Nick sent this in an email to us, but I wanted to upload it to keep our documentation up. The response from Joseph is posted as well.
Hey Team,
As usual, an excellent meeting. A lot of notes this week:
- Our schedual as of right now:
- 7/28 -- Mu Discussion (231-272)
- 8/4 -- Micah's Presentation
- 8/11-- General Discussion of Part 1 (1-272)
- 8/18 -- There was some discussion of doing a Chess day this day.
- There was a lot of Chess discussion in general today, anyone who wants to play email chess with me, let me know (by responding to this email).
- We played a game I found in This Book in which the rules were to "pick the smallest number that is not chosen by anyone else." The results are included below as well as in the Excel attachment.
- In reference to the TNT, we discussed mathematical induction. on Centophila, I'll be posting a short paper on the subject.
Game Results:
| Joe | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Eric | 7 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 5 |
| John | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Veronica | 7 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 |
| Derek | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Nick | 27 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Kera | 9 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
See you next week,
-Nick
FYI, for those not present today, the results of 6 iterations of the game below
can be interpreted as follows:
1. "game" results are the columns
2. the "winner" is the smallest positive integer not chosen by anyone else
(so, for example, the winner of game 1 is Derek, game 3 winner is Kera, etc.)
3. "learning" (of some sort) occurs because the results of each game's choices
are publicly known and the cumulative choices are part of the group's "memory"
as well.
Obviously, the game is NOT interesting if there are just 2 players, since the
right choice is 1 in each case (if you choose 1, you can't lose) and there should
never be a winner. With as little as 3 players, it gets interesting. With too many
(say, 25 or more) players, it also is probably not very interesting. In between 2 and
"too many" is where the interest lies.
/Joe
can be interpreted as follows:
1. "game" results are the columns
2. the "winner" is the smallest positive integer not chosen by anyone else
(so, for example, the winner of game 1 is Derek, game 3 winner is Kera, etc.)
3. "learning" (of some sort) occurs because the results of each game's choices
are publicly known and the cumulative choices are part of the group's "memory"
as well.
Obviously, the game is NOT interesting if there are just 2 players, since the
right choice is 1 in each case (if you choose 1, you can't lose) and there should
never be a winner. With as little as 3 players, it gets interesting. With too many
(say, 25 or more) players, it also is probably not very interesting. In between 2 and
"too many" is where the interest lies.
/Joe
No comments:
Post a Comment