Likes? - well, it's obvious... Dislikes? Pages that are TooBigToEdit.
<aside> [Oh, my goodness! This page is getting to be TooBigToEdit! Horrors!]
Fictional likes... Sherlock Holmes. I rarely read other modern fiction.
Not even AgathaChristie??
I have at least one AgathaChristie? paperback, but I doubt that I've read it right through. -- vk
I graduated in mathematics, but then made my living as a programmer. Neither had anything to do with my finding this site, however. That's enough personal data.
Vicki, when you compiled EW, which main file did you compile (presumably a file that would call all the others)? Also do you have any idea why Eddie is making a library file (h file) for every cpp file he does? Thanks! -- ar
It's a common C idiom (CeeIdioms).
Under or over . . . doesn't that imply that you should simply replace the inbetween part so that you can't possibly have under or over? You've seen what was done to have the edit function on Tiny Ted Right (and Tiny Ted Left would be just as easy), and it's only logical that you can put the function anywhere else that you want it. -- vk
No! Tiny Ted right had no function coded in it. So we could put in our function. That would be a whole different ball game with Tiny Ted left or the Page title who have functions already coded. In fact it is just impossible to do!
What you are saying is that if you put your own function on Tiny Ted Right, you can't then change what you've just put there to something else, which obviously isn't true. You can change what's already there. -- vk
BTW, you can first reduce the template to just $$BODY$$, then add whatever headers and footers you want, with whatever functionality you want. -- vk
I checked everywhere for EW's edit page. EW does not have an edit any page function. He mentions something in the meta-pages though.
Don't check "everywhere". Check Michel's home page! -- vk
About the reverse link function Michel has programmed this is a very promising feature. -- ra
Why not generalize it to any function? Then it's no longer so novel. Do you see why? -- vk
[No I fail to see how by restricting the scope of a concept you actually widen it! You tell me! You mean generalize the reverse link to any page. This way we could have an updated page of links. That would be great! You have to admit MichelVanDeWetering has coded great stuff totally in line with Eddie's work!
How can you possibly interpret "generalize it to any function" as meaning "restrict the scope of the concept"? Kindly don glasses and read what I stated again! -- vk
[I have worn my thickest glasses but yet I couldn't figure out what you meant. Enlighten me with your great vision, oh almighty guru! -- ra]
If what follows is too hard, try MathQuizOne instead.
The performer effect (or is it?) - a card trick with a difference...
The 'performer' provides any card-player with a deck of cards, and asks for it to be inspected, shuffled thoroughly, then cut and reassembled in a neat stack on the table.
The card-player does so.
The performer objects that one card is out of place - the shuffling wasn't thorough enough!
The card player declines to reshuffle.
The performer instructs the card player to inspect the cards.
The card-player does so.
The cards are found to be totally separated into red and black sections, except for one card, which is in the wrong section!
Impossible? No. Moreover, there is no pre-arranged collaboration or pre-ordering of the cards.
Enter my discussion room and guess the secret!
Note: an overhand shuffle consists of allowing a few cards at a time to slide from the top of the deck, held in one hand, into the other hand, continuing until all the cards are in the receiving hand. See illustration below. Unless stated otherwise, the cards are held face-down.
The above is an onlooker's description of what happens (kept short, but not unfairly omitting anything). Obviously, the performer occasionally omits his comment, and just blames any out-of-place card on the ineffective shuffling of the player! The card-player is not "in on the trick". -- VickiKerr
That's damned easy. The performer is the only one who knows she's in the Matrix, and collaborates with her cronies outside to reshuffle some nodes in the scene graph, at the last moment. -- BillKelly
Hmmmm - could be, but I'm certainly not aware of such collaboration. Also, recall that I specifically stated 'no prearranged collaboration'. -- VickiKerr
Drat. Well actually I was just looking for an excuse to use the phrase, "scene graph". Thanks. -- bk
I take it that this trick is reliably repeatable? If so it's a really lousy shuffle. -- AndrewMcMeikan
Come on, now - I have already stated the cards were thoroughly shuffled. -- VickiKerr
The cards must then be deliberately weighted in order to settle, no scrub that thought, the cards are actually intelligent and change their pattern to what's required. -- amc [More tea?]
