Hey, I was just looking back through this thread and noticed something. Instead of saying Notes and Corrections for this card on the solve screen (with the G.F.G/G.F.B mistake) it says Notes on how to solve this card. Just a thought. It does seem a bit of a challenge entering the entire text on the card correctly, but its the best we have.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:47 pm
 View user's profile MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
maevey
Veteran

Joined: 21 Dec 2005
Posts: 106

 		The First Speaker: a further correction to your proof would probably be that the Riemann zeta function should be the Riemann Zeta Function with capitals throughout as it is a proper noun.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:20 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
BBuck
Decorated

Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 184
Quote:
The First Speaker: a further correction to your proof would probably be that the Riemann zeta function should be the Riemann Zeta Function with capitals throughout as it is a proper noun.


I agree on the need for consistency. But (as pointed out above), a) most sources don't capitalise "zeta" or "function", so it might be that it should be lower case throughout and b) in any case, it shouldn't matter as the answer box is case insensitive.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:51 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
hexDa3m0n
Boot

Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 60
Location: Lancaster, England
Quote:
b) in any case, it shouldn't matter as the answer box is case insensitive.


Good point. Surely this would rule out proof-reading the whole document as an answer? Confused Bang Head

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:10 pm
 View user's profile AIM Address MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 15 of 47 [697 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, ..., 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