Anagram -- Duplicating Letters
Leroy Quet
With two E's, the letters can be arranged to spell ELSE.
With two L's instead, the letters can be arranged to spell SELL.
With two S's instead, the letters can be arranged to spell LESS.
I am just curious, what is the longest sequence that someone can come
up with of (not necessarily distinct) letters that an English word can
be formed from if ANY letter of the sequence is doubled?
Thanks,
Leroy Quet
Leroy Quet
Leroy Quet wrote:
Without much thought I have upped the ante by 1 letter.
4 letter sequence, which also happens to be a word: LOPS
POLLS
POOLS
PLOPS
SLOPS
The lesson from this: Maybe a sequence can be extended by 1 letter by
including an S.
:)
Leroy
Simon Tatham
> I am just curious, what is the longest sequence that someone can come
> up with of (not necessarily distinct) letters that an English word can
> be formed from if ANY letter of the sequence is doubled?
Using the boring Perl approach:
- using /usr/share/dict/words from Debian etch, the best available
seems to be the six-letter sequence EORRST, which yields RESTORE,
ROOSTER, TERRORS, RESORTS and RETORST.
- using SOWPODS, there are three eight-letter sequences:
* AEINSSTT [SANITATES, ANISETTES, TITANISES, NATTINESS,
TASTINESS, TATTINESS]
* EEGINRST [GREENIEST, GREETINGS, REIGNITES, RESENTING,
RESTRINGE, STEERINGS, RESETTING]
* AEGINRTT [GRATINATE, INTEGRATE, TARGETING, ITERATING,
NATTERING, RETRATING, TATTERING]
but I'm unconvinced I believe in all of the words in the latter!
cat /usr/share/dict/words | perl -ne 'chomp; /[^a-z]/ and next; %f=(); printf "%s\n", join"", sort { $a cmp $b } split//,$_;' | perl -ne 'chomp;$a{$_}++;for($i=0;$i+1<length$_;$i++){if(substr($_,$i,1)eq substr($_,$i+1,1)){$b{substr($_,0,$i).substr($_,$i+1)}++;}}END{foreach $w (keys %b) { $ok=1;for($i=0;$i<length$w;$i++){$ww=substr($w,0,$i+1).substr($w,$i);$ok=0 unless $a{$ww}; } print "$w\n" if $ok; }}'
--
Simon Tatham "Every person has a thinking part that wonders what
<ana...@pobox.com> the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking about."
Mensanator
I added a "signature" to each word in my dictionary.
The signature is how many times a letter appears in the word.
Luckily, there were no instances of words with more than 9
of a kind letters.
Anagrams all have the same signature.
For example, from the signature
10001000100001000111000000
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
we see that the seven letters are aeinrst.
So I can query the signature 10001000100001000111000000
to find all anagrams of aeinrst.
To solve your puzzle for the 7-letter aeinrst pattern, I'll
be looking for the set of aeinrst angrams that have a single
2 in one of the non-zero signature positions of
10001000100001000111000000.
43 8 letter words from 7 letter pattern
CONS 8-letter signature 7-letter signature
antisera 20001000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
arenites 10002000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
arnstein 10001000100002000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
arsenite 10002000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
artesian 20001000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
artiness 10001000100001000121000000 10001000100001000111000000
asterina 20001000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
asternia 20001000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
entrains 10001000100002000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
erastian 20001000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
inertias 10001000200001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
intreats 10001000100001000112000000 10001000100001000111000000
nitrates 10001000100001000112000000 10001000100001000111000000
rainiest 10001000200001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
ratanies 20001000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
resiants 10001000100001000121000000 10001000100001000111000000
resinata 20001000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
resinate 10002000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
restrain 10001000100001000211000000 10001000100001000111000000
retinaes 10002000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
retrains 10001000100001000211000000 10001000100001000111000000
retsinas 10001000100001000121000000 10001000100001000111000000
rienstra 10001000100001000211000000 10001000100001000111000000
santeria 20001000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
satinier 10001000200001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
seatrain 20001000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
sineater 10002000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
snariest 10001000100001000121000000 10001000100001000111000000
stainers 10001000100001000121000000 10001000100001000111000000
starnies 10001000100001000121000000 10001000100001000111000000
stearine 10002000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
stearins 10001000100001000121000000 10001000100001000111000000
strainer 10001000100001000211000000 10001000100001000111000000
straiten 10001000100001000112000000 10001000100001000111000000
teresian 10002000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
teresina 10002000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
terrains 10001000100001000211000000 10001000100001000111000000
tertians 10001000100001000112000000 10001000100001000111000000
trainees 10002000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
trainers 10001000100001000211000000 10001000100001000111000000
trannies 10001000100002000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
transire 10001000100001000211000000 10001000100001000111000000
transite 10001000100001000112000000 10001000100001000111000000
This is only a solution if EACH signature position has a 2 at
least once, as is the case here:
antisera 20001000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
arenites 10002000100001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
inertias 10001000200001000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
arnstein 10001000100002000111000000 10001000100001000111000000
restrain 10001000100001000211000000 10001000100001000111000000
artiness 10001000100001000121000000 10001000100001000111000000
intreats 10001000100001000112000000 10001000100001000111000000
So this is a valid solution for 7 starting letters.