Alright - can we rule out: a) the utilization of some non-standard deck of cards? I.e. this is a standard deck of playing cards, according to Hoyle (or whoever the authority is?); b) hypnotism? The player hasn't unwittingly been placed under hypnosis?; c) some sleight of hand involving wholesale swapping out the shuffled deck with the ordered one (I know, this should be covered by the "no pre-ordering" clause, but I want to make sure there's no loophole here.) -- BillKelly
Or easier perhaps all bar one of the black cards were simply very slightly bigger than the red cards given the overhand grip? That might well be hard to spot -- AndrewCates
Good thinking - I like the hypnotism idea. However, it would (a) require the card-player to be unknowingly "in on the trick", and (b) the onlookers would also need to have been hypnotized - somewhat impractical (and not the case). The cards are in view at all times, so they cannot be (and are not) swapped. They are the performer's cards, so you can't assume they are standard. However, they were in the card-player's hands and were inspected without problem. The printed designs are standard - and are seen under normal lighting conditions throughout. Each red card stays red, and each black card stays black. -- VickiKerr
I would suspect that the edges of the cards are shaped so that, when pushed against each other edge-to-edge, the black cards always slide over (or under) the red ones. Obviously the cards must be well shuffled for this process to fully separate the cards. -- DaveWhipp
I rejected this possibility because if you had a deck like that then the shuffler would be bound to notice that something really strange was happening, and the description gives the impression that that isn't so. (If it is so, that's fair enough - Vicki never said it was a complete description - but it's then a pretty useless card trick.) -- anon (?)
Now you're thinking logically at last. You are right to suspect the nature of the cards, but they handle (and look) sufficiently like normal cards to pass inspection, even by someone looking for something odd about them, or checking a red card against a black card, looking for differences. Your suggested design, if physically possible, would be rather easily noticed, especially when the cards were partially separated. The cards can be stacked neatly on the table (very neatly, in fact). The cards are not brand new, but are of good quality, and certainly not dog-eared. If you can implement your design, and duplicate the effect, I will accept your explanation as plausible, but it is not the intended secret. -- VickiKerr
Well, given that the cards don't change, and that there's no collaboration, it seems reasonable that some physical property is used to ensure that the cards order themselves whilst being shuffled. Weight and Shape were two obvious properties; perhaps texture is another: many substances are slippery in one direction only, so perhaps this could be utilised. It difficult to see how the effect should be big enough, without the difference being obvious from the light reflected off the sides of the sorted pack. Something tells me there's some other, obvious, trick that I'm missing.
It seems to me that the idea of self-ordering has a fundamental problem: the player might stop anytime. If he keeps shuffling and the cards eventually separate, then the next shuffle will need to be very odd in order to preserve this. Using a riffle shuffle, for example, the cards would have to come down in two big clumps, and that would surely be noticed. And of course, regardless of the order coming out of the shuffle, there's the final cut at the end.
You're making a whole load of false assumptions, which is why effects like this can be achieved. -- VickiKerr
I'd also note that it's impossible to have just one card out of place; you have to have at least two. If, say, a red card is in the middle of the black section, then the displaced black card must be somewhere in the red section. I assume the intention of the description is that it's either at the top or bottom of the red section, as appropriate.
11111111111110000010000000I agree, but it is reasonable to interpret my wording as intended. It all depends on the exact definition of 'in the wrong section'. -- VickiKerr
I'm still trying to figure yours out, Vicki, but in the meantime y'all might like to amuse yourselves with something a Web search turned up while I was gathering some intel on card tricks : http://realmagic.net/magic/. [Six cards replaced by five other cards - so what? -- VickiKerr]
Vicki, by "red and black sections" do you mean "one red section and one black section", or "one or more red sections and one or more black sections"? Also, may the card-player choose any method of shuffling he/she wishes?
