Thursday, March 03, 2005

Petals Around The Rose

This is a little intellectual challenge for you all - it only took me ten attempts before I gleaned the rule, can any of you do better? If so record your rolls in the comments. (Thanks to Melbourne Philosopher for the link).

7 comments:

michael said...

did it in five.

Cooly McCool said...

I'm not sure why a challenge to a)solve the 'problem' quicker, or
b)solve it at all
has been issued, and I'm even more confused by the triumphant claims of x low number, as a reading of the text underneath the puzzle hints that if I were to want to claim greater intellectual ability, I would do well to confess that it took a million attempts, or that I cannot solve it at all.

If you didn't read it, and it is short, I have included the important part of the text:

I was introduced to "Petals Around the Rose" by Dr. Richard Duke at the University of Michigan . Dr. Duke used to begin each of his gaming/simulation courses with this exercise. While some students would solve the problem right away, others would struggle all semester. It had taken Dr. Duke well over a year himself, and he would always explain that the smarter you were, the longer it took to figure it out.

The game is quite simple. Only a basic understanding of math is required and an open and creative mind. The game can be used as an example of how different people look at the world differently, and how these different ways of looking can yield different answers. In "Petals Around the Rose" there is always one correct answer. The problem is how we define the problem.

How you define the problem - obviously as a pissing contest for some.

Samuel Douglas said...

In all fairness to Michael, he was not the only one to see this as a "pissing contest".

I can say this with complete assurance as I am so bad at things that involve numbers there is almost no chance of me ever solving the puzzle. I must be up to 25 + rolls, which makes me pretty smart. I think I will give up altogether, which should indicate that I'm an even bigger genius than Martin.

I think a number of the people involved in this dicussion need to get a life and concentrate on their own affairs as a way to gain recogntion, rather than seeking it through the belittling of their co-contributors.

Rosie Posie said...

Well I just felt as though I should leave a comment at some point on this Blog. Of course this one is from a few days ago, and possible no one will notice, but this one was a good as any, as it had my name in it, and I'm not feeling quite up to the task of saying anything remotely interesting at the moment. Huzzuh. Tis a rather awesome blog, though you do all rant a lot of crap...hehe, but that's what makes it interesting. I was going to be much more interesting and invent a crazy alias and leave cryptic clues as to my identity, but i got a bit excited about posting on something which had my name in it, and therefore the whole anonymity thing went down the drain quite successfully.
As to the actual puzzle, I'm with you Sam. Numbers and maths can just go a long way away, perhaps to your island Martin, cos I can't think that way, therefore maths must be bad! Silly freakin puzzle...Of course jokes on us if turns out to be a play on words...

MelbournePhilosopher said...

If you solve it, you can clearly see that the title has meaning. It can be solved intuitively, by seeing a few rolls and reflecting on the title (how I did it) or sit down with many rolls and work out an equation (how my friend did it). Both work, both are valid, and the solving the problem isn't a strictly left-brained affair...

Cooly McCool said...

sorry, I wasn't trying to belittle Michael exclusively - Martin despite his claims of trap setting was also meant to be a target.

MH said...

Mr McCool, I appreciate your attempts at belittlement.