25 9 letter words from 8 letter pattern
CONS 9-letter signature 8-letter signature
agentries 10002010100001000111000000 10001010100001000111000000
agrestian 20001010100001000111000000 10001010100001000111000000
arresting 10001010100001000211000000 10001010100001000111000000
asserting 10001010100001000121000000 10001010100001000111000000
astringer 10001010100001000211000000 10001010100001000111000000
astringes 10001010100001000121000000 10001010100001000111000000
eastering 10002010100001000111000000 10001010100001000111000000
ganisters 10001010100001000121000000 10001010100001000111000000
gannister 10001010100002000111000000 10001010100001000111000000
gerastian 20001010100001000111000000 10001010100001000111000000
ginastera 20001010100001000111000000 10001010100001000111000000
grainiest 10001010200001000111000000 10001010100001000111000000
granitise 10001010200001000111000000 10001010100001000111000000
gratinees 10002010100001000111000000 10001010100001000111000000
reseating 10002010100001000111000000 10001010100001000111000000
restaging 10001020100001000111000000 10001010100001000111000000
restating 10001010100001000112000000 10001010100001000111000000
retasting 10001010100001000112000000 10001010100001000111000000
seriating 10001010200001000111000000 10001010100001000111000000
serrating 10001010100001000211000000 10001010100001000111000000
stangeria 20001010100001000111000000 10001010100001000111000000
stingaree 10002010100001000111000000 10001010100001000111000000
striginae 10001010200001000111000000 10001010100001000111000000
tinegrass 10001010100001000121000000 10001010100001000111000000
treatings 10001010100001000112000000 10001010100001000111000000
Valid solution
24 10 letter words from 9 letter pattern
CONS 10-letter signature 9-letter signature
anatropies 20001000100001110111000000 10001000100001110111000000
anisoptera 20001000100001110111000000 10001000100001110111000000
anisotrope 10001000100001210111000000 10001000100001110111000000
appointers 10001000100001120111000000 10001000100001110111000000
asperation 20001000100001110111000000 10001000100001110111000000
atropinise 10001000200001110111000000 10001000100001110111000000
operations 10001000100001210111000000 10001000100001110111000000
opiniaster 10001000200001110111000000 10001000100001110111000000
opiniastre 10001000200001110111000000 10001000100001110111000000
parsonsite 10001000100001110121000000 10001000100001110111000000
patroniser 10001000100001110211000000 10001000100001110111000000
patronises 10001000100001110121000000 10001000100001110111000000
periastron 10001000100001110211000000 10001000100001110111000000
peronistas 10001000100001110121000000 10001000100001110111000000
petrossian 10001000100001110121000000 10001000100001110111000000
prensation 10001000100002110111000000 10001000100001110111000000
prestation 10001000100001110112000000 10001000100001110111000000
pretorians 10001000100001110211000000 10001000100001110111000000
proteinase 10002000100001110111000000 10001000100001110111000000
reappoints 10001000100001120111000000 10001000100001110111000000
reptations 10001000100001110112000000 10001000100001110111000000
separation 20001000100001110111000000 10001000100001110111000000
spearpoint 10001000100001120111000000 10001000100001110111000000
starpointe 10001000100001110112000000 10001000100001110111000000
Valid solution.
11 11 letter words from 10 letter pattern
CONS 11-letter signature 10-letter signature
carotenoids 10111000100001200111000000 10111000100001100111000000
considerate 10112000100001100111000000 10111000100001100111000000
constrained 10111000100002100111000000 10111000100001100111000000
coordinates 10111000100001200111000000 10111000100001100111000000
decorations 10111000100001200111000000 10111000100001100111000000
denarcotise 10112000100001100111000000 10111000100001100111000000
desecration 10112000100001100111000000 10111000100001100111000000
detractions 10111000100001100112000000 10111000100001100111000000
discreation 10111000200001100111000000 10111000100001100111000000
dracontites 10111000100001100112000000 10111000100001100111000000
stenocardia 20111000100001100111000000 10111000100001100111000000
|
FAILS! No words have a 2 in this position
Obviously, there have to be at least as many words as letters
in the original pattern if a 2 is to be represented in each
position. There was one other 11 word group and two 10 word
groups, but none were valid. Beyond that, it looks like the word
groups are smaller than the letter count.
Esra Sdrawkcab
dgates
wrote:
>Leroy Quet <qqq...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> I am just curious, what is the longest sequence that someone can come
>> up with of (not necessarily distinct) letters that an English word can
>> be formed from if ANY letter of the sequence is doubled?
>
>Using the boring Perl approach:
>
> - using /usr/share/dict/words from Debian etch, the best available
> seems to be the six-letter sequence EORRST, which yields RESTORE,
> ROOSTER, TERRORS, RESORTS and RETORST.
>
> - using SOWPODS, there are three eight-letter sequences:
> * AEINSSTT [SANITATES, ANISETTES, TITANISES, NATTINESS,
> TASTINESS, TATTINESS]
> * EEGINRST [GREENIEST, GREETINGS, REIGNITES, RESENTING,
> RESTRINGE, STEERINGS, RESETTING]
> * AEGINRTT [GRATINATE, INTEGRATE, TARGETING, ITERATING,
> NATTERING, RETRATING, TATTERING]
>
>but I'm unconvinced I believe in all of the words in the latter!
>
>cat /usr/share/dict/words | perl -ne 'chomp; /[^a-z]/ and next; %f=(); printf "%s\n", join"", sort { $a cmp $b } split//,$_;' | perl -ne 'chomp;$a{$_}++;for($i=0;$i+1<length$_;$i++){if(substr($_,$i,1)eq substr($_,$i+1,1)){$b{substr($_,0,$i).substr($_,$i+1)}++;}}END{foreach $w (keys %b) { $ok=1;for($i=0;$i<length$w;$i++){$ww=substr($w,0,$i+1).substr($w,$i);$ok=0 unless $a{$ww}; } print "$w\n" if $ok; }}'
I wonder if these threads should be broken into "Solved with computer"
vs. "Solved without computer."
Also, is there some kind of dictionary that makes the distinction
between "common" words and "uncommon" words? That would help if the
original puzzle had specified that "a common English word can be
formed..."
Anyway, I'm not loving the words "titanises," "restringe," or
"gratinate," even if they are real words. But I am surprised at how
many of the EEIGNRST words are, in fact, familiar. (I wouldn't
exactly say "common," if the list includes oddities such as
"greeniest" and "steerings.")
Just trying to do the puzzle in my head, I was thinking that I'd shoot
for a five-letter combination -- something with both an R and a D, and
an E to go with them, seemed promising. For example RATED would allow
doubling the R for TARRED.
And I found one:
DRAPE!
(assuming I can use DRAPER or PARRED for my R doubling.
A = PARADE
D = DRAPED
E = REAPED
P = DAPPER
R = DRAPER or PARRED
Mensanator
> On 28 Aug 2008 20:07:12 +0100 (BST), Simon Tatham <ana...@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Leroy Quet <qqq...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> I am just curious, what is the longest sequence that someone can come
> >> up with of (not necessarily distinct) letters that an English word can
> >> be formed from if ANY letter of the sequence is doubled?