[Good questions. See my reply below to WaldenMathews, Scott. Re the shuffling, the card-player cannot just choose as they like. The performer chooses the types of shuffle, which include some riffle shuffles, but are mainly overhand shuffles. No Hindu shuffles (too clumsy). The card-player can do as many extra overhand shuffles as they like. Riffle shuffles are not essential, but make the final effect more puzzling. One-handed and 'in-the-air' riffle shuffles are not allowed in case the cards are accidentally dropped! The instructions on shuffling are quite precise so that it is easily seen that sleight of hand is not used, and that the cards are thoroughly shuffled. -- VickiKerr]
The key seems to be the "neatness" of the stack. If the deck is such that each successive card is slightly smaller than the previous, then construction of a "neat stack" would reorder the cards into the appropriate pyramid-shaped stack, regardless of any previous shuffling (or any shuffling at all), also explaining the card-player's choice to decline a (futile) reshuffle. -- AndyPierce
From the dictionary... theism n. a morbid state resulting from overmuch tea-drinking. -- VickiKerr
I'm touring now.
__O _-\<,_ (_)/ (_)
Aren't you the author of a Java book? [No] -- MarkGrosberg (I think I have that book somewhere at work).
Either: she's been trying that trick for (52!)/(26!)(25!) minutes, and she just got lucky! Or: the red cards are (nearly) all slightly magnetized, with faces North pole, and the black cards are magnetized with faces South. Ollie Phant
Ok, what about the idea of using 51 red cards and 1 black? Is that breaking the rules? [There are 26 red cards and 26 black cards. -- vk]
The cards are found to be totally separated into red and black sections, except for one card, which is in the wrong section!
The number of red sections is somewhere between one and twenty-six, and the number of black sections is equal to the number of red sections, plus or minus one (but not more than twenty-six). The card that's out of place is a Joker (being that it's neither red nor black). The thoroughness of shuffle and card in the wrong section are not related as much as one might have thought.
If that's not it, I'll eat my hat. [Start eating. There are no jokers, and if one card is moved appropriately, there are then 26 red cards together and 26 black cards together, despite the shuffling. In a similar vein, the performer instructs much as originally, but shuffling is optional. Just one extra instruction: 'Concentrate hard on the ace of spades'. After the cut, the new top card is turned over - it's the ace of spades! (The secret is different, of course, but all the other cards are different values.) -- vk]
Hmmm - how about this: There's an accomplice hiding under the table that when no one is looking sorts the cards. [There's no accomplice.]
Or: The performer hands only 27 cards (26 red + 1 black) to the card player. When the card player places the partial deck on a neat pile on the table it is reunited with the 25 black cards. [The card player uses all the cards as originally described.]
Maybe the trick is that there is no trick at all and this is just a ploy by the CIA/the KGB/the Mafia/aliens/Dr. Evil/all of the above posing as Vicki Kerr to sap the mental energy of Wikizens by diverting them into useless endeavours. Perhaps there is no VickiKerr to begin with. If VickiKerr does not produce a satisfactory explanation toot-sweet then I would treat this as proof of Vicki Kerr's non-existence. So there!
[I exist! So does the 'trick'. Strange that no-one has even tried it. Use good cards. It's hardly likely to work first time, but just maybe... -- VickiKerr]
Vicki, don't we have a bit of paradox around the phrase "thoroughly shuffled"? -- WaldenMathews
No - it's not a semantic matter. I gave an onlooker's reasonable account, not a physicist's absolutely precise one. -- VickiKerr
About a paragraph or so of my discourse on why the semantics of "thoroughly shuffled" matters, and how that relates (ironically) to software testing, mysteriously disappeared from this spot. Nor did I find an email explaining this. Is this part of the "performer effect" as well? -- WaldenMathews
I shuffled a deck in accord with the instructions, and it didn't turn out that way. Now can I know the secret? -- RonJeffries
Please describe the deck you used. Do you have an identical deck? -- vk
Standard poker deck, plastic. I don't have another "identical" deck. I assume that's a hint. If I had one, what should I do with it? The description does not suggest that the performer inspects the cards, that s/he just asserts that a card is out of place. Does the performer touch the cards after handing them to the card player? [No]
I take it you mean plastic-coated cards. Anyway, a well-made linen-finish deck is recommended. If you have two such decks, try using the red cards from one deck and the black cards from the other to form a new deck, and use that. -- vk
In the apparently unlikely event that vk ever actually explains this trick, someone please post a note to my email. Thanks. -- rj
Maybe we can coax it out of her, the Wiki way. If you're not tired of Vicki's trick and want to keep trying, don't visit the page where Vicki gives a big hint: SolutionToVickisTrickyQuestion. If you're Vicki, please do visit said page and let nature take it's course. -- wm
Miscellaneous messages may be left below.
