Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 20, 12:27=A0am, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 19, 11:29=A0pm, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > let there are
>> > 10 men and 5 women
>> > if they are standing in a particular order
>> > say =A0 M M W W =A0M M M M W M M W M M =3DZ
>> > have to arrange them in couples.
>> > like this MW MW MW MW MW =A0MMMMMM =3DX
>> > condition:- >> > if you reverse the process, you have to get the given original order, >> > Z
>> > Thanks.
>> no one here,?
>> do u want any more information ?
>really no one knows answer to this >is it so tough for math people.?
>oh my God!
Yeah, we're all dumb. No sense in sticking around.
-- ====================================================================== "It's not denial. I'm just very selective about what I accept as reality." --- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson) ======================================================================
> In article <45770ff1-c895-4519-9297-5aa679a24...@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 20, 12:27=A0am, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 19, 11:29=A0pm, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > let there are
> >> > 10 men and 5 women
> >> > if they are standing in a particular order
> >> > say =A0 M M W W =A0M M M M W M M W M M =3DZ
> >> > have to arrange them in couples.
> >> > like this MW MW MW MW MW =A0MMMMMM =3DX
> >> > condition:- > >> > if you reverse the process, you have to get the given original order, > >> > Z
> >> > Thanks.
> >> no one here,?
> >> do u want any more information ?
> >really no one knows answer to this > >is it so tough for math people.?
> >oh my God!
> Yeah, we're all dumb. No sense in sticking around.
> -- > ====================================================================== > "It's not denial. I'm just very selective about > what I accept as reality." > --- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson) > ======================================================================
> Arturo Magidin > magidin-at-member-ams-org
where's the 'toughness' lies ? I think it is simple and people good at number theory can do that.
Thanks. [I don't much math,not but dealing unusual problem]
Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 20, 1:33=A0am, magi...@math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote: >> In article <45770ff1-c895-4519-9297-5aa679a24...@x16g2000prn.googlegroups= >.com>,
>> Nimo =A0<azeez...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 20, 12:27=3DA0am, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Nov 19, 11:29=3DA0pm, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > let there are
>> >> > 10 men and 5 women
>> >> > if they are standing in a particular order
>> >> > say =3DA0 M M W W =3DA0M M M M W M M W M M =3D3DZ
>> >> > have to arrange them in couples.
>> >> > like this MW MW MW MW MW =3DA0MMMMMM =3D3DX
>> >> > condition:- >> >> > if you reverse the process, you have to get the given original order= >, >> >> > Z
>> >> > Thanks.
>> >> no one here,?
>> >> do u want any more information ?
>> >really no one knows answer to this >> >is it so tough for math people.?
>> >oh my God!
>> Yeah, we're all dumb. No sense in sticking around.
>where's the 'toughness' lies ?
First, your exposition of the problem is almost unintelligible. What is it that one is trying to find? What does your "condition" really mean? None of these questions are answerable from what you wrote. Second, you did not even state a problem. What is it you are looking for? An arrangement? An algorithm? A process? No idea. I'll stop at two, though there are several other issues to trying to figure out what it is you were trying to say. Few people will spend large amounts of time trying to figure out what someone else is trying to say, and even fewer when that person thinks that goading is the way to get people to help him.
Do you get people to do you favors in the real world by poking them with a stick, too?
>I think it is simple and people good at >number theory can do that.
I think you don't know what "number theory" is.
-- ====================================================================== "It's not denial. I'm just very selective about what I accept as reality." --- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson) ======================================================================
> In article <661a3586-1bd8-4cae-867f-b5dbe986b...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 20, 1:33=A0am, magi...@math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote: > >> In article <45770ff1-c895-4519-9297-5aa679a24...@x16g2000prn.googlegroups= > >.com>,
> >> Nimo =A0<azeez...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 20, 12:27=3DA0am, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 19, 11:29=3DA0pm, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > let there are
> >> >> > 10 men and 5 women
> >> >> > if they are standing in a particular order
> >> >> > say =3DA0 M M W W =3DA0M M M M W M M W M M =3D3DZ
> >> >> > have to arrange them in couples.
> >> >> > like this MW MW MW MW MW =3DA0MMMMMM =3D3DX
> >> >> > condition:- > >> >> > if you reverse the process, you have to get the given original order= > >, > >> >> > Z
> >> >> > Thanks.
> >> >> no one here,?
> >> >> do u want any more information ?
> >> >really no one knows answer to this > >> >is it so tough for math people.?
> >> >oh my God!
