Entries:
Posts:

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

# Tired of Sudoku?

• Oops, something didn't work.

Getting "follow" information
•    A  B  C  D
1  *  *  *  *  17
2  *  *  *  *  32
3  *  *  *  *  36
4  *  *  *  *  51
17 26 42 51

ed. clarification: each number you put in the grid must be unique (in the entire grid of *'s) positive integer.

• I immediately thought of the Transportation Algorithm when I saw that grid... except it's lacking Cost sub-cells.

But with that in mind, is this the solution (using the North-Western method)?

 A B C D Supply 1 17 17 2 26 6 32 3 36 36 4 51 51 Demand 17 26 42 51 136=136 therefore balanced

No cost data is provided, so I can't look for Improvement Indecies

Tell me I've got the wrong end of the stick, right?

• I would have thought the problem were simply to place numbers into the matrix (or grid), such that they sum to the indicated (along the side [and bottom {of the matrix}]) values.

This would be my solution (I believe it satisfies my interpretation of the puzzle):

1|3, 4, 5, 5
2|4, 5, 11, 12
3|5, 14, 6, 11
4|5, 3, 20, 23

(Format: A, B, C, D).

Angus Higgins

• Angus wrote:
﻿I would have thought the problem were simply to place numbers into the matrix (or grid),...

You're not hinting that W3bbo chose the most complicated interpretation possible are you? [6]

• Rossj wrote:
﻿
 Angus wrote: ﻿I would have thought the problem were simply to place numbers into the matrix (or grid),...

You're not hinting that W3bbo chose the most complicated interpretation possible are you?

No. I suppose (through the use of "simply") that I was suggesting that my interpretation was an easier one than W3bbo's. (I don't think it [the interpretation of "W3bbo"] is the most complex [however]).

Angus Higgins

• androidi wrote:
﻿

A  B  C  D
1  *  *  *  *  17
2  *  *  *  *  32
3  *  *  *  *  36
4  *  *  *  *  51
17 26 42 51

Sorry for bumping, but what's the question, exactly?

• Angus wrote:
﻿No. I suppose (through the use of "simply") that I was suggesting that my interpretation was an easier one than W3bbo's. (I don't think it [the interpretation of "W3bbo"] is the most complex [however]).

You've been metaconversing a lot for the past few months, ever considered a job as a sports commentator?

• W3bbo wrote:
﻿
 Angus wrote: ﻿No. I suppose (through the use of "simply") that I was suggesting that my interpretation was an easier one than W3bbo's. (I don't think it [the interpretation of "W3bbo"] is the most complex [however]).

You've been metaconversing a lot for the past few months, ever considered a job as a sports commentator?

I am sorry that I must admit ignorance to the term "metaconversing". (If you could explain it to me, I believe that the probability of my being able [if that is correct {grammatically}] to answer the question would increase).

Angus Higgins

• Angus wrote:
﻿
W3bbo wrote:
﻿
 Angus wrote: ﻿No. I suppose (through the use of "simply") that I was suggesting that my interpretation was an easier one than W3bbo's. (I don't think it [the interpretation of "W3bbo"] is the most complex [however]).

You've been metaconversing a lot for the past few months, ever considered a job as a sports commentator?

I am sorry that I must admit ignorance to the term "metaconversing". (If you could explain it to me, I believe that the probability of my being able [if that is correct {grammatically}] to answer the question would increase).

Heh.

Your parenthetical (and even metaparenthetical) remarks never cease to amuse me

Just stop waffling and get to the point, because it's getting to be a pain to comprehend your posts. And if you've got a lengthy interjection to make, use footnotes[1], since they don't break up the message.

For instance, I could rephrase what you wrote as:

Angus wrote:
﻿
Sorry, but can you define "metaconversing"?

...and it has the same amount of meaning, with zero waffle.

And to answer your question: "meta" has a recursive definition, I find it easier to explain it by example. Metadata is "data about data" (like EXIF tags for images, or ID3 tags for MP3 files). "Metapolice" would be those who "police the police". Metadata about metadata is metadata itself, so it's recursive in this respect.