It seems clear that Vicki's contributions to Wiki constitute the VickiWikiWeb?. [They might not say when they're for fun!]
Thanks for handling the move of GameOfGo. -- mc
The beginning sequence of the cards is by suits with the like colors adjacent.
Switch the positions of the red and black cards in positions 26 and 27. Alternately move the bottom card to the top.
Shuffle 8 times - Assume perfect shuffle. (i.e. 26 cards in each hand are alternately released).
Brian, That breaks the rule that there is no pre-arranged ordering of the cards. I think the key points are that:
Vicki, can you give more details on what shuffle(s) the performer tells the punter to do? Does the performer do the final cut, or the punter? If it is the performer then it is relatively easily to separate out a tapered deck and make it look like a normal cut. No matter how well the deck is shuffled before the 'cut' it will end up with the cards separated the way the performer wants.
Actually I missed the instruction to cut the cards at the end. This removes the need to change the order of a new deck at all. Ordering by suits is the norm in a new deck. A high quality deck is relatively easy to shuffle this way. And if the card player punts the shuffle or cuts other than 1 or 51 the performer simply thanks him and does another trick. -- BrianWirthlin?
As just pointed out, the cards are not pre-ordered. The deck is not new. The cards are not tapered (that would be easily noticed). I've already stated that overhand shuffling predominates, but thanks for the observation that successive perfect riffle shuffles have such a special effect. Perfect (or near-perfect) riffle shuffles could hardly be demanded of the card-player, and are not involved. -- VickiKerr
Vicki seems to enjoy knowing something that no one else knows, and describing it in such a way that no one else can know it. I'm content with that. -- rj
Doh! I was close, but not right on. Nice trick :). -- RichardHenderson.
Well, a physical characteristic of the individual cards that might not be noticed is weight. One way to change the weight (and thickness) is to change the moisture content of one of the halves of the card deck (minus 1), either red or black. There'd be a number of ways to do this. I haven't tried it, but perhaps the weights cause an eventual self-sorting. Or perhaps the flexibility of the cards with higher moisture content do it. Flexibility, thickness? -- KirkKitchen
[The cards are kept dry and clean. They all have the same size and density (and hence mass). -- vk]
I personally know the fellow who claims he saw the trick. His name is Paul Barnes. (At least that's what he called himself at the time.) I know that he is a chronic liar. There never was any trick. I was sitting in a bar one day a couple of tables down from Paul. He was telling his story about the trick to woman named Vicki. She was totally buying it. He had her convinced that the trick really existed. This was before he took Vic for a whole bunch of money. Paul was clever that way. So now Vicki tells the story about the trick because it's her way of denying that this handsome, clever man could bilk her out of so much money. So don't trust her. She'll do anything to get you to believe that the trick exists because it's a real sore spot for her. -- KirkKitchen
Does the performer ever touch the deck, or does the card-player do everything? Could this trick be accomplished across closed-circuit TV with performer and card-player in different isolation booths?
[The performer is in control, but both can be isolated as described. -- vk]
Meaning the performer holds the deck or not? The description at the top makes it seems that everything is done by the card-player. The performer just talks.
The performer does not have to touch the deck; he talks, and can observe progress. -- vk
Has anyone ever actually performed this trick? If so, who?
Yes, I have. -- vk
Vicky, I've been searching with no success for your email address.
[Email address: mailto:Vicki%20Kerr%3Cmathspost@boltblue.com%3E?subject=MathQuizOne I will not necessarily reply by email.] -- vk
You suggested using a plastic coated deck combined with a linen deck, but if you did that, static electricity would form during any accurate rifle shuffling, causing the plastic coated cards to become charged, and the linen cards would then stick to them. Simply making all the black cards but one linen, and all the red cards and the remaining black card plastic would cause the deck to become ordered such that all the red cards and all the black cards were separated, with one black card being in the red deck. I'm still stuck on the cutting of the deck, and the subsequent reorder. but that is also why the folding shuffle would prevent the trick from working because the cards would separate. -- justken
I didn't suggest combining a linen half-deck with a plastic-coated half-deck. If static charge built up, the two types would adhere to each other, tending to cause the types to alternate rather than separate. -- VickiKerr
How about embedding little magnets in the cards? Incorrectly aligned polarity causes card to pop out of alignment. Acceptable ordering keeps the cards in alignment. Deck will not "shuffle thoroughly" if alignment is incorrect. Signed: 4-12-18-19
That could work. The magnets would need the right strength to have a slight effect, but too slight to be noticed during the inspection. However, the cards would need to be specially prepared - perhaps by splitting each card into two layers and reassembling with glue and ultra-thin magnets inserted - a magnet sandwich!
The actual method, whilst requiring some time and care, is a lot easier than that. -- vk
Well, how about if the cards were "face-up" all the time, so both people could see exactly what was going on?
How's this for a card trick? http://www.webshots.com/go?cardtrick
Darned if I can figure it out! -- MarkTilley
My Oxford English dictionary gives two meanings for shuffle regarding cards: intermingle & rearrange which means arrange anew.
1) shuffle any method but very slowly to ensure one can reverse the operation,
2) rearrange according to reversing instructions,
go again till the victim declines to ... reshuffle.
I should say that the original order is any order but must be known by the trickster. Then the instructions tend to arrange the deck with a perfect knowledge of its state at every moment.
Else my opinion is vk was dreaming when she did it.
Not dreamt, and impractical to follow and undo a riffle shuffle. The shuffles are not ultra-slow, so they can't be remembered in detail. -- vk
Ok, I'd anticipated such an answer and you are nearly done since you did not think of conversing with a robot.
Nevertheless last night I conversed with my robot and won the same game. See DragonRobot? for details.
The robot shuffles quickly and remembers all : this fact should show a step towards the solution.
I'd like to conclude, knowing that a sorting operation is a kind of shuffle : sorry if you couldn't do it quick that way, my robot did. Do you agree to the point that no premisses are lost in the process : this means that maybe you did it any other way but it can be done this way.
My point was that there is a subtle and hidden process or reordering as if the cards where chained with adhesive tape or rubber bands (only as if).
There is a hidden order, if not in the original deck, then in the shuffle method. I expect wiki people shall help to find more as they are computer-minded which equals to scientists and they practise more than I do.
Quite inventive, but not really consistent with my assertion that the onlooker's description was "kept short, but not unfairly omitting anything". -- vk
It doesn't fit all the criteria (plus in theory it should always work ;-), but an effect with a similar result would be to use slightly short half-cards (left side red, right side black), with a normal black card, plus a palmed black card in your left hand. After the cards are shuffled, triple cut the cards - the primary objective is to get the black card to the face (which is automagic since the first cut will find that card). The secondary objective is to get the palmed card into the top half of the cut deck (since it's a triple cut, you can control this since there are several variants - choice is made based on how far down the normal card is. Because it's effectively a long card, chances are that it will be fairly high up). With the backs toward the spectator, split the deck in half, and wave the top one slightly - suggest that their shuffle left one card out of order. At the same time, the top half of the deck undergoes a 180 degree rotation (it can be done in the action of separation). You then put both halves together and spread them - the top half will be black; the bottom half red except for one black card.
''If the cards are shuffled by the card-player, they could easily reveal the half-cards by accident. Important points are that the cards can be inspected and that all the handling is done by the card-player, who is not in on the trick. -- vk
I'm not very sure, but I would guess that the trick depends on a certain initial order of the cards, on the method of shuffling (as far as I understand, it is important that cards are always taken from the top or bottom of the stack, not from the middle and placed either at the top or at the bottom, not inserted in the middle) and on the color of the two cards where the stack was cut. The trick is based on scientific (more exactly, mathematical) principles, rather than sleight of hand, illusion or similar means. I'd like to mention that I didn't discover this by myself but I read of some game similar to this trick in a book by Martin Gardner when I was a kid. So, no credit for me, I'm just curious whether the above assumptions are true. -- RolfGruen
It was stated that there is no pre-ordering of the cards. In overhand shuffling, a few cards at a time (the precise number cannot be predetermined) are allowed to fall from the top of the cards held in one hand onto the top of the cards held in the receiving hand. -- vk
Link to another wiki - http://clublet.com/c/c/why?RecentChanges
Link to andstuff wiki - http://andstuff.org/wiki.php?RecentChanges
Were you tired when you wrote "framefork" instead of "framework" on AndStuffWiki recently? Possibly - I've corrected it now. Thanks. - vk
Are (Is) the performer and the cardplayer the same person? No.
