ThePortForum.com

winesecretary wrote: ↑12:37 Sat 28 Mar 2020 All the wines scored points?

They did on the other two nights in questions... but not on the others

PhilW wrote: ↑20:30 Sat 28 Mar 2020
The determinant of the matrix for the scores on the evening mentioned in the question is 50, whereas the determinants of the other two evenings' scores are both -6. I'm not sure if this helps.

Guess: the determinant of the scores matrix for the evening was even?

*so, so close*

akzy wrote: ↑21:18 Sat 28 Mar 2020

winesecretary wrote: ↑12:37 Sat 28 Mar 2020 All the wines scored points?

They did on the other two nights in questions... but not on the others

PhilW wrote: ↑20:30 Sat 28 Mar 2020
The determinant of the matrix for the scores on the evening mentioned in the question is 50, whereas the determinants of the other two evenings' scores are both -6. I'm not sure if this helps.

Guess: the determinant of the scores matrix for the evening was even?

*so, so close*

The determinant of the matrix for the scores of the evening in question was the highest of the year, whereas those with -6 were the lowest.

DRT wrote: ↑17:39 Sun 12 Apr 2020 The determinant of the matrix for the scores of the evening in question was the highest of the year, whereas those with -6 were the lowest.

Correct! I'm always pleased by the mathematics of tpf.

akzy wrote: ↑18:35 Sun 12 Apr 2020

DRT wrote: ↑17:39 Sun 12 Apr 2020 The determinant of the matrix for the scores of the evening in question was the highest of the year, whereas those with -6 were the lowest.

Correct! I'm always pleased by the mathematics of tpf.

Excuse my tardiness, I only just noticed that I got the correct answer.

Someone else please feel free to seize ancient powers and pose the next question.

Next four numbers in this sequence: 1,2,3,5...

8, 13, 21, 34

Or equally it could be... 7, 11, 13, 17

I see where Mike is coming from, but this is not a purely mathematical question...

Since this is (at times) pedants' corner, I feel I should highlight that "1" is not generally considered to prime, which would be a potential barrier to Doggett's reply. That said, I have yet to be convinced that the definition of primality should necessarily be such as to cause the number "1" to be excluded from the set of primes; I would therefore accept Doggett's reply as at least a valid possibility (though clearly also wrong from winesecretary's reply), while at the same time recognising the need for me to justify (or change, based on coherent debate) my position with fellow mathematicians, perhaps over some fine port one evening.

I too have been guilty of imprecision. My previous response might be obscuring the questioner's intention. I should instead have said "Should one, here, be following the rule?"

I have 3999 solutions...
https://oeis.org/search?q=1%2c2%2c3%2c5&fmt=short

None of them have anything to do with Port or wine.

Only 3999... very poor. More effort and port required!

akzy wrote: ↑16:04 Thu 23 Apr 2020 I have 3999 solutions...
https://oeis.org/search?q=1%2c2%2c3%2c5&fmt=short

Interesting source (you big cheat).
Matula-Goebel numbers of rooted identity trees; how could we have missed that? So obvious now someone has said it!

Dana-Scott's sequence has the next number right; albeit that is merely coincidence...

8, 14, 25,345. That was easy.

Difficult to believe that I've won two maths questions in a row but it is what it is.

Next question: by how many votes will Donald Trump win the next US Presidential Election?

Alas no. It is port related. The sequence runs 1,2,3,5,13,14...

PhilW wrote: ↑16:59 Thu 23 Apr 2020 Interesting source (you big cheat).
Matula-Goebel numbers of rooted identity trees; how could we have missed that? So obvious now someone has said it!

I can't believe you think searching through a large database of integer sequences is cheating

Somehow I’ve been sleeping on this thread 🧵

I happen to be unusually drunk at present with an Uber arriving and a phone dying...!75

But I will be back to discuss prime numbers (1 being excluded for good reason) and trump and Biden’s vote tallies

WtS

10, 5, 2, ...

?

137.03??!!

Okay, more clues. The sequence runs 1, 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 23, 25...

Come on chaps, we really ought to be doing better than this. The underlying dataset is right here on our forum.

16 next?

Should be 26 next. Starting at 1900, which years do not have a tasting note.

Doggett wrote: ↑22:04 Wed 12 May 202116 next?

I presume this was typo?