Thus, a "metaconversation" is a conversation about a conversation, or a conversation involving another conversation. In my case, I'm criticising your incessant ability to write about what you're writing in your parenthetical remarks - then remark about those in another level deep of parenthesis.

[1]Like this

• It is an improved method of communication (and also the way I think):

The “bracket system”, or “bracketing system” (as named by myself).

One of the major hindrances (I believe) of communication (in both verbal, and written forms) is the ambiguity of the content. (How can one understand a text [for example] if it is ambiguous?).

I have developed (and implemented) a system (the “bracket system”, or “bracketing system” [as named by myself]) which can help to combat this (thus bringing much more efficient means of communication).

I have found (generally through communication on Internet forums [but also in verbal communication {in increased proportion (it seems)}]) that there can be many problems if one does not include detail in communication. If one does not have detail in a communication, it is then possible for a piece of text (for example) to be misunderstood (and thus cause some form of argument [or incorrect discussion {which decreases efficiency}]).

The problem one has to solve (to combat this issue [or attempt to combat it]) is developing a humanly readable way to contain detail. This already exists (written text [in normal form]). I have found (through experience) that this is a rather inefficient method (for the reader) to communicate. Some information is vitally important to the reader (in order that they understand the communication [a text {for example}]), and other information is not as important to the reader (if they plan on reading the information [and not necessarily making any analytical points upon it]).

One can group data in order to judge how important it is to the reader (in terms of the aforementioned actions [in other terms, one must ensure that there is a category {or group} for data that it essential, a category {or group} for data that is less essential, and so on.]). Groups are useful in this sense (I believe) as one can easily handle a large text (as a set of groups), and format accordingly.

It is a good idea to use some form of separator which does not imply a specific reading method (in other terms, using a comma [as opposed to a “bracket”] would be a bad idea as it implies that one should read the text which immediately succeeds it [thus negating the increased efficiency possible with such a system {as the “bracket system”, or “bracketing system” (as named by myself)}]).

The use of “brackets” (I find) is the best method. It encapsulates (so to speak) the text in a manner which does not imply a specific method of reading. (It is noteworthy [perhaps imperative {at this point}] that the reading of “brackets” should be changed after the reading of this text. One is expected to grasp the concept that the brackets are optional for people [in some cases]).

The choice of “brackets” has been made such that efficiency is (hopefully) increased in the writer. Text which is important to the reader (in other terms, text that has a value of importance to the reader which is above the threshold value [in the opinion of the writer] of importance for it to be mandatory [in a sense] to read) is placed as normal text would be (in other terms, without “brackets”). Text which is the next most important (in other terms, falls into the second group of importance) will be placed in the “()” “brackets”. This choice was made as people tend to use these “brackets” in normal text, and due to the greater probability of the second importance-level of text being used, than the third (for example), it seems logical to use these “brackets”.

Text which can be placed into the third group of importance are placed into the “[]” “brackets”. This is because if one compares it to the “{}” “brackets” (explained later in this text), one can see that when one types these (or, in fact, writes them), it is a much easier task. This means that they (the “[]” “brackets”) are used for the third group of text, because it has a greater probability of occurring that the fourth group (for example).

The fourth group of text (rather self-evidently, uses the “{}” “brackets”). (One should repeat the “([{}])” thereafter [for further levels]).

The idea behind the “bracket system”, or “bracketing system” (as named by myself) is not necessarily for every reader to read all of the text. If one has a lot of time, (and possibly wants to comment upon the text [in an analytical manner {for example}]), one should read all the text. If one does not have the time in which to read the whole text, (and possibly [therefore], does not have the time to comment upon the text), one should simply read the up to the necessary level of “brackets” (such that time is used efficiently [and the basic meaning of the text is understood]).

A person who has not the time to read the text entirely, should not comment upon it (until they have read all the detail).

This can solve the problem of arguments occurring due to misunderstanding of text (for example, [there are other problems that this solves {I cite arguments for simplicity of explanation}]). If a person has access to the extra detail, this person does not have to ask for it, or assume the writer did not include it through ignorance (for example), which would cause an argument (or unnecessary debate).