Vicki, while refactoring the WikiCas?/CamelCase pages, I slightly changed one of your comments on Eddies Wiki Suggestions For Next Version. In the FreeLinks discussion, I changed "WikiCase" to CamelCase. If you distinguish between the two, please take a look the page. -- a WikiGnome
Vicki, background on my choosing .hta: Originally I used .html, with <frameset> and <frame>. Unfortunately, a .html file on the local computer couldn't discover the URL of an embedded frame on a remote site (cross-site scripting security precautions). So the "Edit" and "History" magic wouldn't work unless I hosted the file on andstuff.org, which I wasn't eager to do. But when you use .hta, IE allows the cross-site scripting. So .hta is IE-specific, but it allowed the "Edit" and "History" buttons to work without having to host the file myself. And as long as it was IE-specific, I figured it might as well use <iframe> instead of traditional frames.
If you're willing to do without the "Edit" and "History" buttons then the .html solution should be just fine.
Thanks. I did already know about the problem, but I didn't realize until yesterday that using .hta was a workaround for it, on IE at least. I've yet to discover to what extent the method can be tweaked to recover such things as the back and forward functions, and whether use of iframe is necessary (which would be easy to check). -- vk
I searched around a bit to try to figure out why browser history is lost in a .hta. I didn't find any helpful explanations or suggestions. If you right-click you'll see that Back and Forward are greyed out, suggesting that the history list isn't even kept. (I also tried a button action of "history.back();", which of course had no effect.) The best I can think of is to manually maintain a history list using the onreload handler of the iframe to discover whenever a new page is viewed. You can then create buttons to traverse this list. But that's more work than I felt like undertaking. :-)
The iframe isn't necessary, but as long as we've given up on other browsers it's more convenient. That's because with a frameset, the button bar needs to be in its own frame, which requires a second .html file.
Just take my congratulations on the static menu bar for either c2 or EddiesWiki. We are in your debt (as well as Scott's and Robert's, although it is pointless to say here on YOUR homepage). -- Michael
[No it is not pointless Michael to recognize credit everywhere! -- ar]
Thanks, but I still see it as a stopgap. Try using the browser refresh key to appreciate one of the drawbacks of using frames in this way. If you were referring to the Internet Explorer toolbar, that's a different matter. Try using that and see what you think. Just drag the existing links to the linksbar, and then drag the whole linksbar and drop it on the right of the menubar. You can use drag and drop to rearrange things as you want them. IM me on icq if you don't follow that. -- vk
I am still not on ICQ [maybe I can change that tonight] and I still value a static menu above some links (especially regarding the diff and edit functionality which can not be made with links - or am I mistaken?).
This page is just under the editing limit. -- vk
I have seen your site, Andrew. I originated MathQuizOne and "look after" it, so an "about" page isn't needed. There's only one question at a time. There are already other quiz pages (not devised by me) and some other pages on which open problems are discussed. You can find them via http:fullSearch?Search=CategoryMath.
Thanks for the speedy visit and correction to AboutLettertoPeter?. I had kind of assumed a few hours grace before the US woke up to get the wording right (I paraphrased rather than quoted from the book). Actually the bit I'd like to talk to you about sometime given your posts elsewhere is whether we should have another site to replace AndStuff and also whether you think the last bit of the book which is a poor attempt to present Christianity is worth working on. -- AndrewCates
I think a site to replace AndStuffWiki would be a good idea, but, like Scott, I'm too busy to host it. To reply to your closing question, I would need to know your aims in more detail. -- vk
On you comment on the name I don't mind either, and you are welcome to change them but I don't personally know why one form is better than another :o) A