Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2g.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!houxm!hou2g!stekas From: stekas@hou2g.UUCP (J.STEKAS) Newsgroups: net.puzzle Subject: Balls in the bowl: One Last time. Message-ID: <186@hou2g.UUCP> Date: Thu, 1-Mar-84 17:39:46 EST Article-I.D.: hou2g.186 Posted: Thu Mar 1 17:39:46 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Mar-84 07:36:54 EST References: <220@pucc-i> <178@hou2g.UUCP>, <224@pucc-i> <181@hou2g.UUCP>, <227@pucc-i> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 15 >The numbered-balls argument gives an ambiguous answer to the (100 in, 1 out) >problem because the PROBLEM is faulty, not because the ANALYSIS is faulty. Ok, Dave. I yield to your loquacious ventings, but there are problems with both our methods as apllied to this problem. Since the # of balls is well defined only on [11:59, 12:00), taking the limit can't tell me what the state is at 12:00. But the numbering technique cannot be used unless the precise order of removing the balls is known, and that information wasn't available (faulty probelm?). Of course, unless your Alice in Wonderland you won't run up against such a problem too often. Jim