>
> >Using the boring Perl approach:
>
> > - using /usr/share/dict/words from Debian etch, the best available
> > seems to be the six-letter sequence EORRST, which yields RESTORE,
> > ROOSTER, TERRORS, RESORTS and RETORST.
>
> > - using SOWPODS, there are three eight-letter sequences:
> > * AEINSSTT [SANITATES, ANISETTES, TITANISES, NATTINESS,
> > TASTINESS, TATTINESS]
> > * EEGINRST [GREENIEST, GREETINGS, REIGNITES, RESENTING,
> > RESTRINGE, STEERINGS, RESETTING]
> > * AEGINRTT [GRATINATE, INTEGRATE, TARGETING, ITERATING,
> > NATTERING, RETRATING, TATTERING]
>
> >but I'm unconvinced I believe in all of the words in the latter!
>
> >cat /usr/share/dict/words | perl -ne 'chomp; /[^a-z]/ and next; %f=(); printf "%s\n", join"", sort { $a cmp $b } split//,$_;' | perl -ne 'chomp;$a{$_}++;for($i=0;$i+1<length$_;$i++){if(substr($_,$i,1)eq substr($_,$i+1,1)){$b{substr($_,0,$i).substr($_,$i+1)}++;}}END{foreach $w (keys %b) { $ok=1;for($i=0;$i<length$w;$i++){$ww=substr($w,0,$i+1).substr($w,$i);$ok=0 unless $a{$ww}; } print "$w\n" if $ok; }}'
>
> I wonder if these threads should be broken into "Solved with computer"
> vs. "Solved without computer."
How? Add it to the subject line?
Or put *COMPUTER SPOILER* in the body?
I see rec.puzzles as a source of problems to which the
challenge is to solve them by computer, such as via perl
as ST did or SQL as I did. You get good at perl or SQL
the same way you get to Carnigie Hall - practice. Besides,
the journey is more interesting than the destination.
I don't look at ST's answer and say "Hey, he cheated. He
used perl and I don't know how to do that." Rather, I say
"Ha! I'll bet I can do better with SQL and a much more
comprehensive word list."
My attitude is that expoused in the movie "Around The World
Under The Sea".
ObPuzzle: what am I refering to?
>
> Also, is there some kind of dictionary that makes the distinction
> between "common" words and "uncommon" words?
Probably not, though you would think less comprehensive lists
would have fewer uncommon words. But take the Official Scrabble
Players Dictionary. Limited to 8-letter words (which is stupid
because you can certainly make longer words in Scrabble by
appending your 7-letter rack to 2 or more letters on the board),
it certainly doesn't try to exclude uncommon words.
> That would help if the
> original puzzle had specified that "a common English word can be
> formed..."
Impractical.
>
> Anyway, I'm not loving the words "titanises," "restringe," or
> "gratinate," even if they are real words. But I am surprised at how
> many of the EEIGNRST words are, in fact, familiar. (I wouldn't
> exactly say "common," if the list includes oddities such as
> "greeniest" and "steerings.")
How many words can you think of that end in "dous"?
I'll bet infandous & nefandous don't spring to mind. They've
obviously fallen into disuse and often not included in modern
dictionaries. But they're legitimate words, one meaning
"odious beyond description" and the other means "unspeakable",
the concept of which was used in Harry Potter even though the
word wasn't (to my knowledge, I never read the books).
Patrick Hamlyn
>My attitude is that expoused in the movie "Around The World
>Under The Sea".
>
>ObPuzzle: what am I refering to?
"In case of shark, stab your buddy before he stabs you"
--
Patrick Hamlyn posting from Perth, Western Australia
Windsurfing capital of the Southern Hemisphere
Moderator: polyforms group (polyforms...@egroups.com)
Mensanator
wrote:
> Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
> >My attitude is that expoused in the movie "Around The World
> >Under The Sea".
>
> >ObPuzzle: what am I refering to?
>
> "In case of shark, stab your buddy before he stabs you"
Not exactly what I had in mind.
> --
> Patrick Hamlyn � posting from Perth, Western Australia
> Windsurfing capital of the Southern Hemisphere
> Moderator: polyforms group (polyforms-subscr...@egroups.com)
James Dow Allen
> Also, is there some kind of dictionary that makes the distinction
> between "common" words and "uncommon" words? That would help if the
> original puzzle had specified that "a common English word can be
> formed..."
http://wordlist.sourceforge.net/
The 12dict package cited by Kevin, IIRC, shows in
how many of 12 abridged dictionary each word appears.
By massaging his data you can prepare a list of
"common" words for various thresholds of commonness.
He also includes inflected forms which normally would
not have their own entry.
James
dgates
<mensa...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Aug 29, 4:13 am, dgates <dga...@somedomain.com> wrote:
>> On 28 Aug 2008 20:07:12 +0100 (BST), Simon Tatham <ana...@pobox.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Leroy Quet <qqq...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> I am just curious, what is the longest sequence that someone can come
>> >> up with of (not necessarily distinct) letters that an English word can
>> >> be formed from if ANY letter of the sequence is doubled?
>>
>> >cat /usr/share/dict/words | perl -ne 'chomp; /[^a-z]/ and next; %f=(); printf "%s\n", join"", sort { $a cmp $b } split//,$_;' | perl -ne 'chomp;$a{$_}++;for($i=0;$i+1<length$_;$i++){if(substr($_,$i,1)eq substr($_,$i+1,1)){$b{substr($_,0,$i).substr($_,$i+1)}++;}}END{foreach $w (keys %b) { $ok=1;for($i=0;$i<length$w;$i++){$ww=substr($w,0,$i+1).substr($w,$i);$ok=0 unless $a{$ww}; } print "$w\n" if $ok; }}'
>>
>> I wonder if these threads should be broken into "Solved with computer"
>> vs. "Solved without computer."
>
>How? Add it to the subject line?
>
>Or put *COMPUTER SPOILER* in the body?
>
>I see rec.puzzles as a source of problems to which the
>challenge is to solve them by computer, such as via perl
>as ST did or SQL as I did.
That's quite an interesting take. Lately, I've been lamenting the
fact that no one seems to be inventing or posting the kind of "instand
chestnut" puzzles where using a computer wouldn't help at all.