The “brackets” could be treated (by a user who intends to read the text entirely) like commas (in other terms, they can attribute the same implied reading style [as commas] to the “brackets”). It is not useful (as previously mentioned) for the writer to replace the “brackets” with commas though, as this negates the possible increase in efficiency for the reader.

(The above text was written [disregarding the first line] for another forum [it should explain the system]).

Angus Higgins

• Angus wrote:
﻿It is an improved method of communication (and also the way I think):

The “bracket system”, or “bracketing system” (as named by myself).

One of the major hindrances (I believe) of communication (in both verbal, and written forms) is the ambiguity of the content. (How can one understand a text [for example] if it is ambiguous?).

I have developed (and implemented) a system (the “bracket system”, or “bracketing system” [as named by myself]) which can help to combat this (thus bringing much more efficient means of communication).

I have found (generally through communication on Internet forums [but also in verbal communication {in increased proportion (it seems)}]) that there can be many problems if one does not include detail in communication. If one does not have detail in a communication, it is then possible for a piece of text (for example) to be misunderstood (and thus cause some form of argument [or incorrect discussion {which decreases efficiency}]).

The problem one has to solve (to combat this issue [or attempt to combat it]) is developing a humanly readable way to contain detail. This already exists (written text [in normal form]). I have found (through experience) that this is a rather inefficient method (for the reader) to communicate. Some information is vitally important to the reader (in order that they understand the communication [a text {for example}]), and other information is not as important to the reader (if they plan on reading the information [and not necessarily making any analytical points upon it]).

One can group data in order to judge how important it is to the reader (in terms of the aforementioned actions [in other terms, one must ensure that there is a category {or group} for data that it essential, a category {or group} for data that is less essential, and so on.]). Groups are useful in this sense (I believe) as one can easily handle a large text (as a set of groups), and format accordingly.

It is a good idea to use some form of separator which does not imply a specific reading method (in other terms, using a comma [as opposed to a “bracket”] would be a bad idea as it implies that one should read the text which immediately succeeds it [thus negating the increased efficiency possible with such a system {as the “bracket system”, or “bracketing system” (as named by myself)}]).

The use of “brackets” (I find) is the best method. It encapsulates (so to speak) the text in a manner which does not imply a specific method of reading. (It is noteworthy [perhaps imperative {at this point}] that the reading of “brackets” should be changed after the reading of this text. One is expected to grasp the concept that the brackets are optional for people [in some cases]).

The choice of “brackets” has been made such that efficiency is (hopefully) increased in the writer. Text which is important to the reader (in other terms, text that has a value of importance to the reader which is above the threshold value [in the opinion of the writer] of importance for it to be mandatory [in a sense] to read) is placed as normal text would be (in other terms, without “brackets”). Text which is the next most important (in other terms, falls into the second group of importance) will be placed in the “()” “brackets”. This choice was made as people tend to use these “brackets” in normal text, and due to the greater probability of the second importance-level of text being used, than the third (for example), it seems logical to use these “brackets”.

Text which can be placed into the third group of importance are placed into the “[]” “brackets”. This is because if one compares it to the “{}” “brackets” (explained later in this text), one can see that when one types these (or, in fact, writes them), it is a much easier task. This means that they (the “[]” “brackets”) are used for the third group of text, because it has a greater probability of occurring that the fourth group (for example).

The fourth group of text (rather self-evidently, uses the “{}” “brackets”). (One should repeat the “([{}])” thereafter [for further levels]).

The idea behind the “bracket system”, or “bracketing system” (as named by myself) is not necessarily for every reader to read all of the text. If one has a lot of time, (and possibly wants to comment upon the text [in an analytical manner {for example}]), one should read all the text. If one does not have the time in which to read the whole text, (and possibly [therefore], does not have the time to comment upon the text), one should simply read the up to the necessary level of “brackets” (such that time is used efficiently [and the basic meaning of the text is understood]).

A person who has not the time to read the text entirely, should not comment upon it (until they have read all the detail).

This can solve the problem of arguments occurring due to misunderstanding of text (for example, [there are other problems that this solves {I cite arguments for simplicity of explanation}]). If a person has access to the extra detail, this person does not have to ask for it, or assume the writer did not include it through ignorance (for example), which would cause an argument (or unnecessary debate).

