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?
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.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
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.
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.
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
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?"
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