ThePortForum.com

winesecretary wrote: ↑11:37 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: ↑19:30 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: ↑20:18 Sat 28 Mar 2020

winesecretary wrote: ↑11:37 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: ↑19:30 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: ↑16:39 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: ↑17:35 Sun 12 Apr 2020

DRT wrote: ↑16:39 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: ↑15:04 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: ↑15:59 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: ↑21:04 Wed 12 May 202116 next?

I presume this was typo?

akzy wrote: ↑21:30 Wed 12 May 2021

Doggett wrote: ↑21:04 Wed 12 May 202116 next?

I presume this was typo?

Tempting to say obviously it was… but I was still looking at number patterns and was not close to getting the answer, unlike you.

akzy has it! I am in a way quite proud that it took the heavy-duty minds here a year to sequence that one.

We could of course alter the dataset retrospectively by clubbing together to buy the expensive and probably disappointing vintages featured in the sequence...

... but that is a tasting for another day.

winesecretary wrote: ↑22:58 Wed 12 May 2021 akzy has it! I am in a way quite proud that it took the heavy-duty minds here a year to sequence that one.

We could of course alter the dataset retrospectively by clubbing together to buy the expensive and probably disappointing vintages featured in the sequence...

... but that is a tasting for another day.

Quite proud that I've been referred to as a 'heavy-duty' mind. Given that I've had a recent puzzle, happy to relinquish the puzzle setting to someone else.

Tonight I am drinking the oldest bottle-aged Port I’ve had since the penultimate weekend of January. What 30%-opaque red-brown SQVP is it?

Graham’s Malvedos 1958

Doggett wrote: ↑21:32 Mon 14 Feb 2022Graham’s Malvedos 1958

Not Graham. Vintage wrong by more than a decade.

Still has fair balance, but thinning. Maraschino cherry, sweetness, not much complexity, medium-light weight, good length. Needs drinking. It might be sufficiently unusual that I should save one or two for TPFers. (Indeed, no TPF tasting notes for a while.)

São Luiz 1970

Alex Bridgeman wrote: ↑21:58 Mon 14 Feb 2022São Luiz 1970

Not Kopke. Vintage wrong by more than a decade.

The house (of the single quinta) has a chapter in the book.

As you had a 1960 on the 2/2/22 it must be pre 1948 then.
Leading me to guess Fonseca Guimaraens 1942, but that is not so rare and enjoyed at 67PM not so long ago. It is my guess despite it most likely being wrong.

Doggett wrote: ↑22:12 Mon 14 Feb 2022As you had a 1960 on the 2/2/22 it must be pre 1948 then.
Leading me to guess Fonseca Guimaraens 1942, but that is not so rare and enjoyed at 67PM not so long ago. It is my guess despite it most likely being wrong.

I had a ’34 on Thu 20th Jan. On Sat 22nd Jan a splendid ’55. Vintage wrong by more than a third of a century. And the guessed name, “Fonseca Guimaraens”, isn’t a SQVP.

(Did I have a Berry Bros Selection ’60 on 2nd Feb? If so, oops. Sorry. Forgot that. Younger than nine of that evening.)

Noval 1975

Doggett wrote: ↑22:36 Mon 14 Feb 2022Noval 1975

You can’t guess. You must wait for somebody else to guess. Read first post of this thread.

But if somebody else had guessed that, I would have replied “Not Noval. Vintage wrong by more than a decade.”

1982 Taylor's Terra Feita.

MigSU wrote: ↑22:49 Mon 14 Feb 20221982 Taylor's Terra Feita.

Not a Taylor quinta. Not 1982. But 1980s, yes.

jdaw1 wrote: ↑22:19 Mon 14 Feb 2022Younger than nine of that evening.

This clue might help narrow the Vintage — assuming that I have counted correctly.

It's the 1988 Dow Bomfim.

MigSU wrote: ↑23:08 Mon 14 Feb 2022It's the 1988 Dow Bomfim.

Correct year; not Dow.

With more time in the decanter it has become more acidic. There is still the cherry sweetness, but it has become more balanced and structured. Maybe, tomorrow, we could know — but we won’t.

jdaw1 wrote: ↑21:44 Mon 14 Feb 2022Not Graham.

jdaw1 wrote: ↑22:11 Mon 14 Feb 2022Not Kopke.

Alex Bridgeman wrote: ↑21:58 Mon 14 Feb 2022The house (of the single quinta) has a chapter in the book.

jdaw1 wrote: ↑22:40 Mon 14 Feb 2022Not Noval.

jdaw1 wrote: ↑22:54 Mon 14 Feb 2022Not a Taylor quinta.

.

.

MigSU wrote: ↑23:19 Mon 14 Feb 2022Damn you, Wiseman.

That is not in the spirit of this game, nor indeed, of this forum more generally. Please reconsider.

MigSU wrote: ↑23:25 Mon 14 Feb 2022Then it has to be the 1988 Smith Woodhouse Madalena. If not, then I'm storming out.

You guessed immediately previously, so you may not guess until another has done so. You must hope that the next guesser is merciful.

It can only be Warre Cavadinha 1988.

DRT wrote: ↑00:02 Tue 15 Feb 2022It can only be Warre Cavadinha 1988.

No.

Clue: the standard abbreviation for this quinta is “SWM”.

Or perhaps Fonseca Guimaraens 1988, albeit not a SQVP.

Oh, I've got it! Smith Woodhouse Madalena 1988

Roriz 1888?

Is it my question now?