The “brackets” could be treated (by a user who intends to read the text entirely) like commas (in other terms, they can attribute the same implied reading style [as commas] to the “brackets”). It is not useful (as previously mentioned) for the writer to replace the “brackets” with commas though, as this negates the possible increase in efficiency for the reader.

(The above text was written [disregarding the first line] for another forum [it should explain the system]).

Angus Higgins

ROFL!

(TL;DR btw)

Angus.... you'll never learn

• W3bbo wrote:
﻿

ROFL!

(TL;DR btw)

Angus.... you'll never learn

What will I never learn? (I have had negative responses on the forum for which this text was written [I do not understand why]).

Angus Higgins

• Using brackets in any kind of formal writing is considered bad style. Your post is a perfect example of why: it severely hampers readability.

Honestly, I feel like I'm getting a mental hernia trying to understand the flow of your post.

They're almost as bad as Jamie's, which have no flow at all.

• I should have mentioned that each number you put in the grid must be unique (in the entire grid) positive integer. There's only one solution and additional challenge is to prove that. Other than that, Angus was right in his first reply.

• Sven Groot wrote:
﻿Using brackets in any kind of formal writing is considered bad style. Your post is a perfect example of why: it severely hampers readability.

Honestly, I feel like I'm getting a mental hernia trying to understand the flow of your post.

They're almost as bad as Jamie's, which have no flow at all.

The "brackets" are merely seperators (it is not intended for them to denote any particular reading-style [as such]). (The system itself is far superior to the current system [leaving less ambiguosity, etc. {for more information, read the short description I gave in a previous post}]).

Angus Higgins

• Angus wrote:
﻿
 Sven Groot wrote: ﻿Using brackets in any kind of formal writing is considered bad style. Your post is a perfect example of why: it severely hampers readability. Honestly, I feel like I'm getting a mental hernia trying to understand the flow of your post. They're almost as bad as Jamie's, which have no flow at all.

The "brackets" are merely seperators (it is not intended for them to denote any particular reading-style [as such]). (The system itself is far superior to the current system [leaving less ambiguosity, etc. {for more information, read the short description I gave in a previous post}]).

That just gives me a headache. If they are "merely separators", what is the advantage over merely using commas, colons and semi-colons the way they are meant to be used? Don't just say they are superior, explain why they are superior.

To me, your bracket style is confusing. Brackets are meant to indicate asides, information separate from the main text. That's not how you appear to be using them, though. It completely throws off the flow of your text.

The description in your previous post did not manage to convince me, especially because the evidence is right there: I repeat, your posts are even harder to read than Jamie's, and his often don't have any structure whatsoever.

Language really only works because we all sort of agree on what things mean. Inventing new constructs by yourself doesn't really work in that context.

EDIT: You're also mixing both uses of brackets, sometimes even in the same sentence, which further confuses things. For example: "If one has a lot of time, (and possibly wants to comment upon the text [in an analytical manner {for example}]), one should read all the text." In this case, I am apparently meant to read the () as part of the normal sentence flow (which incidentally leaves two incorrect commas in the sentence if we take the bracketed part out), which is also the case for the [] brackets. However, the {} brackets are apparently used as regular brackets, as the "for example" does not fit into the regular flow of the sentence there.

To make sense out of your text, I must either choose to ignore the brackets altogether, which I cannot do because you sometimes put text in there that isn't part of the regular sentence flow, or I must treat the brackets as normal brackets, which I also cannot do because their overuse and nesting levels cause me to have to jump back and forth to try and make sense of the structure of the sentence.

In simpler terms, I cannot comfortably read your text. Maybe your brain is much more linguistically advanced than mine (God knows I suck at languages) but I would ask of you that you would be considerate of us lesser mortals and please stop using this confusing writing style.

• Sven Groot wrote:
﻿
That just gives me a headache. If they are "merely separators", what is the advantage over merely using commas, colons and semi-colons the way they are meant to be used? Don't just say they are superior, explain why they are superior.