The thief who wants to steal two 50-foot ropes hanging in a 40-foot
room;
What strategy two guys can use to beat Bill Gates at the "coin on the
forehead" game;
How to measure 45-minutes by burning two ropes;
etc.
>I don't look at ST's answer and say "Hey, he cheated. He
>used perl and I don't know how to do that."
I definitely don't think anyone's "cheating." The puzzle didn't say
not to use a computer; nor did it say that the words had to be "common
words."
But it seems that it sort of discourages the guy who's going to try to
do the puzzle in his head (and crank out a 5-letter answer) to see
that someone else has already posted 8-letter answers. That's why I
thought it might be good to have some kind of sub-threads for puzzles
that can be solved either way.
>
>My attitude is that expoused in the movie "Around The World
>Under The Sea".
>
>ObPuzzle: what am I refering to?
I feel like it might be a fictional movie contained in that "Life
Aquatic with Steve Zissou (sp?)" movie, but I don't know the
reference.
(And I refuse to solve it via computer :-)
>> Also, is there some kind of dictionary that makes the distinction
>> between "common" words and "uncommon" words?
>
>Probably not, though you would think less comprehensive lists
>would have fewer uncommon words.
I think someone must have made a pass at the idea. Take a look at
this page (a random word generator that allows you to pick a
Complexity, such as "Common," "Somewhat Uncommon," or "Obscure"):
http://watchout4snakes.com/creativitytools/RandomWord/RandomWordPlus.aspx
Maybe someone could create such a dictionary by writing a program.
I could see the program doing this:
1. It goes through multiple dictionaries.
2. It omits any word that isn't in all of the dictionaries.
3. It does Google searches on each remaining word. (Or maybe it
alternates between multiple search engines.)
4. If it doesn't get some minimum number of hits, it decides that the
word is "uncommon."
This might not find EVERY "common" word. After all,
a. It will probably eliminate some reasonable ones that just don't
appear in one of the dictionaries, and
b. A "word" might get Google hits for some odd reason other than it
being a commonly used word. For example, if a "clooney" turned out to
be a super-obscure word for a young boy interning for a clown, it
would still get 11 million Google hits and register as "common."
>> That would help if the original puzzle had specified that "a
>> common English word can be formed..."
>
>Impractical.
For computer solving, maybe. But it used to be that puzzles would
often have the phrase "Can you find a common, uncapitalized English
word that... etc."
None of this is important, of course. But, as a bit of a computer guy
myself, I just got myself interested in how one might use a computer
to find which words were "common" and which were not.
Simon Tatham
> That's quite an interesting take. Lately, I've been lamenting the
> fact that no one seems to be inventing or posting the kind of "instand
> chestnut" puzzles where using a computer wouldn't help at all.
> What strategy two guys can use to beat Bill Gates at the "coin on the
> forehead" game;
One could solve that one by computer, in principle. Each player has
one of four possible strategies (discounting randomised ones on the
grounds that the requirement for reliability means that any random
choice might just as well be "always guess wrong"). Always say
heads; always say tails; always say what you see on the other
person's head; always say the opposite of what you see. That leads
to 16 possible combined strategies, so a computer could trivially
try each one for each of the four possible coin combinations and see
if any strategy works in all cases.
Then again, perhaps part of the required insight is getting as far
as the above description in the first place; once you're thinking
that clearly about what the possibilities are, I'd guess you're
already most of the way to the answer.
--
Simon Tatham "Thieves respect property; they only wish the property to
<ana...@pobox.com> be their own, that they may more properly respect it."
Mensanator
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:06:22 -0700 (PDT), Mensanator
>
>
>
>
>
> <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 29, 4:13�am, dgates <dga...@somedomain.com> wrote:
> >> On 28 Aug 2008 20:07:12 +0100 (BST), Simon Tatham <ana...@pobox.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Leroy Quet �<qqq...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >> I am just curious, what is the longest sequence that someone can come
> >> >> up with of (not necessarily distinct) letters that an English word can
> >> >> be formed from if ANY letter of the sequence is doubled?
>
> >> >cat /usr/share/dict/words | perl -ne 'chomp; /[^a-z]/ and next; %f=(); printf "%s\n", join"", sort { $a cmp $b } split//,$_;' | perl -ne 'chomp;$a{$_}++;for($i=0;$i+1<length$_;$i++){if(substr($_,$i,1)eq substr($_,$i+1,1)){$b{substr($_,0,$i).substr($_,$i+1)}++;}}END{foreach $w (keys %b) { $ok=1;for($i=0;$i<length$w;$i++){$ww=substr($w,0,$i+1).substr($w,$i);$ok=0 unless $a{$ww}; } print "$w\n" if $ok; }}'
>
> >> I wonder if these threads should be broken into "Solved with computer"
> >> vs. "Solved without computer."
>
> >How? Add it to the subject line?
>
> >Or put *COMPUTER SPOILER* in the body?
>
> >I see rec.puzzles as a source of problems to which the
> >challenge is to solve them by computer, such as via perl
> >as ST did or SQL as I did.
>
> That's quite an interesting take. �Lately, I've been lamenting the
> fact that no one seems to be inventing or posting the kind of "instand
> chestnut" puzzles where using a computer wouldn't help at all.
Part of the reason I don't reply to every puzzle. Many of
Leroy's games I see how to implement the maechanics by
computer, but I don't see any algorithm for solving them.
>
> The thief who wants to steal two 50-foot ropes hanging in a 40-foot
> room;
> What strategy two guys can use to beat Bill Gates at the "coin on the
> forehead" game;
> How to measure 45-minutes by burning two ropes;
> etc.
>
> >I don't look at ST's answer and say "Hey, he cheated. He
> >used perl and I don't know how to do that."
>
> I definitely don't think anyone's "cheating."
I probably should have worded it something like "Hey, no fair."
>�The puzzle didn't say
> not to use a computer; nor did it say that the words had to be "common
> words."
>
> But it seems that it sort of discourages the guy who's going to try to
> do the puzzle in his head (and crank out a 5-letter answer) to see
> that someone else has already posted 8-letter answers.
It's also discouraging when someone beats you to the
answer or has a much better answer, but what can you do?
>�That's why I
> thought it might be good to have some kind of sub-threads for puzzles
> that can be solved either way.
Fine. Then I suggest changing the subject.
>
>
>
> >My attitude is that expoused in the movie "Around The World
> >Under The Sea".
>
> >ObPuzzle: what am I refering to?
>
> I feel like it might be a fictional movie contained in that "Life
> Aquatic with Steve Zissou (sp?)" movie, but I don't know the
> reference.
It's a real movie, from 1966 (it's a bitch to get old, but
it gives you certain advantages in trivia). It starred Lloyd
Bridges, David McCallum, Keenan Wynn. You might be able to
catch it on cable, but no DVD available, only VHS (what's that?)
>
> (And I refuse to solve it via computer �:-)
Probably wouldn't help. You can try IMD, Wikipedia, and
their external links but you won't find it. I'll put a spoiler
at the end of this post.
>
> >> Also, is there some kind of dictionary that makes the distinction
> >> between "common" words and "uncommon" words? �
>
> >Probably not, though you would think less comprehensive lists
> >would have fewer uncommon words.
>
> I think someone must have made a pass at the idea. �Take a look at
> this page (a random word generator that allows you to pick a
> Complexity, such as "Common," "Somewhat Uncommon," or "Obscure"):http://watchout4snakes.com/creativitytools/RandomWord/RandomWordPlus....
I just looked and don't quite agree.
Obscure adjective: preparlimentary
Obscure adjective: univestigative
Obscure adjective: uncasemated
Obscure adjective: unpredictive
It seems their take on obscure is "little used
prefix/suffix combinations applied to common words".
I prefer to think of "obscure" as obsolete or archaic
words, such as infandous & nefandous.
>
> Maybe someone could create such a dictionary by writing a program.
>
> I could see the program doing this:
>
> 1. It goes through multiple dictionaries.
You may want to be selective about this and not use
sources designed to contain obscure words such as
the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary or the
UK Applied Crytics Dictionary (for crossword puzzles).
> 2. It omits any word that isn't in all of the dictionaries.
> 3. It does Google searches on each remaining word. (Or maybe it
> alternates between multiple search engines.)
> 4. If it doesn't get some minimum number of hits, it decides that the
> word is "uncommon."
Just make sure you spell it right. I did a search on "Atilla",
the Hun of course, or is it "Attilla" or something else?
Whatever, I spelled it wrong and got lots of Google hits
on the misspelling, which lessens the commonality of the
correct spelling.
>
> This might not find EVERY "common" word. �After all,
> a. It will probably eliminate some reasonable ones that just don't
> appear in one of the dictionaries, and
> b. A "word" might get Google hits for some odd reason other than it
> being a commonly used word. �For example, if a "clooney" turned out to
> be a super-obscure word for a young boy interning for a clown, it
> would still get 11 million Google hits and register as "common."
If you want a real word that fits that, try "twink".
FAIR WARNING: don't blame me for what you find.
>
> >> That would help if the original puzzle had specified that "a
> >> common English word can be formed..."
>
> >Impractical.
>
> For computer solving, maybe. �But it used to be that puzzles would
> often have the phrase "Can you find a common, uncapitalized English
> word that... etc."
>
> None of this is important, of course. �But, as a bit of a computer guy
> myself, I just got myself interested in how one might use a computer
> to find which words were "common" and which were not.
Sounds like a tough problem, so I'll pass.
SPOILER FOR "AROUND THE WORLD UNDER THE SEA"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10 fathoms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20 fathoms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30 fathoms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The plot point which relates to this thread is the
treasure mentioned in the summaries you'll find on
the internet (germanium crystals actually, dated, eh?).
The David McCallum character wants to use the sub to
salvage them, but the Keenan Wynn character won't agree.
They decide to play a chess game throughout the voyage,
with the victor deciding whether to make the salvage.
McCallum apparently easily is ahead throughout most of
the game (shown by making an instantaneous reply to a
move Wynn took hours to decide on).
At some point, it is revealed that McCallum is calling
the moves in to a computer by radio and getting printouts
for his subsequent moves.
Yet Wynn manages to checkmate McCallum at the end.
McCallum is flabergasted, pulling out a sheaf of
printouts trying to determine what went wrong.
Wynn, having gotten wind of McCallum using a computer,
chides him for cheating. At which point Bridges chimes
in with "Why shouldn't he use the computer? He wrote
the software."
Now it's Wynn's turn to be flabbergasted. He simply
can't fathom the level of intellect it must require
to write that chess playing program. In awe, he
decides to "Let the pirate have his treasure."
dgates
wrote:
>dgates <dga...@somedomain.com> wrote:
>> That's quite an interesting take. Lately, I've been lamenting the
>> fact that no one seems to be inventing or posting the kind of "instand
>> chestnut" puzzles where using a computer wouldn't help at all.
>[...]
>> What strategy two guys can use to beat Bill Gates at the "coin on the
>> forehead" game;
>
>One could solve that one by computer, in principle. Each player has
>one of four possible strategies (discounting randomised ones on the
>grounds that the requirement for reliability means that any random
>choice might just as well be "always guess wrong"). Always say
>heads; always say tails; always say what you see on the other
>person's head; always say the opposite of what you see. That leads
>to 16 possible combined strategies, so a computer could trivially
>try each one for each of the four possible coin combinations and see
>if any strategy works in all cases.
>
>Then again, perhaps part of the required insight is getting as far
>as the above description in the first place; once you're thinking
>that clearly about what the possibilities are, I'd guess you're
>already most of the way to the answer.
I think that you realized by your second paragraph what I was about to
point out as I read your first paragraph: To even consider any
strategy other than "Guy A always guesses [heads/tails] while Guy B
always guesses [heads/tails]" means that you're already using the
"Aha" part of your brain.
If you wanted one that a computer could solve, maybe that would be the
four guys crossing the bridge.
The programmer would have to be aware that the scope of the puzzle's
possibilities includes any guy leaving from either side, even if he
wasn't the last to move. But from that point on, a computer trying
every "reasonable" possibility could solve it.
Mensanator
Simon Tatham
> <http://members.aol.com/mensanator666/fun/playing.htm#u2>
which says of the bridge-crossing problem:
> If I were hiring a programmer, I would certainly not hire anyone who
> solves the problem in 5 minutes for the following reasons:
>
> * the person is already familiar with this problem or ones like
> it. This is trivia.
