1. Let's play a game. Now, before anyone says 'This has nothing to do with Physics', I'll explain why it does. This is a game based on the Scientific Method. In fact, the purpose of this game is to demonstrate how the Scientific Method works. This isn't really specific to Physics, but I feel that it'd fit best here.

Now for the rules. There are no turns, just actions; and there are 3 possible actions: Experiment, Theorize, and Disprove.

Before I explain what each action does, let me explain the universe this game exists in. It's basically empty, but you can inject a string of english letters (no spaces, no symbols, caps doesn't matter) into it and watch what happens. These strings will break at certain points. The goal is to guess the rules that specify what strings are stable (or equivalently, where strings will break).

You can perform any number of actions at any time.

Experminent: Give me a string of characters, and I'll tell you where they break up. Pretty simple.

Theorize: Make a guess as to the underlying rules. Just write out what you think the rule or rules are.

Disprove: Show how a previous experiment disproves a theory. Make sure you state which theory and which experiment clearly.

Now, I haven't given an ending condition. In real life, there isn't one, but eventually, I'll step in and say if anyone got it right. Well, have fun. I'll start yall off with one experiment just to show what it looks like.

Experiment: ASDERFHGUAFRT
Result: ASDERFHGU AFRT

2.

3. OK, I will play.

I am going to Theorize. I develop my own theory for why the string broke where it did.

I will withhold my theory for now to give others a chance to play. If someone else
submits the same theory as mine I will confirm we agree.

Anyone else?

4. Experiment QWERTYUIOP

5. Experiment: QWERTYUIOP
Result: QWERTYUIO P

Also, the point of theorizing is to give others a chance to disprove.

6. In that case I will give you my original theory and I can admit that Harold's experiment and its results have proved me wrong.

I theorized that a break occurs where two vowels are in sequence.
Clearly the second example shows this is not the case.

7. Theory the split is after every ninth letter

Experiment: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

8. Harold, you beat me by about two minutes. Same theory.

Experiment: JEFFERSONSTARSHIP.

9. Experiment: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Result: AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA

Experiment: JEFFERSONSTARSHIP
Result: JEFF ERSONS TARSHIP

10. BBMNBVCXZLIKJJHGFD

11. Kinda obvious but...
disprove Harolds theory of every 9th letter with AA AA AA AA....

experiment BBBBBBBBBBBBB

12. experiment BABABAABEBEBECEC

13. Experiment: BABABAABEBEBECEC
Result: BAB ABA ABEB EBE CEC

Experiment: BBBBBBBBBBBBB
Result: BB BB BB BB BB BB B

Experiment: BBMNBVCXZLIKJJHGFD
Result: BB MNBVCXZLI KJJ HGFD

14. Theory: The break is after a letter is repeated, or nine letters in a row, whichever comes first.

15. experiment: AAABBBCCCDDDEEE

16. Disprove Harold's theory.

See above example for JEFFERSONSTARSHIP.

Maybe Harold's theory is sound but incomplete.
Could there be a third rule?

17. No offence, but the post in mathematics "A paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidate" sparks more intellectual meditation.

The concept there is the scientific method using mathematics that incorporates a type of paradox that the person, theorist, prover-disprover, wears.

It's better than a 3-wise monkeys game.

Hey, guys, yo;re letting physics down with this one: mathematics may as well look at you as slightly "bored".

18. Originally Posted by SteveF
Disprove Harold's theory.

See above example for JEFFERSONSTARSHIP.

Maybe Harold's theory is sound but incomplete.
Could there be a third rule?
The jeffersonstarship example works. The letters don't have to repeat consecutively, just repeat.
JEFF ERSONS TARSHIP
In the second grouping the break is after the second S.

19. Code-breaking using the scientific method.

Neat.

Create a puzzle, and then solve it using the scientific method as the a-priori.

I will sit this one out.

20. I think harold's got it. And I was making graphs and whatnot!

21. The group in which the two f's appear, JEFF, has a break immediately after the repeat of the f. Harold is saying that the break may come immediately after the repeated letter in the group, whether it is consecutive to the first or not. This theory holds for both breaks in the word.

