Page 1 of 38

Counting - discussion thread

Posted: 31 Jul 2013, 08:16
by GuyBarry
I hope Tubeguru doesn't mind if I open a separate thread for comments on the counting game. This is here so that you can comment on any issues arising from that thread without disrupting the sequence of posts. It is NOT meant for general chit-chat on other things!

First of all, thanks very much to Tubeguru for getting the game going again - obviously there were a few teething troubles, but I think that once the new rules are firmly bedded down there shouldn't be any significant further problems with it. The topics are becoming more diverse and I'd like to compliment all the other players on their interesting contributions. Thanks also to The Orange One (aka all545londonbuses) for his correction regarding Doctor Who/Torchwood.

Regarding the Mozart piano concerto mentioned (K. 467), it became known as the "Elvira Madigan" concerto after the use of the slow movement in the 1967 Swedish film of the same name.

Should there be some way of challenging if another player believes the information to be wrong? At the moment there's nothing to stop someone from writing something like "the distance from London to Edinburgh is 473 miles" if they want to. I try to make a point of including links to sources in my posts, not just so the information can be verified but also so that the curious can find out more.

Re: Counting - discussion thread

Posted: 31 Jul 2013, 08:18
by tubeguru
GuyBarry wrote:Should there be some way of challenging if another player believes the information to be wrong? At the moment there's nothing to stop someone from writing something like "the distance from London to Edinburgh is 473 miles" if they want to. I try to make a point of including links to sources in my posts, not just so the information can be verified but also so that the curious can find out more.
Yeah - you can all argue about it in here!

Re: Counting - discussion thread

Posted: 31 Jul 2013, 10:09
by GuyBarry
Good idea. Incidentally, I see they're playing a similar game on the QI Forum - but they're only up to 339!

Re: Counting - discussion thread

Posted: 31 Jul 2013, 19:30
by GuyBarry
Postscript to RobbieM's remarks about the telephone system in Hull (taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCOM_Group)

On 22 August 1902, Hull Corporation (which later became Hull City Council) was granted a licence under the Telegraph Act 1899 to operate a municipal telephone system in the Kingston upon Hull area, opening its first telephone exchange on 28 November 1904 at the former Trippett Street Baths.

At the time, there were a number of such municipal telephone companies around the UK, all of which – with the exception of the one in Hull – were gradually absorbed into the Post Office Telephone department, which was subsequently to become British Telecom (BT).

Hull's bid to renew its licence in 1914 was made conditional on the £192,000 purchase of National Telephone Company infrastructure in the city. The council gave its approval, securing the future of the country's only remaining municipally owned telephone corporation.

The first Rotary automatic exchange opened in 1922, and from 1934 Strowger exchanges were installed. Rotary and Strowger exchanges were operated to 1975 and 1988 respectively, and two Crossbar exchanges to 1989, when the network became fully digital.

Hull has therefore remained an exception within the UK telephone network, being the only place in the UK not served by BT and is noted for its distinctive cream coloured telephone boxes and innovative services, for example becoming the UK's first fully digital network in 1989 using Marconi System X telephone switches (Central Offices or Class 5 switches).

The Company was first listed on the London Stock Exchange in 1999.

Re: Counting - discussion thread

Posted: 31 Jul 2013, 19:43
by Sam
It seems I am more adapted to destroying the counting thread than taking part ;)

Re: Counting - discussion thread

Posted: 31 Jul 2013, 19:47
by RobbieM
Sam wrote:It seems I am more adapted to destroying the counting thread than taking part ;)
Vandal.

Re: Counting - discussion thread

Posted: 31 Jul 2013, 19:49
by RobbieM
GuyBarry wrote:Bear with me on this one:
1/3 = 0.33333333333... The repeating part is 3, and 3 divides 3. When does this next happen?
1/487 = 0.00205338809034... The repeating part is too long to write out, but 487 divides into it.
The only other number for which this property is known is 56598313.
I do wonder though, who on earth worked these obscure facts out, and precisely, just WHY?

Re: Counting - discussion thread

Posted: 31 Jul 2013, 19:49
by tubeguru
The trouble is that it takes so long to make a post that someone else has nipped in first.

Re: Counting - discussion thread

Posted: 31 Jul 2013, 19:58
by GuyBarry
You need to get your facts prepared in advance like I do :wink:

Re: Counting - discussion thread

Posted: 31 Jul 2013, 20:03
by RobbieM
And me, but I still managed to miss 490 whilst researching train times around the Kingston-Upon-Hull area...

Re: Counting - discussion thread

Posted: 31 Jul 2013, 20:04
by The Orange One
Good idea to have some numbers in your head and stop posting when you are approaching them.

Re: Counting - discussion thread

Posted: 31 Jul 2013, 20:09
by RobbieM
Orange One - you should be taking 493 right now, surely?

Re: Counting - discussion thread

Posted: 31 Jul 2013, 22:00
by The Orange One
I missed 493. This is only temporary though.

On the buses theme, I'm hoping for 521, 549 and 607. Also hoping for 507, but on a different theme entirely.

Re: Counting - discussion thread

Posted: 01 Aug 2013, 09:38
by GuyBarry
I try to have something prepared for every number that could come up, although some of the provisional entries are a lot better than others. You should be relieved that 478 Days in a Hotel Bathroom never made it into the actual game :roll:

Re: Counting - discussion thread

Posted: 01 Aug 2013, 17:07
by tubeguru
Tractakid's 514 was not an "invalid" post. The rules do not say that the explanation/info on each number has to be correct.

He mentioned 514, so it was valid.

So, to recap - posts cannot be invalid if the information about them is wrong. A post is only invalid if it breaks one of the rules.