An excellent illustration of how job interview processes are (a) a
lottery, (b) an exercise in second-guessing the interviewer, and (c)
unfairly discriminate against rec.puzzles readers >;->
If asked this problem in such an interview I _would_ of course know
the answer already, but I wouldn't scratch my chin for five minutes
and then pretend I'd just thought of it. I'd state honestly that I'd
seen it before and already knew the answer, and give the interviewer
an opportunity to try another question if they preferred. If that
still prevented you hiring me, then I wouldn't want to work for you
anyway.
(If absolutely required to solve the problem programmatically, I
certainly wouldn't generate your Excel spreadsheet containing 108
longhand answers. I'd use a real language, and do a breadth-first
search across the space of possible positions, thereby working out
the position after each possible first crossing _once_ instead of 18
times.)
--
Simon Tatham "That all men should be brothers is a
<ana...@pobox.com> dream of people who have no brothers."
Willem
Simon Tatham wrote:
) (If absolutely required to solve the problem programmatically, I
) certainly wouldn't generate your Excel spreadsheet containing 108
) longhand answers. I'd use a real language, and do a breadth-first
) search across the space of possible positions, thereby working out
) the position after each possible first crossing _once_ instead of 18
) times.)
I don't think he wanted it solved programmatically, he just wanted
proof that the given solution is indeed optimal. And he seems to
be under the impression that the only way to do that is to show
all possible combinations. Which is, of course, quite silly.
Especially for a programmer, who should be quite famililar
with pruning, and possibly also with symmetry reduction.
Here's a simple proof of optimality:
- There is a solution of 17 minutes. (By inspection)
- If the 5 and 10 cross on different trips, the the total time would be
at least 18 because the other three trips each take at least 1 minute.
- Therefore the 5 and 10 cross at the same time, and neither of them can
return (because otherwise they would have crossed on different trips).
- Therefore, the crossing of 5 and 10 cannot be the first crossing, because
then one of them would have to return, nor the last crossing, because of
symmetry. In other words, the third crossing is 5+10, and they do not
take part in any other crossing.
- This means that the first crossing must be 1+2, the third must be 5+10,
and the fifth must be 1+2. The second must then be either 1 or 2, and
the fourth must be the other one. Giving two (mirrored) solutions of 17.
NB: This proof assumes that the optimal solution takes five crossings,
but note that the proof on the website assumes the very same, and
the proof of this assumption is quite easily added IMO.
In my opinion, anyone who would solve the crossing problem by listing
all solutions is useful as a coder, but nothing more, because he blithely
applies simple reasoning until it gets him the answer.
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
Mensanator
I think you guys missed the point (which was a bit tongue-in-cheek).
Actual programmers don't sit around proving they have
optimal algotithms. They do such things as putting 16-bit
quantities into 8-bit variables, doing arithmetic right
shift on an unsigned number, creating a 10000 record hash
table where the hashing algorithm has factors in common
with the table size rendering two thirds of the table
inaccessible. Stuff like that.
And they are oblivious to these bone-headed mistakes because
they smugly assume it must be right and never run nor test
their ideas.
Guess how many times when a programmer asked me to swap memory
cards because his program didn't work, that the swap fixed the
problem?
Nearly once.
Willem
) I think you guys missed the point (which was a bit tongue-in-cheek).
Yeah, I was wondering about that a bit, when I realized who wrote it.
Stupid interview questions are a sensitive subject, is all.
) <snip>
) Guess how many times when a programmer asked me to swap memory
) cards because his program didn't work, that the swap fixed the
) problem?
)
) Nearly once.
You know, now I'm curious what that 'nearly once' time was.
Richard Heathfield
> Mensanator wrote:
> ) I think you guys missed the point (which was a bit tongue-in-cheek).
>
> Yeah, I was wondering about that a bit, when I realized who wrote it.
> Stupid interview questions are a sensitive subject, is all.
>
> ) <snip>
> ) Guess how many times when a programmer asked me to swap memory
> ) cards because his program didn't work, that the swap fixed the
> ) problem?
> )
> ) Nearly once.
>
> You know, now I'm curious what that 'nearly once' time was.
He may just be speaking mathematically. :-)
I have *once*, *ever*, seen a genuine memory chip failure - a parity error
on bootup. Not my machine, but that of a then-colleague. The guy called
tech support, showed them the bootup message, and watched as they hauled
it away. In the skip, get a new one, job done, carry on. (This is one
reason why it's rarely a good idea to keep important stuff on a local
disk!)
Programmers are notorious, alas, for blaming anything and everything other
than their own code. (Compilers are another favourite scapegoat.)
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Phil Carmody
> Willem said:
>
>> Mensanator wrote:
>> ) I think you guys missed the point (which was a bit tongue-in-cheek).
>>
>> Yeah, I was wondering about that a bit, when I realized who wrote it.
>> Stupid interview questions are a sensitive subject, is all.
>>
>> ) <snip>
>> ) Guess how many times when a programmer asked me to swap memory
>> ) cards because his program didn't work, that the swap fixed the
>> ) problem?
>> )
>> ) Nearly once.
>>
>> You know, now I'm curious what that 'nearly once' time was.
>
> He may just be speaking mathematically. :-)
>
> I have *once*, *ever*, seen a genuine memory chip failure - a parity error
> on bootup. Not my machine, but that of a then-colleague. The guy called
> tech support, showed them the bootup message, and watched as they hauled
> it away. In the skip, get a new one, job done, carry on. (This is one
> reason why it's rarely a good idea to keep important stuff on a local
> disk!)
>
> Programmers are notorious, alas, for blaming anything and everything other
> than their own code. (Compilers are another favourite scapegoat.)
Faulty chips I've never seen. But the number of times
inexplicable crashes have been solved simply by reseatting
the RAM I probably can't count on my fingers. Such errors
rarely affect applications though. They normally take down
the whole system. (Causing a paranoid watchdog to turn on
every case fan to max in the case of "my" dual G5 Mac -
making is sound like a hovercraft taking off, and waking
me from sound sleep from the opposite side of my flat.)
Phil
--
The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the
point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), Preface to Androcles and the Lion
Mensanator
> Mensanator wrote:
>
> ) I think you guys missed the point (which was a bit tongue-in-cheek).
>
> Yeah, I was wondering about that a bit, when I realized who wrote it.
