Questions about the Spring Tournement

This might be late, but I feel like I could contribute.

If you don’t want to reroll the question is simple. The question is: “Which result was rolled by which unit?”. There are several ways of doing this I will first describe the simple and then the longer (Which will give the same result).

Simple: Since most of the result where misses, they are not interesting, the only question is where to assing the 3. There is 1 in 4 units that could have been the unit rolling a 3, terefore it is 1 in 4 chance that unit was the artillery.

Longer:
In basic uniform probability, we first start with the assumption that every result is equally likely. Every string of lottery numbers have the same odds. all we have to do then is to count the number of outcomes we like, and compare that to the number of possible outcomes when assigning the results. I will call your units I1, I2, I3 and A. There will be 24 ways of assinging the dies, and 6 of them will assign the 3 to the art. The ways of assigning them are:

A: 3 I1: 6 I2:8 I3:9  = 1 Hit
A: 3 I1: 6 I2:9 I3:8  = 1 Hit
A: 3 I1: 8 I2:6 I3:9  = 1 Hit
A: 3 I1: 8 I2:9 I3:6  = 1 Hit
A: 3 I1: 9 I2:6 I3:8  = 1 Hit
A: 3 I1: 9 I2:8 I3:6  = 1 Hit

A: 6 I1: 3 I2:8 I3:9  = 0 Hit
A: 6 I1: 3 I2:9 I3:8  = 0 Hit
A: 6 I1: 8 I2:3 I3:9  = 0 Hit
A: 6 I1: 8 I2:9 I3:3  = 0 Hit
A: 6 I1: 9 I2:3 I3:8  = 0 Hit
A: 6 I1: 9 I2:8 I3:3  = 0 Hit

A: 8 I1: 3 I2:6 I3:9  = 0 Hit
A: 8 I1: 3 I2:9 I3:6  = 0 Hit
A: 8 I1: 6 I2:3 I3:9  = 0 Hit
A: 8 I1: 6 I2:9 I3:3  = 0 Hit
A: 8 I1: 9 I2:3 I3:6  = 0 Hit
A: 8 I1: 9 I2:6 I3:3  = 0 Hit

A: 9 I1: 3 I2:6 I3:8  = 0 Hit
A: 9 I1: 3 I2:8 I3:6  = 0 Hit
A: 9 I1: 6 I2:8 I3:9  = 0 Hit
A: 9 I1: 6 I2:9 I3:8  = 0 Hit
A: 9 I1: 8 I2:6 I3:3  = 0 Hit
A: 9 I1: 8 I2:3 I3:6  = 0 Hit

In total. That is 6 possible hits, of 24 possible scenarios. Which is 1 in 4.

Like Churchill - I feel a sense of validation when hated, and as it doesn’t bother me in the least, it’s more of a blessing than a curse - and adds to the enjoyment.

Of course, it helps that MANY more people like me than hate me.  (Infact all but one).

Not to say that I go looking for fights, but when I see abuse/harassment, I’m going to stand in it’s way. And yea, my sense of humor can rub people the wrong way… lol.  Oh well.

Why he would like a place where this happens is for the simple reason that sometimes its fun to go to the zoo just to watch the chimps freak out and fling poo and everything.

And this LOL…

@MrMalachiCrunch:

tabarnak de calisse

I believe that would be: “câlice.”

Yes, really. So happens. We can communicate on this theme.

Thanks for noticing the pre-print version of the paper.  Its only 5 pages and surprisingly not too terribly difficult to follow.  From the article:

How does information get out of a black hole? My work with Hartle[8] showed the radiation could be thought of as
tunnelling out from inside the black hole. It was therefore not unreasonable to suppose that it could carry information
out of the black hole. This explains how a black hole can form and then give out the information about what is inside
it while remaining topologically trivial. There is no baby universe branching off, as I once thought. The information
remains firmly in our universe. I’m sorry to disappoint science fiction fans, but if information is preserved, there is
no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes. If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will
be returned to our universe but in a mangled form which contains the information about what you were like but in a
state where it can not be easily recognized. It is like burning an encyclopedia. Information is not lost, if one keeps the
smoke and the ashes. But it is difficult to read. In practice, it would be too difficult to re-build a macroscopic object
like an encyclopedia that fell inside a black hole from information in the radiation, but the information preserving
result is important for microscopic processes involving virtual black holes. If these had not been unitary, there would
have been observable effects, like the decay of baryons.
…
I gave John an encyclopedia of baseball, but maybe I should just have given him the ashes.

Falk wrote:

i doubt that passing something through a singularity is a unitary process

Hawking basically states this is a unitary process by what isn’t observed in other quantum effects…i.e. the decay of baryons.  I’m not sure if that is really proof or just a strong indication however.

i can prove that you had lunch today.
of course it would require a knife and maybe some sedation . . . .

sure :)…