Re: Pattern game, anyone? ;)

**Sean Mirrsen** Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:00 am

Aw, and I wanted to answer "the celery" next. Pattern game, anyone? ;) - Page 2 2901061582

Okay then, let that be #002:: The Pig.

**MC Dirty** Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:04 am

#003 - The blue balloon.

Necro910 Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:06 am

acidbomb113 wrote:@ Necro - Yes, the Red popped first.

acidbomb113 Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:11 am

MC Dirty wrote:What is the setting in this case of the question? "Sitting on a pier"? "Eating celery?" Or is it "sitting on a pier, eating celery"?

~~{

Pattern game, anyone? ;) - Page 2 1465848216

}~~
Yes.

There can be many Item Sets [but only one Accusative Set (and it is very hard to make actual use of additional sets with our current 'single statement' Pattern restriction)], how many may not be certain until a few rounds in ~ I will go ahead and ease your burden by saying that this puzzle only contains two Sets.

MC Dirty wrote:Is the last sentence (the question itself, in this case "Which one is vegetarian?") allowed to change?

No, The Question [as in 'Parts of the Game'] cannot change; neither can the contents of Item Sets ~

that said:

**MC Dirty** Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:16 am

So, what about our guesses?

acidbomb113 Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:18 am

Sean Mirrsen wrote:#002:: The Pig.

No, t'is the butcher.
#002 :: A pig and a butcher are sitting on a dock, eating celery. Which one is vegetarian?

MC Dirty wrote:#003 - The blue balloon.

Yes, it was the blue balloon that popped first.
#003 :: A green, blue, and red balloon are tied to a post. Which one popped first?

MC Dirty wrote:So, what about our guesses?

Gimme a sec ~ Razz

Necro910 Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:19 am

acidbomb113 wrote:#003 :: A green, blue, and red balloon are tied to a post. Which one popped first?

Green?

**MC Dirty** Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:20 am

#003 - The blue balloon.

**Sean Mirrsen** Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:21 am

Let's keep the variables to a minimum.

#002:: The Pig.

**MC Dirty** Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:25 am

I just noticed that #001 would have failed if you would get two guesses between reveals. Should such a rule even be allowed?

**Sean Mirrsen** Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:28 am

MC Dirty wrote:I just noticed that #001 would have failed if you would get two guesses between reveals. Should such a rule even be allowed?

There's always just one answer to the question, I guess, unless the pattern allows otherwise.

**MC Dirty** Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:31 am

Sean Mirrsen wrote:
MC Dirty wrote:I just noticed that #001 would have failed if you would get two guesses between reveals. Should such a rule even be allowed?
There's always just one answer to the question, I guess, unless the pattern allows otherwise.

Yes, that's exactly the problem. The reveal of #001 is dependent on the answer, so having multiple answers breaks the pattern.
So, I'm guessing, maybe make a global rule that if the reveal depends on the answer, it is always the first answer that counts?

**Sean Mirrsen** Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:32 am

MC Dirty wrote:
Sean Mirrsen wrote:
MC Dirty wrote:I just noticed that #001 would have failed if you would get two guesses between reveals. Should such a rule even be allowed?
There's always just one answer to the question, I guess, unless the pattern allows otherwise.
Yes, that's exactly the problem. The reveal of #001 is dependent on the answer, so having multiple answers breaks the pattern.
So, I'm guessing, maybe make a global rule that if the reveal depends on the answer, it is always the first answer that counts?

Why even have it otherwise in any other situation? First come, first served.

**MC Dirty** Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:35 am

Sean Mirrsen wrote:
MC Dirty wrote:
Sean Mirrsen wrote:
MC Dirty wrote:I just noticed that #001 would have failed if you would get two guesses between reveals. Should such a rule even be allowed?
There's always just one answer to the question, I guess, unless the pattern allows otherwise.
Yes, that's exactly the problem. The reveal of #001 is dependent on the answer, so having multiple answers breaks the pattern.
So, I'm guessing, maybe make a global rule that if the reveal depends on the answer, it is always the first answer that counts?
Why even have it otherwise in any other situation? First come, first served.