22. Originally Posted by KALSTER
edit:i posted nonsense, sorry. will fix
...lol I should have quoted :P

23. ...lol I should have quoted
Yeah! And quite a measured response to such an obvious mistake!

24. Heheh yeah, I think Harold got it.

Experiment:

AGGHEHTLOYUTIP

QWERTYUIOPASDHD

Harolds theory predicts:

AGG HEH TLOYUT IP

QWERTYUIO PASDHD

(?)

25. A game that uses the scientific method as a theme, an a-priori (max!)?: is this just an example of the scientific method, or are there greater examples of such games?

26. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by SteveF
Disprove Harold's theory.

See above example for JEFFERSONSTARSHIP.

Maybe Harold's theory is sound but incomplete.
Could there be a third rule?
The jeffersonstarship example works. The letters don't have to repeat consecutively, just repeat.
JEFF ERSONS TARSHIP
In the second grouping the break is after the second S.
So why is there no break in the second R?
Theory: Maybe the break is when 2 letters are repeated in the same block or after the 9th letter?

Experiment: aaabbbccddeee

27. Sounds like decimal binary logic.

28. Yes.

It does.

29. Yeh, I guess, but he said the break is after a repeat or every 9th letter, whichever comes first. The first R is part of the second block and does not come into it. You start fresh after every devision.

30. Binary decimal logic.

31. Don't forget though that "0" was defined by Islam.

32. Never.

33. No.

Of course not.

Who though defined "infinity"?

34. Who can?

That's defining "all things".

35. Experiment: AAABBBCCCDDDEEE
Result: AA ABB BCC CDD DEE E

Experiment: AGGHEHTLOYUTIP
Result: AGG HEH TLOYUT IP

Experiment: QWERTYUIOPASDHD
Result: QWERTYUIO PASDHD

Experiment: AAABBBCCDDEEE
Result: AA ABB BCC DD EE E

Looking back, I think I've been using the wrong rule, but since I've been consistently wrong, it's not game breaking.

I'll let this run for about another day to see if anyone can disprove Harold, and then we can start a new round if yall want (or I can pass control to someone else if there's someone interested).

Edit: Oh yeah, can anyone succinctly explain the important differences between this and the real world? I know two or three of them, but I'd have a hard time explaining them well (probabilistic vs. deterministic, no ending). Oh, and streamSystems, please use the edit button. I'm pretty sure quadruple posting is against forum rules.

Edit Again:
Originally Posted by looking4recruits
A game that uses the scientific method as a theme, an a-priori (max!)?: is this just an example of the scientific method, or are there greater examples of such games?
This is an example of the scientific method applied to a very simple universe. There are other games like this though. I made the rules of this one as similar to the scientific method as I could, although most of the others have more rules to make them more interesting as games. The ones that come to mind first are the card game Mao, and the game Zendo that uses the colored pyramids from Icehouse. (I'm a big fan of Zendo, but it's very hard to find players.) Also, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...oncealed_rules.

36. Experiment: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

37. Experiment: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Result: ABCDEFGHI JKLMNOPQR STUVWXYZ

38. Theory: The string breaks after a letter has been repeated in the same block. Each block can only be a maximum of 9 characters long.

39. Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Oh, and streamSystems, please use the edit button. I'm pretty sure quadruple posting is against forum rules.

Point taken.
Comms problems.

40. Alright. I'll call this round then. The rule was:
Split after 9 letters or the first repeat.
Take the first such split, then recurse on the parts.

It was supposed to be:
Split after 9 unique letters or the second repeat...

Oh well.

Anyway, before I begin a new round, would anyone else like to play the part of the universe this time? If not, I'll make up a new rule (and/or a new universe; the game would be much harder if the experiments only returned valid/invalid).

Also, there is enough interest to play a second round, right?

41. Well MagiMaster, it's really a downer when we learn that the Judge cannot even follow his own instructions. We were asked to determine which strings were stable, so we naturally assumed each break yielded a stable substring. Ultimately we learned that the each such substring required a further examination. That's hardly cricket. Could we rightfully assume forbidden transitions may still take place?

