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