Commas, Semi-colons (etc.) all have some form of reading-style (in that the text immediately succeeding them must be read in a certain manner). It is not the dersier of Angus to change this. He merely aims to improve efficiency.

The "bracket system", or "bracketing system" (as named by myself) is merely a method of conveying the thoughts of a person (throughout the post) in such a way that ambiguity is reduced (thus increasing the efficiency [overall]). How many times have you observed an argument whose cause is simply a misunderstanding? (The "bracket system", or "bracketing system" [as named by myself] combats this [and reduces the statistical probability of the existence of these misunderstandings]).

Sven Groot wrote:
﻿
To me, your bracket style is confusing. Brackets are meant to indicate asides, information separate from the main text. That's not how you appear to be using them, though. It completely throws off the flow of your text.

This is something that people say, but I do not understand. (When I read a post [or text {I find}] that is formatted properly [according the the "bracket system", or "bracketing system" {as named by myself}], it is much easier to understand [due to lack of ambiguity {etc.}] than a "normal" post).

Sven Groot wrote:
﻿
The description in your previous post did not manage to convince me, especially because the evidence is right there: I repeat, your posts are even harder to read than Jamie's, and his often don't have any structure whatsoever.

Language really only works because we all sort of agree on what things mean. Inventing new constructs by yourself doesn't really work in that context.

I am just trying to increase the efficiency (through reduction of ambiguity) of communication. (I have had many, many disucssions [which all end up with many bad posts {from other people} regarding the "bracket system", or "bracketing system" {as named by myself}], and as such, I do understand the system very well, and I have thought about the system [which is merely an more direct parsing of my thoughts {in some senses}] for a lot of time).

Sven Groot wrote:
﻿
In simpler terms, I cannot comfortably read your text. Maybe your brain is much more linguistically advanced than mine (God knows I suck at languages) but I would ask of you that you would be considerate of us lesser mortals and please stop using this confusing writing style.

I do not like communicating outside of the Internet (much of the time). I do emplore, however, that you do not argue with me about this (too much). (Channel 9 is the last forum [on which I am an active member] which does not seem to have a cohort of members, whose goal is to meticulously analyse every post [seemingly] that I make).

Angus Higgins

• Angus wrote:
﻿
 Sven Groot wrote: ﻿ That just gives me a headache. If they are "merely separators", what is the advantage over merely using commas, colons and semi-colons the way they are meant to be used? Don't just say they are superior, explain why they are superior.

Commas, Semi-colons (etc.) all have some form of reading-style (in that the text immediately succeeding them must be read in a certain manner). It is not the dersier of Angus to change this. He merely aims to improve efficiency.

Referring to yourself in the third person is the first sign of delusion.

Angus wrote:
The "bracket system", or "bracketing system" (as named by myself) is merely a method of conveying the thoughts of a person (throughout the post) in such a way that ambiguity is reduced (thus increasing the efficiency [overall]).

I find that, for me, it vastly reduces the efficiency since it takes me way more time to read the tangled spaghetti that your post appears to be. Furthermore, I do not see how ambiguity is helped by this, as you're conveying exactly the same information, just with more pointless punctuation around it.

Angus wrote:
How many times have you observed an argument whose cause is simply a misunderstanding? (The "bracket system", or "bracketing system" [as named by myself] combats this [and reduces the statistical probability of the existence of these misunderstandings]).

Yes, I have seen this many times. I however do not see how this bracket system helps in any way to prevent that. That is what you need to convince me of. You need to provide proof of this assertion that it reduces the statistical probability of misunderstandings. In fact, by going against established rules of sentence structure and punctuation, I would argue that your system increases the chances of misunderstanding.

Angus wrote:
This is something that people say, but I do not understand. (When I read a post [or text {I find}] that is formatted properly [according the the "bracket system", or "bracketing system" {as named by myself}], it is much easier to understand [due to lack of ambiguity {etc.}] than a "normal" post).

No, it is much, much harder to understand for me than a normal post, probably because I didn't invent this bracketing system. As I said, language only works through mutual agreement. A system only you fully comprehend isn't benefitting anyone.

So explain to me precisely how this system is supposed to decrease ambiguity. I'm just not seeing it.