Thanks for a few days of amusement and recreation. Some of us learned something, particularly from the surprising outcome.

42. Whatever. I'm up for another one

43. Originally Posted by SteveF
Well MagiMaster, it's really a downer when we learn that the Judge cannot even follow his own instructions. We were asked to determine which strings were stable, so we naturally assumed each break yielded a stable substring. Ultimately we learned that the each such substring required a further examination. That's hardly cricket. Could we rightfully assume forbidden transitions may still take place?

Thanks for a few days of amusement and recreation. Some of us learned something, particularly from the surprising outcome.
In fact, each break does yield one stable substring, and one potentially unstable one (which shouldn't be hard to show). All the recurse rule really says is take the breaks from the left. (The results would have been different if it was from the right.) KALSTER, Harold and shawngoldw all managed to guess the rule (KALSTER most accurately). And what do you mean about forbidden transitions? One last thing, assumptions are pretty worthless in science. They have to be made into theories and tested just like any other idea. Still, I do try to follow my own rules, and in this case, I can't see how I didn't.

Anyway, I'll start a new round soon. I need to think up a better rule, or maybe a better universe.

Edit: Alright, I've got one. First, the universe is now strings of digits instead of strings of characters. Second, the result of an experiment is a new string of digits, which means that the results can be a new experiment. To simplify things, I'll just run the experiment until a steady state is reached. Here's a simple example.

1111 -> 121 -> 121

44. 22222

Harold's sequence would be 22222 --> 2422 --> 262 --> 262

46. Result: 22222 -> 22222

47. OK, here's my experimental string:

0123456789876543210

Result?

48. Theory: If four numbers not devisable by 2 follow each other, the enclosed numbers are added together.

Experiment: 2244453718

and: 2111112

49. 0123456789876543210 -> 0123456789876543210

2244453718 -> 1205646792 -> 564124352 -> 24617472 -> 18388592 -> 15792096 -> 3309584 -> 3309584

2111112 -> 2111112

50. Am I screwed if I don't have a scientific calculator?
You don't have to answer, just fishing.

51. Have you forgotten that Windows has a built-in scientific calculator?

(If you can't find it, get one off the Internet.)

52. No, I was trying to get him to say if log or something is involved.
Worth a try

53. Sorry, I won't answer that one for now.

54. Experiment:

-3356889

(yes, it is a negative number.)

Experiment:

1/2111112

55. Err... The universe is strings of digits, so that'd rule out negative numbers and fractions. Sorry.

56. 1357111317

57. experiment: 9
experiment: 8
experiment: 7
experiment: 6
experiment: 5
experiment: 4
experiment: 3
experiment: 2
experiment: 1

58. 1357111317 -> 153583007 -> 624393 -> 245232 -> 56840 -> 56840

9 -> 9
8 -> 8
7 -> 7
6 -> 6
5 -> 5
4 -> 4
3 -> 3
2 -> 2
1 -> 1

59. experiment 48163264128256

60. 48163264128256 -> 19883026707456 -> 13336448179712 -> 10908823830528 -> 4178654045696 -> 4178654045696

61. :bump:

So, have yall given up, or should I give yall a hint instead?

63. Let's keep going.

64. Well, I would say "you should design your experiments more carefully" but I'll give yall more of a hint than that.

1101 -> 11
1102 -> 22

65. Hmm... It seems like no one is playing anymore, so I'll give it just a little longer, then reveal the rule. After that, I probably won't start another round, but if anyone else is interested in doing so, feel free.

66. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Well, I would say "you should design your experiments more carefully" but I'll give yall more of a hint than that.

1101 -> 11
1102 -> 22
Too hard for me. I don't have a clue.

Take length of the string of numbers.
Take the smallest prime factor of that length.
If that wasn't 1 or the length itself, break the string into that many pieces and take the product.

1101 -> 11 * 01 = 11
1111 -> 11 * 11 = 121
999999 -> 999 * 999 = 998001 -> 998 * 001 = 998

Anyway. Does anyone else want to make a rule this time?

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement