BreakPoint
Simple LabVIEW Puzzle Challenge
I think this qualifies as a "win"
My stratagy was to click left 4 - 5 times then once on the right, seemed to work well.
Darin.K wrote:
Nicely played, now you are ready for the next phase. Change the 0.51 and 0.49 to slightly higher and lower values respectively, say 0.6 and 0.4 and try again. This adjusts the amount of time the computer spends randomly guessing. As I set up this time it quickly jumps on patterns and gives you a chance to "trap it".
When that is thwarted, then I unleash the second order version (this is a simple first order one).
It changed plenty more, so I revised my strategy to click the right 2-3 times then once on the left.
Seemed to work just as well
String_Theory,
If you would like you can pick/create the next puzzle... or if you choose not to, a team of carefully trained gophers and a randomized peg board will be used to select the next one.
-SS
@String_Theory wrote:
Darin.K wrote:
Nicely played, now you are ready for the next phase. Change the 0.51 and 0.49 to slightly higher and lower values respectively, say 0.6 and 0.4 and try again. This adjusts the amount of time the computer spends randomly guessing. As I set up this time it quickly jumps on patterns and gives you a chance to "trap it".
When that is thwarted, then I unleash the second order version (this is a simple first order one).
It changed plenty more, so I revised my strategy to click the right 2-3 times then once on the left.
Seemed to work just as well
Looking at the transitions tracked now, the simple version catches the pseudo-random opponent, not the unrandom opponent. I think the higher order method I am thinking about will stop the unrandom opponent. And now I also see why the actual game was to actually compete in a game of heads or tails. You try to guess the result of a coin flip (or other 50/50 proposition), and the computer tries to outguess you. This forces you into a psuedo-random pattern and it comes down to who is "more random" which the machine normally wins
In reading the literature, the expected results when knowing the computer's method is about 65% win pct, so your 75% is not unexpected.
I'll probably try the coin flipping version now, and then adjust this one to take higher order transitions into account.
Also attached LV8.6
String_Theory,
Not bad for being fairly new. I did a quick search and found that there are state machine and event based versions of Simon Say's and even a DAQ project implementation out there.
Here are some examples:
https://decibel.ni.com/content/docs/DOC-19556
https://decibel.ni.com/content/docs/DOC-13821
https://decibel.ni.com/content/docs/DOC-14172
-SS
An entomologist is found dead who was an expert with tree crickets.
His assistant, who coincidentally was descended from Oppenhiemer, is suspected of poisoning the poor man's coffee with some potent drug yet to be determined since coffee was found spilt at the scene.
A homicide detective (that's you) at the scene who recently made a very profound post on the LabVIEW forums has been brought onto the scene. He would like to convince his superior's to buy a LabVIEW full developers suite and would like to show off the forensic possibilities of such an extremely sophisticated software suite ...it's used by the NSA you know?
It seems they have an audio recording of the only witness to the possible homicide, a cricket named Chirpy.
His assistant claims that he was in another building having an argument with a maintenance person over the temperature of the greenhouse being too hot since his test cricket gets depressed at anything under 65F(~64 F was the temperature he says).
It seems that they have those tricky little thermostats that throw comfort information at you. When in fact all temperature controls are maintained in another branch of the university, by a curmudgeon using LabVIEW...the nerve of some people.
The maintenance man who can’t be reached to verify the assistants alibi, in an unrelated incident has fled the country to avoid high taxes on his billion-dollar business...”iRuff”... an iPhone app that tells you when the dog needs to go out.
Armed with LabVIEW and the only piece of evidence...is the assistant telling the truth?
Can LabVIEW be used to corroborate the man’s story? Hmm....
-SS