> Stupid interview questions are a sensitive subject, is all.
>
> ) <snip>
> ) Guess how many times when a programmer asked me to swap memory
> ) cards because his program didn't work, that the swap fixed the
> ) problem?
> )
> ) Nearly once.
>
> You know, now I'm curious what that 'nearly once' time was.
It was a joke, borrowed from Monty Python's Flying Circus:
Interviewer Good evening. Tonight we're going to take a hard
tough abrasive look at camel spotting. Hello.
Spotter Hello Peter.
Interviewer Now tell me, what exactly are you doing?
Spotter Er well, I'm camel spotting. I'm spotting to see
if there are any camels that I can spot, and put
them down in my camel spotting book.
Interviewer Good. And how many camels have you spotted so far?
Spotter Oh, well so far Peter, up to the present moment,
I've spotted nearly, ooh, nearly one.
Interviewer Nearly one?
Spotter Er, call it none.
Interviewer Fine. And er how long have you been here?
Spotter Three years.
Interviewer So, in, er, three years you've spotted no camels?
Spotter Yes in only three years. Er, I tell a lie, four,
be fair, five. I've been camel spotting for just
the seven years. Before that of course I was a
Yeti spotter.
Mensanator
wrote:
The early Apple ][ was notorious for that. I evenutally unsoldered
all the sockets and replaced them with high reliability versions.
The one time I had a guine memory failure wasn't a RAM chip, though.
It was a NAND gate that passed the write strobe to the RAM chips,
so it could read memory but not write it. Obviously, the boot ROM
didn't get very far. I tracked it down by attaching a 555 timer to
the reset line and slowly increased the pulse width until the address
lines went from stable to unstable. When I checked what opcode was
executing at that momement, it was the first return from subroutine
in the boot code. The gate must have failed due to vibration (output
was floating) because I had just transported the machine in my car
prior to the failure.
> Such errors
> rarely affect applications though. They normally take down
> the whole system. (Causing a paranoid watchdog to turn on
> every case fan to max in the case of "my" dual G5 Mac -
> making is sound like a hovercraft taking off, and waking
> me from sound sleep from the opposite side of my flat.)
>
> Phil
> --
> The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the
> point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
> The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
> -- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), Preface to Androcles and the Lion- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Matthew T. Russotto
Simon Tatham <ana...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Mensanator <mensa...@aol.com> wrote:
>> <http://members.aol.com/mensanator666/fun/playing.htm#u2>
>
>which says of the bridge-crossing problem:
>> If I were hiring a programmer, I would certainly not hire anyone who
>> solves the problem in 5 minutes for the following reasons:
>>
>> * the person is already familiar with this problem or ones like
>> it. This is trivia.
>
>An excellent illustration of how job interview processes are (a) a
>lottery, (b) an exercise in second-guessing the interviewer, and (c)
>unfairly discriminate against rec.puzzles readers >;->
It doesn't take more than 5 minutes to solve that one the first time.
It's clear Larry never returns. And if I keep a running total of the
minimums, I can eliminate a LOT of possibilities. I try the naive
"Bono always returns" first, and get 19 minutes. Now I know that Adam
never returns either (because if he makes the trip three times it's a
minimum of 15, and Larry hasn't even crossed once at that point!).
Now I know that Bono returns once and Edge returns once. Enumerating
from there isn't too hard, particularly if you notice obvious
symmetries.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Matthew T. Russotto
Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>I have *once*, *ever*, seen a genuine memory chip failure - a parity error
>on bootup. Not my machine, but that of a then-colleague. The guy called
>tech support, showed them the bootup message, and watched as they hauled
>it away. In the skip, get a new one, job done, carry on. (This is one
>reason why it's rarely a good idea to keep important stuff on a local
>disk!)
I've seen a few. More than a few if you count EEPROM and FLASH. It's
pretty frustrating when that bit just won't stay zero.
>Programmers are notorious, alas, for blaming anything and everything other
>than their own code. (Compilers are another favourite scapegoat.)
I've found a few compiler bugs, too.
Mensanator
wrote:
> In article <ALqdne-9X6uFayHVRVny...@bt.com>,
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
> >I have *once*, *ever*, seen a genuine memory chip failure - a parity error
> >on bootup. Not my machine, but that of a then-colleague. The guy called
> >tech support, showed them the bootup message, and watched as they hauled
> >it away. In the skip, get a new one, job done, carry on. (This is one
> >reason why it's rarely a good idea to keep important stuff on a local
> >disk!)
>
> I've seen a few. More than a few if you count EEPROM and FLASH. It's
> pretty frustrating when that bit just won't stay zero.
>
> >Programmers are notorious, alas, for blaming anything and everything other
> >than their own code. (Compilers are another favourite scapegoat.)
>
> I've found a few compiler bugs, too.
Sure, that's possible, but that's not the way to bet.
Especially when the only evidence is that the program
hangs.
Richard Heathfield
> In article <ALqdne-9X6u...@bt.com>,
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>>Programmers are notorious, alas, for blaming anything and everything
>>other than their own code. (Compilers are another favourite scapegoat.)
>
> I've found a few compiler bugs, too.
I've heard lots of people say that.
Oddly, I was never one of them, perhaps because I learned programming in
something of a vacuum, just me and the computer (and occasionally a
manual) - and I had this bizarre idea that the computer couldn't possibly
be wrong, and any incorrect results would necessarily be a result of my
incomplete understanding. There was nobody around to show me how to put
the blame elsewhere.
I found my first compiler bug about fifteen years later - and it took me
about three days to realise it! (It turned out that the implementor -
Microsoft, in fact - already knew about it and had already published a
workaround.) The delay in finding the problem was entirely due to this
assumption, an assumption that I didn't even know I was making, that the
computer could do no wrong, which is why I spent three fruitless days
staring at code I knew to be correct and yet "knew" to be incorrect.
Simon Tatham
> It doesn't take more than 5 minutes to solve that one the first time.
> It's clear Larry never returns.
> I try the naive "Bono always returns" first, and get 19 minutes.
> Now I know that Adam never returns either
Incidentally, I also deduct points from anybody setting this puzzle
who makes up random names for the four people, or for anybody
solving it in the absence of names given by the setter who calls
them A, B, C and D or anything like that. Working with such names is
a complete pain, because one can never remember who is which and has
to keep referring back.