The most important part about that global rule would be that the reveal can depend on only exactly zero or exactly one answer. Otherwise, you could make up some ridiculously difficult patterns that could depend on any number of answers.

acidbomb113 Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:38 am

Necro910 wrote:#003 - Green?

MC Dirty wrote:#003 - The blue balloon.

...
ffffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ~
I need a new question XD
Pattern #003 :: If Player chooses Blue, Answer is Rlue; Else, Answer is Red

MC Dirty wrote:just noticed that #001 would have failed if you would get two guesses between reveals. Should such a rule even be allowed?

A problem I am discovering ~ Originally, this game is face to face, 1v1 ~ So no, I won't use rules like that for forum wide Q's.

~~{

Pattern game, anyone? ;) - Page 2 806636953

}~~
~ I'm sorry... ~

Eventually, I hope to have people 'accept' a puzzle, but I just want to get everyone's toes wet Wink

Making a new one for you guys, hold your horses...

Sean Mirrsen wrote:#002:: The Pig.

Correct ~
#002 :: A pig and a butcher are sitting on a dock, eating celery. Which one is vegetarian?

**MC Dirty** Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:43 am

So, why did you end Pattern 003? Because the reveal depends on the answer? We could make it so that only the first answer counts for such a question. Taking out answer-dependent reveals really deprives the game of much of its fun.

acidbomb113 Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:45 am

MC Dirty wrote:
Sean Mirrsen wrote:
MC Dirty wrote:
Sean Mirrsen wrote:
MC Dirty wrote:I just noticed that #001 would have failed if you would get two guesses between reveals. Should such a rule even be allowed?
There's always just one answer to the question, I guess, unless the pattern allows otherwise.
Yes, that's exactly the problem. The reveal of #001 is dependent on the answer, so having multiple answers breaks the pattern.
So, I'm guessing, maybe make a global rule that if the reveal depends on the answer, it is always the first answer that counts?
Why even have it otherwise in any other situation? First come, first served.
The most important part about that global rule would be that the reveal can depend on only exactly zero or exactly one answer. Otherwise, you could make up some ridiculously difficult patterns that could depend on any number of answers.

See my bit on current [personal] restrictions ; single statement.
Most complicated is an If:Else so far.

@ MC - That seems fair.
Re-instated.

Forum wide ::
#004 :: If a tree sneezes in the forest, does the giant hear it?

**MC Dirty** Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:51 am

Well, acid, #001 WASN'T single-statement. In fact, it was a double if-then-else pattern.

Code:: if (answer==1) then {reveal=3} else {if (answer==2) then {reveal=1} else {reveal=2}}

**Sean Mirrsen** Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:53 am

MC Dirty wrote:Well, acid, #001 WASN'T single-statement. In fact, it was a double if-then-else pattern.
Code:
if (answer==1) then {reveal=3} else {if (answer==2) then {reveal=1} else {reveal=2}}

It was simpler than that, if wraparound is assumed.

Reveal=Answer-1

Without assuming wraparound, just add

if (Reveal<1) then Reveal=3

Oh, and #002:: still The Pig.

**MC Dirty** Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:00 am

You could even reduce that two-statement pattern to one statement, but this is getting a bit silly now.

Anyway, I assume the answer set for 004 consists of all statements synonymous to "Yes" or "No"? I'm being careful with this question because the reveal might just depend on the way you word the answer.
#004 - Yes.

acidbomb113 Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:10 am

Thanks for that, Sean; I was editing the front page ~

@ Sean - Yes, the pig is vegetarian.
#002 :: A pig and a butcher are sitting on a dock, eating celery. Which one is vegetarian?

@ MC - Yes, the giant hears it.
#004 :: If a shrub sneezes in the woods, does the troll hear it?

Yes, I am looking for yes/no answer here. Razz

Exception to my "Required Accusative Set" Rule, I guess ~