> >> Yeah, we're all dumb. No sense in sticking around.
> >where's the 'toughness' lies ?
> [Q] First, your exposition of the problem is almost unintelligible. What > is it that one is trying to find? What does your "condition" really > mean? None of these questions are answerable from what you > wrote.
(A) condition is if you reverse the process, you have to
go back to original order, right !
[Q] Second, you did not even state a problem. What is it you are
> looking for? An arrangement? An algorithm? A process? No idea. I'll > stop at two, though there are several other issues to trying to figure > out what it is you were trying to say. Few people will spend large > amounts of time trying to figure out what someone else is trying to > say, and even fewer when that person thinks that goading is the way to > get people to help him.
> Do you get people to do you favors in the real world by poking them > with a stick, too?
(A)Be it 'arrangement, algorithm,or a process, no problem.
> >[Q] I think it is simple and people good at > >number theory can do that.
> I think you don't know what "number theory" is. > (A) so, what is number theory.?
Thanks. I need just this you implement any way as you wish
Given M M M W W M W M
should have to arrange them as
MW MW MW; MM
if you reverse it you have to get the original order.
>> >> Nimo =3DA0<azeez...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Nov 20, 12:27=3D3DA0am, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Nov 19, 11:29=3D3DA0pm, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > let there are
>> >> >> > 10 men and 5 women
>> >> >> > if they are standing in a particular order
>> >> >> > say =3D3DA0 M M W W =3D3DA0M M M M W M M W M M =3D3D3DZ
>> >> >> > have to arrange them in couples.
>> >> >> > like this MW MW MW MW MW =3D3DA0MMMMMM =3D3D3DX
>> >> >> > condition:- >> >> >> > if you reverse the process, you have to get the given original or= >der=3D >> >, >> >> >> > Z
>> >> >> > Thanks.
>> >> >> no one here,?
>> >> >> do u want any more information ?
>> >> >really no one knows answer to this >> >> >is it so tough for math people.?
>> >> >oh my God!
>> >> Yeah, we're all dumb. No sense in sticking around.
>> >where's the 'toughness' lies ?
>> [Q] First, your exposition of the problem is almost unintelligible. What >> is it that one is trying to find? What does your "condition" really >> mean? None of these questions are answerable from what you >> wrote.
>(A) condition is if you reverse the process, you have to
>go back to original order, right !
Which, on plain reading, is no condition at all. If you have a reversible process, then BY DEFINITION reversing it means going back to the original situation. Rearrangements are always reversible, so you are not placing any conditions whatsoever on whatever it is that you are asking. That's why it is unclear what it is you MEANT to place as a condition; because what you actually wrote is like saying nothing. You also do not explain what it is you are trying to find or get, so it makes it impossible to answer your post.
I saw your post when you first posted it. I could not make heads or tails of what it is you think you are asking. I suspect others encountered similar difficulties. When you then proceeded to see whether insulting the readers might get you reponses, you transformed from someone who could not express himself clearly into a git.
>[Q] Second, you did not even state a problem. What is it you are >> looking for? An arrangement? An algorithm? =A0A process? No idea. I'll >> stop at two, though there are several other issues to trying to figure >> out what it is you were trying to say. Few people will spend large >> amounts of time trying to figure out what someone else is trying to >> say, and even fewer when that person thinks that goading is the way to >> get people to help him.
>> Do you get people to do you favors in the real world by poking them >> with a stick, too?
>(A)Be it 'arrangement, algorithm,or a >process, no problem.
It's not "be it". You have, apparently, a problem in mind. You failed miserably to explain what that problem is. I don't care to spend my time guessing what it is, and you saying "yeah, whathever" does not help. Why will I waste my time working on what may or may not be the problem? You aren't paying me, after all.
>Thanks. >I need just this you implement >any way as you wish
>Given M M M W W M W M
>should have to arrange them as
>MW MW MW; MM
>if you reverse it you have to >get the original order.
Repeating nonsense does not make it acquire sense. You are still not saying anything intelligible.
-- ====================================================================== "It's not denial. I'm just very selective about what I accept as reality." --- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson) ======================================================================
In article <23476ebd-59a4-4a1f-9d29-996f0df51...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote: >first of all apologies, if any thing is wrong.
At this point, "you aren't even wrong". You are just unintelligible.
>@ Arturo Magidin
>really believe me, I don't know where you didn't >understand the concept.
I don't understand what it is you are trying to say.
>I mean I've in my mind like this, >this is the clear cut problem.
