*contest winner!*

Hello everyone! My 2000th post and one year on CT contest is over, and someone guessed the correct answer!!!

And the winner is...

rlm's cents

with a guess of 1539, which is the exact answer!

The prize has also been decided. Here's a pic:
1962 Red Book, AU Barr Note, & 1961-D & 1964 Quarters:


Thanks to everyone who guessed!



To rlm: please PM me your mailing address to receive your prize!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Congrats rlm!

 

Congrats Richard!!!

 

Congr. Richard

 

Thanks - with comments.

First, that is not a 1961 Red Book. The 14th edition is 1961 (as pictured below). That would make the 15th edition (as you pictured) 1962.
Second, I was pretty sure I won since you gave the answer in post #60 - or more specifically, you said it was one of two numbers. I could have been 8 over and 30 under or 8 under and 30 over.
Third, please pass these on to the closest YN. As best I can see, GoldenFire's list is still accurate for 1400 - 1700 numbers. I will get back with you.

 

Congratulations Rim's Cents!And again thanks for the contest Coinmaster1Lucy

 

Thanks for the contest.

I felicitate you for the victory, anyway.
During the 27th of July, I sent him a private message about it:

 

One slight problem. The answer could have been 1961
snewman 1531
+30
1561
+8
CameroDMD 1569

 

You made me laugh.
1561 would only be correct if you count backwards. If I count until 2000, and the correct number is 1561, then I would say "an account is within 30 numbers, and another account is within eight numbers"; however, coinmaster1 specified "within eight numbers" and then "within 30 [numbers]". If we consider coinmaster1's words and a possible answer as 1561, then the OP would have been obliged to openly exclude some things. If he doesn't close his words adequately, and the correct number is 1561...something is incorrect. I don't have evidence right now, but might acquire it soon.

 

Congrats rlm!

 

He does not specify which number is above nor which is below

Using 1561, CameroDMD is within eight numbers of the correct answer!!! There isn't a second place prize, but the person who holds second (snewman) is within 30!!!. Those are absolutely correct statements for the number 1561 and direct quotes from coinmaster1's original posting. There is no inference of which direction either 8 or 30 is from the number.

 

Congrats!!!!!:smile

 

Well, since I cannot determine who is a YN and who isn't, I am declaring snewman as our new winner, with a guess of 1531.

Thank you, GoldenFire for creating the list, and thank you rlm for donating your prize.

 

Coinmaster, thanks again for the contest.

Congratulations to rlm’s cents for guessing the correct number, and snewman for winning the prize! :yes:

 

Whoa man, according to the CoinTalk rules:

"Any words that wouldn't have been aired in a 1950s television show, are unwelcome here as well." You're throwing out too many big words, and because I don't understand them I'm going to have to take them as disrespect.

Just kidding of course! That's quite the lexicon you possess!

 

Thanks to all! Didn't figure there was a chance, but maybe I have a future in Vegas now..

"pick a number between 1 and 10."
"3."
"Wrong."
"Doh..."

snewman

 

Congrats snewman

 

Congrats snewman!!!!!!!!! Enjoy your prizes, =)

 

rlm's cents,
I don't have evidence; though, I'll limit myself to a brief summary of my initial thoughts.

The separation of "1531" and "1569" from the base of possible winners, is irrelevant. If separated from their original base, both numbers acquire the same weight (making them interchangeable). If they are maintained within their base, the following prevails over the condition of "same weight":
1. first reported and first place, would represent a disequilibrium that amalgamates itself to naturalness and some type of logic.
1a. By naturalness and various mathematical fields: "reported first but further" maintains less weight than "reported first and closer"; therefore, they are not interchangeable. (Clarification: my anterior words are not fallacious.)

"someone is within eight numbers of the correct answer", and then "the person who holds second [place] is within 30 [numbers]."
The order in which "within eight" and "within 30" were introduced, is quite clear. Teach an infant to count until 30 and, while including two numbers (highest number last), tell it anything that possesses direct relation to the two numbers. By naturalness, the creature shouldn't consider your second number as a commencement of a possible deduction. (One should specify the composition of "A", before explaining "B"; if one projects in the contrary manner, part of our prefrontal cortex should help compose "A" in order to comprehend "B".) An example of something truly interchangeable, would be the following:
- you offer me an inconsistent dialogue to the naturalness and/or a certain type of logic.
-- if I adhere myself to your style: you oblige me to play with something open that is clearly exposed to being closed by naturalness and/or some type of logic.
-- invalid possibility for an equation, but correct: if no one locks, nothing occurs.
- I offer you a consistent dialogue to the naturalness and/or a certain type of logic.
-- if you adhere yourself to my style: I oblige you to play with something close that is clearly not exposed to being opened by naturalness and/or some type of logic.
-- invalid possibility for an equation, but correct: if someone locks, nothing occurs.

Furthermore: one shouldn't suppose something discarded by naturalness and logic (of some type), to discard that something cannot be part of naturalness and logic at a same "time". Therefore, you are deforming the nature of what has been said. In contrast to my anteriorly mentioned words: would you believe that second-order logic should be a direct extension for first-order logic? (Be careful about possible inconsistencies.)
If I radio: "our main suspect took the third exit, going north from my current location", and "another possible suspect took my closest exit"...based on what rational field should they not hang me? In this case, I can grant myself the pleasure to ignore a same variable of naturalness.


Salutations.



[HR][/HR]

You do have a future in Vegas.

 

@Porsche: Wow