The one true names for these people are Dr One, Dr Two, Dr Five and
Dr Ten.
--
Simon Tatham "infinite loop _see_ loop, infinite"
<ana...@pobox.com> - Index, Borland Pascal Language Guide
Martin DeMello
>
> How many words can you think of that end in "dous"?
>
> I'll bet infandous & nefandous don't spring to mind. They've
> obviously fallen into disuse and often not included in modern
> dictionaries. But they're legitimate words, one meaning
> "odious beyond description" and the other means "unspeakable",
> the concept of which was used in Harry Potter even though the
> word wasn't (to my knowledge, I never read the books).
What should've sprung to mind but didn't till I grepped through a
dictionary are words like iodous, molybdous, rhodous and vanadous. Not
that I know why there aren't more of them, of course, or why those
ones in particular.
martin
Mensanator
There are, such as palladous. Although my word list doesn't have every
possible construction. For instance, there's no copperous. Because the
actual spelling is copperas.
> of course, or why those ones in particular.
Because those already have a "d"? Rhodium becomes rhodous by replacing
the "ium" with "ous". Titanium becomes titanous, not titandous.
Or sometimes "um" is replaced by "ferous", titaniferous, cadmiferous,
strontaniferous, stanniferous (or stannous when "ium" replaced by
"ous")
and also palladiferous to go with palladous.
>
> martin
Nick Wedd
<dc1ec424-c13f-4d19...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
Mensanator <mensa...@aol.com> writes
>On Sep 3, 2:40 pm, Martin DeMello <martindeme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 11:06 am, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > How many words can you think of that end in "dous"?
>>
>> > I'll bet infandous & nefandous don't spring to mind. They've
>> > obviously fallen into disuse and often not included in modern
>> > dictionaries. But they're legitimate words, one meaning
>> > "odious beyond description" and the other means "unspeakable",
>> > the concept of which was used in Harry Potter even though the
>> > word wasn't (to my knowledge, I never read the books).
>>
>> What should've sprung to mind but didn't till I grepped through a
>> dictionary are words like iodous, molybdous, rhodous and vanadous. Not
>> that I know why there aren't more of them,
>
>There are, such as palladous. Although my word list doesn't have every
>possible construction. For instance, there's no copperous. Because the
>actual spelling is copperas.
No, it's "cuprous". Copperas is ferrous sulphate.
Nick
>
>> of course, or why those ones in particular.
>
>Because those already have a "d"? Rhodium becomes rhodous by replacing
>the "ium" with "ous". Titanium becomes titanous, not titandous.
>
>Or sometimes "um" is replaced by "ferous", titaniferous, cadmiferous,
>strontaniferous, stanniferous (or stannous when "ium" replaced by
>"ous")
>and also palladiferous to go with palladous.
>
>>
>> martin
>
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Martin DeMello
> On Sep 3, 2:40 pm, Martin DeMello <martindeme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What should've sprung to mind but didn't till I grepped through a
> > dictionary are words like iodous, molybdous, rhodous and vanadous. Not
> > that I know why there aren't more of them,
>
> There are, such as palladous. Although my word list doesn't have every
> possible construction. For instance, there's no copperous. Because the
> actual spelling is copperas.
Yeah, missed palladous.
> > of course, or why those ones in particular.
>
> Because those already have a "d"? Rhodium becomes rhodous by replacing
> the "ium" with "ous". Titanium becomes titanous, not titandous.
I know that, I meant why only those of all the ~dium elements. I guess
one answer is that they are words, just that Collins has not seen fit
to include them.
martin
Matthew Russotto
Mensanator <mensa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>There are, such as palladous. Although my word list doesn't have every
>possible construction. For instance, there's no copperous. Because the
>actual spelling is copperas.
It's cuprous. As in cuprous oxide, a.k.a copper(I) oxide.
Mensanator
> In message
> <dc1ec424-c13f-4d19-965a-4cdc9c8c1...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
> Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 3, 2:40 pm, Martin DeMello <martindeme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 29, 11:06 am, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > How many words can you think of that end in "dous"?
>
> >> > I'll bet infandous & nefandous don't spring to mind. They've
> >> > obviously fallen into disuse and often not included in modern
> >> > dictionaries. But they're legitimate words, one meaning
> >> > "odious beyond description" and the other means "unspeakable",
> >> > the concept of which was used in Harry Potter even though the
> >> > word wasn't (to my knowledge, I never read the books).
>
> >> What should've sprung to mind but didn't till I grepped through a
> >> dictionary are words like iodous, molybdous, rhodous and vanadous. Not
> >> that I know why there aren't more of them,
>
> >There are, such as palladous. Although my word list doesn't have every
> >possible construction. For instance, there's no copperous. Because the
> >actual spelling is copperas.
>
> No, it's "cuprous". Copperas is ferrous sulphate.
Ok, I thought the dictionary said "copper water" and I just
assumed that meant a copper compound.
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> >> of course, or why those ones in particular.
>
> >Because those already have a "d"? Rhodium becomes rhodous by replacing
> >the "ium" with "ous". Titanium becomes titanous, not titandous.
>
> >Or sometimes "um" is replaced by "ferous", titaniferous, cadmiferous,
> >strontaniferous, stanniferous (or stannous when "ium" replaced by
> >"ous")
> >and also palladiferous to go with palladous.
>
> >> martin
>
> --
> Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk- Hide quoted text -
Mensanator
wrote:
> In article <dc1ec424-c13f-4d19-965a-4cdc9c8c1...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >There are, such as palladous. Although my word list doesn't have every
> >possible construction. For instance, there's no copperous. Because the
> >actual spelling is copperas.
>
> It's cuprous. As in cuprous oxide, a.k.a copper(I) oxide.
I thought that sounded funny, but I just skimmed it.
But it's still an example of appending "ous" or swapping
"um" with "ous" doesn't always help.
Matthew Russotto
Mensanator <mensa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I thought that sounded funny, but I just skimmed it.
>But it's still an example of appending "ous" or swapping
>"um" with "ous" doesn't always help.
cuprum -> cuprous
Thus argentous, aurous, natrious, etc. I have to admit I've never
heard of "hydragyrous", though.