I have no doubt. Your expression of it, however, has been all but clear.
>given there are 'p' men and 'q' women
>I've to arrange them in pairs.
That doesn't mean much. Clearly, you don't mean just list them in alternating order until you run out of one. So you must mean something else. But you do not say what you mean.
>if any one is left, they are written as individually
>Ex:- 3 M,4 W >given order is M M W W M W W
What "given order"? You said nothing about "given orders".
>I've to write it as MW MW MW; W{individual}
So what is it you want to know? You've done it. What process it is you are looking for?
>in this procedure the only thing I'm looking is
>again, I've to go back to the original order
Just write "M M W W M W W". There's the "original order."
See why what you are saying makes no sense?
>with the help of some 'standard steps'
And this is still incomprehensible to me.
All you did was repeat, yet again, the same thing as before. What is it that made you believe that if you only typed it yet another time, now it would suddenly start making sense?
-- ====================================================================== "It's not denial. I'm just very selective about what I accept as reality." --- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson) ======================================================================
In article <bc14bb46-39cb-4800-a2a3-cec032c27...@c2g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote: >OK can you tell me how to 'state' the problem
Since I do not understand what the problem is, no, I cannot tell you how to write it.
-- ====================================================================== "It's not denial. I'm just very selective about what I accept as reality." --- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson) ======================================================================
On Nov 19, 1:57 pm, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK can you tell me how to 'state' the problem
> " so that I would write it ", as you said.
> you just give me some points, I'll state the Question
> touching those points.
> so that everyone can understand it.
> Thanks.
Please clarify. Do you just have MW MW MW W, or do you have John(M)Mary (W) Fred(M)Susan(W) Sidney(M)Zelda(W) Rosanne(W). In the first case you cannot tell one M from another, so there is just one 'arrangement', while in the other the different Ms and Ws have different names, so there are many inequivalent arrangements. Even if you mean the second, I still do not see what your stated problem IS. Did you have an unordered list of 7 people (3M, 4W) and wanted to put them in a particular order using the fewest steps (whatever a 'step' may be), or what?
Your problem seems to be one of communication. You seem to write down statements without really thinking them through. If English is not your first language, you should think about the problem's statement in your first language, giving the message a logical structure (imagine that you want to explain the problem to your little sister). After you have done that, then translate the message into English.
-- ====================================================================== "It's not denial. I'm just very selective about what I accept as reality." --- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson) ======================================================================
> On Nov 19, 1:57 pm, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > OK can you tell me how to 'state' the problem
> > " so that I would write it ", as you said.
> > you just give me some points, I'll state the Question
> > touching those points.
> > so that everyone can understand it.
> > Thanks.
> Please clarify. Do you just have MW MW MW W, or do you have John(M)Mary > (W) Fred(M)Susan(W) Sidney(M)Zelda(W) Rosanne(W). In the first case > you cannot tell one M from another, so there is just one > 'arrangement', while in the other the different Ms and Ws have > different names, so there are many inequivalent arrangements. Even if > you mean the second, I still do not see what your stated problem IS. > Did you have an unordered list of 7 people (3M, 4W) and wanted to put > them in a particular order using the fewest steps (whatever a 'step' > may be), or what?
> Your problem seems to be one of communication. You seem to write down > statements without really thinking them through. If English is not > your first language, you should think about the problem's statement in > your first language, giving the message a logical structure (imagine > that you want to explain the problem to your little sister). After you > have done that, then translate the message into English.
> R.G. Vickson
OK, let MAN as 'Apple' and WOMAN as 'Mango'
A M M M M A A you arrange them in pairs like AM AM etc.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:31:55 -0800 (PST), Nimo wrote: > On Nov 20, 3:24?am, magi...@math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote: >> In article <f37241d1-2b79-47e8-a9e8-6cadbcf91...@a17g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>> -- >> ====================================================================== >> "It's not denial. I'm just very selective about >> ?what I accept as reality." >> ? ? --- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson) >> ======================================================================
>> Arturo Magidin >> magidin-at-member-ams-org > where did I lost you > I think that is the most easiest way > treat MAN = APPLE > WOMAN = MANGO > you arrange them in pairs. > I'll waiting to see your arrangement. > Thanks.
On Nov 19, 6:29 pm, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
> let there are
> 10 men and 5 women
> if they are standing in a particular order
> say M M W W M M M M W M M W M M =Z
> have to arrange them in couples.
> like this MW MW MW MW MW MMMMMM =X
> condition:- > if you reverse the process, you have to get the given original order, > Z
It might help if you explain (and give an example of) the "process" by which you get from the original order to the arrangement in couples, and then explain (and give an example of) what it means to "reverse the process".
> condition:- > if you reverse the process, you have to get the given original order, > Z
> Thanks.
Part of your problem is your M's are indistinguishable.
But that can be solved.
Here's an example of a reversible process that works even if they elements are indistinguishable. For clarity, I've used odd & even numbers to prove that the reverse process works as it should. The language is Python 2.6.
import itertools as it
the_numbers = [5,3,1,7,2,4,6]
the_odds = [(i,j) for i,j in enumerate(the_numbers) if j%2==1] the_evens = [(i,j) for i,j in enumerate(the_numbers) if j%2==0]
pairs = [p for p in it.izip_longest(the_odds,the_evens)]
print 'here is the original list:' for i in the_numbers: print i, print print
print 'here are the odd numbers:' for i in the_odds: print i[1], print print
print 'here are the even numbers:' for i in the_evens: print i[1], print print
print 'here are the odds & evens paired (leftovers not paired):' for i in pairs: if i[0]: p1 = str(i[0][1]) else: p1 = '' if i[1]: p2 = str(i[1][1]) else: p2 = '' print p1+p2, print print
print 'now, can we re-create the original list?' print '(when the odds and evens were split out,' print 'their position in the original list was' print 'recorded also)' print
new_numbers = [0]*len(the_numbers) for i in pairs: if i[0]: new_numbers[i[0][0]] = i[0][1] if i[1]: new_numbers[i[1][0]] = i[1][1]
print 'here is the re-created list:' for i in new_numbers: print i, print print print 'QED'
## ## here is the original list: ## 5 3 1 7 2 4 6 ## ## here are the odd numbers: ## 5 3 1 7 ## ## here are the even numbers: ## 2 4 6 ## ## here are the odds & evens paired (leftovers not paired): ## 52 34 16 7 ## ## now, can we re-create the original list? ## (when the odds and evens were split out, ## their position in the original list was ## recorded also) ## ## here is the re-created list: ## 5 3 1 7 2 4 6 ## ## QED
> On Nov 20, 3:19 am, Ray Vickson <RGVick...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 1:57 pm, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > OK can you tell me how to 'state' the problem
> > > " so that I would write it ", as you said.
> > > you just give me some points, I'll state the Question
> > > touching those points.
> > > so that everyone can understand it.
> > > Thanks.
> > Please clarify. Do you just have MW MW MW W, or do you have John(M)Mary > > (W) Fred(M)Susan(W) Sidney(M)Zelda(W) Rosanne(W). In the first case > > you cannot tell one M from another, so there is just one > > 'arrangement', while in the other the different Ms and Ws have > > different names, so there are many inequivalent arrangements. Even if > > you mean the second, I still do not see what your stated problem IS. > > Did you have an unordered list of 7 people (3M, 4W) and wanted to put > > them in a particular order using the fewest steps (whatever a 'step' > > may be), or what?
> > Your problem seems to be one of communication. You seem to write down > > statements without really thinking them through. If English is not > > your first language, you should think about the problem's statement in > > your first language, giving the message a logical structure (imagine > > that you want to explain the problem to your little sister). After you > > have done that, then translate the message into English.
> > R.G. Vickson
> OK, let MAN as 'Apple' and WOMAN as 'Mango'
> A M M M M A A > you arrange them in pairs like AM AM etc.
> then, I'll continue the next step
i think there has also been a problem with others expressing why you don't make sense
so let me show you how i read your problem and why it doesn't make sense to me
let's say we have 10 men and 5 women
you want an algorithm to write them in pairs
that is _extremely_ simple
just take the lesser of the two numbers (5 here is less than 10) and write that many pairs
WM WM WM WM WM
now subtract the smaller number from the larger 10 - 5 = 5 and write that many individuals of the larger type
M M M M M
done
is that really what you wanted?
it doesn't make sense because it doesn't use any of the other words that you've used in your description
it doesn't use any starting position (it just uses the number of each type)
even if you were given a starting position there is no reason to use it for anything
it doesn't have anything to do with reversible
in fact it can't be reversible because none of any starting information is stored in the final position
do you see why it might be frustrating to answer?
it's possible you have a very clear problem here and you just don't know what else needs to be said
is this a problem you want to program on a computer?
maybe you are looking to do this for a data structure? like a string?
do these people have names?
does the starting position obey some kind of rule? or is it just an arbitrary one chosen from any of the possible arrangements?
