I am listening to the podcast 372 Pages We’ll Never Get Back. In episode 1-8 they discuss Ready Player One.

372 Pages We’ll Never Get Back

Real or fanfic

The spreadsheet ! If you’ve seen it before: Now it has more formulas!

These next numbers can’t quite be trusted, as I haven’t got all the numbers. But the calculations are in place.

Summary of important advice

Consistency, continuity.

• An apocalyptic society with astounding delivery service.
• Genius takes forever to solve easy puzzle. Genius is stupid.
• Claiming to have done a task, that would take an impossibly long time.
• Anachronisms.
• The reason for Daito’s name.
• Suddenly changing style and using big words.
• Basing a book on quotes and references and then berating a guy for stealing a design.
• Going outside is overrated / reality is real.
• Halliday is a hero but also a monster?

Be exciting. Have stakes.

• Don’t interrupt the action with a flashforward.
• Don’t interrupt the big climax to tell us what happened seconds before.
• Don’t let the climax be an easy puzzle.
• Infinite ammo.
• No, action in a computer isn’t action.

Flow. Chekhov’s gun.

• Suddenly having a long talk about atheism.
• Masturbation screed.
• Deus ex machina.

Originality.

• Using clichés.
• Being boring.
• Drop Cops.
• Inventing new, bad ways to describe things.

Realism. Being human.

• The Sorentos walk: Walking for minutes without responding to a statement.
• 100s have died, nobody’s looking for survivors, jokes are told.
• Stereotypical Japanese.
• A ticking clock, nobody’s paying attention to it.
• There’s life, death and a fortune, and then a prize is chosen based on feelings.
• All big companies are evil?
• Art3mis changes her mind in seconds.
• Hinting at growth, that didn’t actually occur.

Variety.

• Repeating information too much.
• Repetition of phrases.
  • Cheshire smile.
  • Classic.

Details: not too many, not too few.

• Being weirdly specific, for no purpose, and not making sense. (Toothpaste.)
• Doing “it was like (vague example)”.
• Retelling Blade Runner.

Use words and phrases correctly.

• Using a “new” word that exists already with a very different definition.
• Seem to.
• I can only describe this as…
• Cheshire smile.
• Classic.
• Common technical language.
• A silent cheer.
• Geek film.

Ep. 1, intro + ch. 1-3

Advice

• ❎ Describing A by saying it’s like B. A variety of 80s dance moves.
• ❎ Cliche
• ❎ Repetitiveness
• ❎ Using a word already having a meaning. Gunter.
• ❎ Inconsistency. This post apocalyptic society functions really well.

Oops.

• Missing that Aech is pronounced “h”. Cleared up in ep. 2.
• Mispronouncing JK Rowling.

Ep. 2, ch. 4-8

Advice.

• ❎ Inconsistency. Taking forever to solve an easy puzzle.
• ❎ Inconsistency. Claiming to have done The List, but not having enough time to do so. (Quote below.)
• ❎ Bad extrapolation, progress going backwards.
• ❎ Including too many details.
• ❎ Boring.
• ❎ Clumsy.
• ❎ Using “seem to” when it obviously is.
• ❎ Repetitiveness. Cheshire smile. Every time.

Important quote:

“I watched every episode of The Greatest American Hero, Airwolf, the A-Team, Knight Rider, Misfits of Science, and The Muppet Show. What about The Simpsons, you ask? I knew more about Springfield than I knew about my own city. Star Trek? Oh, I did my homework. TOS, TNG, DS9. Even Voyager and Enterprise. I watched them all in chronological order. The movies, too. Phasers locked on target…I learned the name of every last goddamn Gobot and Transformer. Land of the Lost. Thundarr the Barbarian, He-Man, Schoolhouse Rock! G.I. Joe – I knew them all. Because knowing is half the battle!”

Ep. 3, ch. 9-13

Advice.

• ❎ Anachronisms.
• ❎ Interrupting the exciting bits with a flashforward.
• ❎ The climax is easily solving a puzzle.
• ❎ Is that how we define classic?
• ❎ Weirdly specific, doesn’t make sense. (Toothpaste.)
• ❎ The author stepping in: I can only describe this as…

Running gags.

• Goods and services. (The actual quote is goods and people.)
• Rig. Inflatable cow suit. A hell of a rig.
• Classic. (As in: Cline likes it.)

Source

Oops.

• Ogden/Odgen

Real or fanfic, 5:15

• Mike guessing
• Real. ❎ Fanfic. ❎
• Conor guessing.
• Real. ✔️ Fanfic. ✔️ Real. ❎

Ep. 4, Ch. 14-18

Advice

• ❎ The Sorentos walk. Walking for minutes without responding to a statement.
• 🤔 Doing the big villain scene and not comparing it to a movie, for once.
• ❎ Getting common technical language wrong.
• ❎ Unrealistic. Practically no reaction to 100s of deaths, no attempt to look for survivors. And jokes?
• ❎ Connection. Talking atheism suddenly.
• ❎ Culture. Japanese pictured as stereotypes. Lazy.
• ❎ There’s a ticking clock, but nobody pays attention to it.
• ❎ Explaining some stuff too much, other stuff too little.

Running gags

• Pulling a Pendergast.
• Avoiding lag. (Which wasn’t an issue before.)
• Wade’s father hit a liquor store. (Not actually liquor.)

Oops.

• Acsii text?
• Thinking Oasis is only for the few and only for play?

Real or fanfic, 7:48

• Mike guessing
• Fanfic ✔️ Fanfic ❎ Fanfic ✔️

Ep. 5, ch. 19-24

Advice

• ❎ Masturbation screed. No. Graphic. Unnecessary.
• 🤔 Hard to tell ignorance from jokes.
• ❎ Deus ex machina. No.

Running gags

• The stink tower. A smell interface.
• A pain interface.
• A suit with discreet openings.
• Wade is dumb.
• Stolen honor. Comparing oneself to a genius. Favorably.

Oops.

• Not knowing the phrase fade in.
• The episode is not 6 hours long.

Real or fanfic, 30:30

• Mike guessing
• Fanfic ✔️ Real ✔️ Real ❎
• Conor guessing
• Real ✔️ Fanfic ✔️ Real ❎

Ep. 6, ch. 25-30

Advice

• ❎ No: Mourning and grinning at the same time.
• ✔️ Continuity. (The reason for Daito’s name.)
• ❎ Retelling Blade Runner to readers who know it.
• ✔️ Stakes. As opposed to giving the hero infinite ammo.
• ❎ Life and death and a fortune. And then choosing a prize based on feelings.
• ❎ Calling a group the Drop Cops. Easy. Quick to write. Not good.
• ❎ Suddenly using big words.

Running gags

• Clinean: Giving the same information several times quickly.
• Clinean: Mentioning a problem, but it’s not important.
• Dystopian society works really well.
• A prosthetic testicle.
• Classic.
• Pulling a Pendergast.

Oops.

• Saying next assignment is through ch. 26.

Real or fanfic, 7:13

• Mike guessing.
• Fanfic ✔️ Fanfic ❎
• Conor guessing
• Real ❎ Fanfic ❎ Fanfic ✔️

Ep. 7, ch. 31-33

Advice

• ❎ Claiming to have spent more time than is available.
• ❎ Can’t tell intentional or unintentional jokes apart.
• ❎ Big companies are just evil?
• ❎ Saving the cat at the end of the book?
• ❎ Artemis changes feeling/opinion in seconds.

Running gags

• Dystopian society functioning well.
• No stakes.
• No lag.
• Cheshire grin.

Oops.

• n/a

Real or fanfic, 5:26

• Mike guessing.
• Real ❎ Fanfic ❎
• Conor guessing
• Fanfic ✔️ Real ❎ Real ✔️

Ep. 8, ch. 34-end

Advice

• ❎ Being oddly specific. (About the robot.) The details don’t matter, and aren’t consistent.
• ❎ Repetition of information and actual phrases.
• ❎ Being excited by action in a computer game.
• ❎ Commenting on lack of imagination.
• ❎ Describing action Wade didn’t see, clumsily.
• ❎ Describing something as being like a movie. Coming up with an original way to describe something, badly.
• ❎ A silent cheer?
• ❎ Interrupting the big climax to say what happened just before. He died, but first the head detached.
• ❎ The hero is a genius and stupid.
• ❎ Holy Grail is a geek film?
• ❎ Watts didn’t really learn anything during this story.
• ✔️ Continuity. The winner is now isolated?
• ❎ Reality is real, but going outside is overrated?
• 🤔 Halliday is a monster?
• ❎ Hinting at motivation and growth, but not showing it.

Running gags

• No lag.
• Art3mis might actually be Chuck.

Oops.

• Not recognising Wade could have discovered the right way to address the robot (shouting) beforehand.
• Not recognising Wade’s pregame ritual.
• Not recognising that an event Wade planned and probably heard about from witnesses later could be described in detail.

Real or fanfic, 4:50

• Conor guessing.
• “Fanfic ❎”

A recording of an alternate ending is mentioned?

I juli var vi på ferie i #Viborg. Her besøgte vi bl.a. Domkirken.

Viborg Domkirke er en lidt pudsig størrelse. På den ene side opførte man kirke fra 1104 , men der har muligvis ligget en tidligere. På den anden side blev denne til sidst revet ned stort set 100 % (det bedst bevarede er nok kælderen/krypten), og en ny blev indviet i 1876. Man forsøgte at ramme noget af den stil, den gamle havde haft, og man genbrugte nogle kvadre, men det er svært at komme udenom, at det er en ny kirke.

Da kirken skulle udsmykkes, så valgte man også at ramme en gammel stil, i hvert fald noget af vejen. Det resulterede i nogle interessante 2d-malerier. Efter sigende det største kunstværk en dansker (med samt hans assistenter) har stået for. Der er en virkelig grundig bog, som efter hjemkomsten blev slugt. Mums.

Vi havde gjort tingene i den rigtige rækkefølge. Et par dage før studerede vi nogle skitser til nogen af kunsten. Det var ligesom at samle appetit.

Vi gjorde os umage, så vi kunne få rundvisningen med. Den viste sig dog mest at være en sidde-ned-og-lytte.

Det sidste billede nedenfor er fra Erik d. 5. Klippings sidste hvilested. Eller i hvert fald hvilestedet for en håndfuld af hans knogler …

I juli var vi på ferie i #Viborg. Her besøgte vi bl.a. Viborg Miniby.

Viborg Miniby er et forsøg på at vise byen, som den så ud i 1850. Den er i forholdet 1:10, og den bliver bygget med rigtige små mursten osv. Men først skulle vi finde stedet. Vi er ved at være tæt på.

Værkstedet er åbent, så man kan se processen.

Jeg prøvede på at få overblik over byen på forhånd, og har også arbejdet på sagen senere. Jeg kan ikke få heeelt styr på det, men næsten. Og det er jo nogle gange også godt nok. Lad os starte med, hvordan en for sagen vigtig del af Viborg ser ud i dag. (Fejl kan forekomme.)

Minibyen er rigtig meget baseret på Sct. Mogens Gade, den del der i dag hedder nr. 1 til 54. Minibyen er ikke helt magen til billedet ovenfor, som jeg selv har strikket sammen. Dels er kortet ovenfor baseret på forholdene i dag, 2025, dels mangler der huse i minibyen (bl.a. domkirken, som den så ud dengang), dels tager minibyen også lidt fra sidegaderne med. Men sådan i det store og hele, ikk?

Og lad os så kigge på nogle huse! Når jeg kalder et af dem Skovgaard Museet, så er der tale om det nuværende navn; i sin tid var det et rådhus.

Og et par skilte.

I juli var vi på ferie i #Viborg. Her besøgte vi bl.a. Borgvold.

Borgvold , der dateres til 1313, er resterne fra en borg + vold, fantastiske 11 m høj. Den måtte vi jo bestige. Bl.a. fordi vi ved andre lejligheder har fundet og besteget resterne af volde . Når man sidder på toppen, så kan man se det karakteristiske dip, altså at det rundt om toppen går nedad. Også selvom det hele er dækket af græs og svært at fotografere. På forhånd satte vi os ind i tingene via den her rigtig gode beskrivelse , der har et kort over stedet og teksten fra stenen. Bemærk i øvrigt, at “paa” (på) naturligvis staves med stum snegl.

I juli var vi på ferie i #Viborg. Her besøgte vi bl.a. Sortebrødre Kirke.

Kirker er tit pæne at kikke på, derfor kom Sortebrødre Kirke (bygget i første halvdel af 1200-tallet ) på listen. Praktisk nok ligger den også tæt på domkirken og andre gode ting.

Efter at have set domkirken, der ivrigt (?) prøver at virke gammel, men ikke helt lykkes med det, var det sjovt at komme over i en kirke, der faktisk er gammel og er nænsomt restaureret.

En interessant ting ved kirken er de såkaldte emblemmalerier. De er ikke enestående, men de er sjældne nok til, at jeg blev optaget af dem. Der er også en bog om dem. Og for sådan en som mig, der har brug for et konkret eksempel for at forstå teknikken: Emblem of the Month .

This week the #puzzle is: Can You Box the Letters? #permutations

In the game of Letter Boxed from The New York Times, you must connect letters together around a square to spell out words. However, from any given letter, the next letter cannot be on the same side of the square.

Consider the following diagram, which consists of eight points (labeled A through H), two on each side of the square. A valid “letter boxed” sequence starts at any of the eight points, and proceeds through all of the other points exactly once. However, adjacent points in the sequence can never be on the same side of the square. The first and last points in the sequence can be on the same side, but do not have to be.

As an illustration, AFBCHEDG is a valid sequence of points. However, AFBCHGED is not a valid sequence, since H and G are adjacent in the sequence and on the same side of the square.

How many distinct valid “letter boxed” sequences are there that include all eight points on the square?

And for extra credit:

Instead of two points on each side of the square (and eight points in total), now there are three points on each side (and twelve points in total), labeled A through L in the diagram below.

How many distinct valid “letter boxed” sequences are there that include all 12 points on the square?

Can You Box the Letters?

Highlight to reveal (possibly incorrect) solution:

Spreadsheet Program

Thoughts:

• There are 4 edges, each with 2 letters. Let’s call these edges group 1-4. (Not necessarily meaning group 1 is {A, B} etc.)
• The task is to keep choosing letters, until 0 are left. Also, never choose from the same group twice.

Method 1:

• Choose the 1st letter. There are 8 to choose from. Let’s call this a letter from group 1.
• Choose the 2nd letter. There are 6 to choose from. Let’s call this a letter from group 2.
• Choose the 3rd letter. This could be the remaining letter from group 1, or one of the 4 remaining from unchosen groups. Let’s call the latter a letter from group 3.
  • It was from group 1. Choose the 4th letter. This could the remaining letter from group 2, or one of the 4 remaining from unchosen groups.
    • It was from group 2. Choose the 5th letter. There are 4 to choose from. Let’s call this a letter from group 3.
    • Choose the 6th letter. There are 2 to choose from. Let’s call this a letter from group 4.
    • Choose the 7h letter. It is the remaining letter from group 3.
    • Choose the 8th letter. It is the remaining letter from group 4.
• All this have 8 * 6 * 1 * 1 * 4 * 2 * 1 * 1 = 384 different permutations.
• Of course the full method also investigates all the choices I skipped above. I try to capture all the possibilities in a spreadsheet. Result: 13824.

Method 2:

• Write a program to go through (almost) all options. Same result.

And for extra credit:

Method 2, just with 3 elements in each group. Result: 53529984.

This week the #puzzle is: Fine, Maybe Tiling Problems Can Be Fun… #tiling

Question row A:

You have an infinite square grid. Each cell in this grid is either red or blue.

Can you create a pattern in which every red cell has exactly:

zero red neighbors, one red neighbor, two red neighbors, ⋮ eight red neighbors?

Neighbors include any cell that is directly adjacent or corner-adjacent. To avoid admitting degenerate solutions, your pattern must have at least some fraction 0<r≤1 of the total board composed of red cells.

Question row B:

Now we will consider patterns in which every red and every blue cell has exactly the same number—nr and nb, respectively—of same colored neighbors. For example, the image above is not a valid pattern since some of the blue cells have 4 blue neighbors while others have 6.

For which pairs (nr, nb) can we construct valid patterns?

Fine, Maybe Tiling Problems Can Be Fun…

Highlight to reveal (possibly incorrect) solution:

Solutions to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7 and 8 neighbors. (Solution for 0 was already given.)

Method: I fooled around with images.

Question row B:

Program

Some more solutions:

nr \ nb	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
0	image	image	image	image	image	image	image	(image)
1	image	image	image	image	image	image	(image)	image
2	image	image	image	image	image	image	image	image
3	image	image	image	image	image	image	image	image
4	image	image	(image)	(image)	image	image	image	image
5	image	image	image	image	image	image	image	image
6	(image)	image	(image)	image	image	image	image	image
7	image	image	image	image	image	image	image	image

Thoughts:

• If (n_r, n_b) = (a,b) is possible, (n_r, n_b) = (b,a) is also possible, by reversing the colors.
• If a red has 0 red neighbors, it will have 8 blue neighbors.
  • A blue edge neighbor has at least 4 blue neighbors.
  • A blue corner neighbor has at least 2 blue neighbors.
  • So the cases of (n_r, n_b) = (0, 0), (0,1), (0,2), (0,3) aren’t possible.
  • Similarly for (n_r, n_b) = (1,0), (2,0), (3,0).
• If a red has 1 red neighbor, it will have 7 blue neighbors.
  • A blue edge neighbor has at least 3 blue neighbors.
  • A blue corner neighbor has at least 1 blue neighbor.
  • So the cases of (n_r, n_b) = (1,1), (1,2) aren’t possible.
  • Similarly for (n_r, n_b) = (2,1).
• If a red has 2 red neighbors, it will have 6 blue neighbors.
  • A blue edge neighbor has at least 2 blue neighbors.
  • A blue corner neighbor might have 0 blue neighbors.
  • This does not exclude any new cases.
• Solution with 8 red and x blue can’t work, because there’s no room for the blue. Similarly for 8 blue and x red.
• If a red has 7 red neighbors, it will have 1 blue neighbor.
  • If this is an edge neighbor, it has at most 3 blue neighbors.
  • If it is a corner neighbor, it has at most 5 blue neighbors.
  • So the cases of (n_r, n_b) = (7, 6), (7,7) aren’t possible.
  • Similarly for (n_r, n_b) = (6,7).
• If a red has 6 red neighbors, it will have 2 blue neighbors.
  • A blue edge neighbor has at most 4 blue neighbors.
  • A blue corner neighbor has at most 6 blue neighbors.
  • This does not exclude any new cases.
  • It is however possible to keep building. All the reds have 6 red neighbors. Going through these cases gives a blue cell with at most 5 blue neighbors. (6,6) isn’t possible.
• Method: In some cases I think of a regular pattern, create it and count.
• Further I built a program to create and test patterns. This is how I found the (2, 6) solution.

This week the #puzzle is: How Low (or High) Can You Go? #probabilities #volume #area #random

You’re playing a game of “high-low,” which proceeds as follows:

First, you are presented with a random number, x1, which is between 0 and 1.

A new number, x2, is about to be randomly selected between 0 and 1, independent of the first number. But before it’s selected, you must guess how x2 will compare to x1. If you think x2 will be greater than x1 you guess “high.” If you think x2 will be less than x1, you guess “low.” If you guess correctly, you earn a point and advance to the next round. Otherwise, the game is over.

If you correctly guessed how x2 compared to x1 then another random number, x3, will be selected between 0 and 1. This time, you must compare x3 to x2, guessing whether it will be “high” or “low.” If you guess correctly, you earn a point and advance to the next round. Otherwise, the game is over.

You continue playing as many rounds as you can, as long as you keep guessing correctly.

You quickly realize that the best strategy is to guess “high” whenever the previous number is less than 0.5, and “low” whenever the previous number is greater than 0.5.

With this strategy, what is the probability you will earn at least two points? That is, what are your chances of correctly comparing x2 to x1 and then also correctly comparing x3 to x2?

And for extra credit:

Your friend is playing an epic game of “high-low” and has made it incredibly far, having racked up a huge number of points.

Given this information, and only this information, what is the probability that your friend wins the next round of the game?

How Low (or High) Can You Go?

Highlight to reveal (possibly incorrect) solution:

Desmos

This problem can be modelled as the volume of a shape. Imagine a unit cube. The good parts of the volume are where:

• x was low, x < y, y was low, y < z. E.g. (0.1, 0.2, 0.7).
• And the 3 other variations of x and y being high and low.

See Desmos for a calculation of the volume: 13/24 = 0.54167.

And for extra credit:

Program Spreadsheet

As there is no history in probabilities, I simply need to look at 2 guesses in a row. So this time we’re looking at the good part of the area of a unit square. The first guess can be anything. See Desmos for calculation of the area: 0.75.

Just to make absolutely sure, I wrote a small program to simulate winning a lot of times in a row. Behaves as expected.

Alternate answer: My friend is cheating. The probability is 100%.

I decided to take another look at the data. Wrote a better program. Among other things, it produced data for a spreadsheet. What do you know! The data skews somewhat. There’s a good chance, the latest number drawn was in the middle, was close to 0.5. This has an effect on whether my next guess will be correct. My program says:

Probability for win at length 10: 0.72113
Probability for win at length 20: 0.72152
Probability for win at length 30: 0.71378

So instead of 0.75 (or 1), it appears the probability is 0.71 or 0.72.

This week the #puzzle is: How Far Can You Run Before Sundown? #maximum #strategy #recursion

You’re participating in a trail run that ends at sundown at 7 p.m. There are four loops: 1 mile, 3 miles, 3.5 miles, and 4.5 miles. After completing any given loop, you are randomly assigned another loop to run—this next loop could be the same as the previous one you just ran, or it could be one of the other three. Being assigned your next loop doesn’t take a meaningful amount of time; assume all your time is spent running.

Your “score” in the race is the total distance you run among all completed loops you are assigned. If you’re still out on a loop at 7 p.m., any completed distance on that loop does not count toward your score!

It is now 5:55 p.m. and you have just completed a loop. So far, you’ve been running 10-minute miles the whole way. You’ll maintain that pace until 7 p.m.

On average, what score can you expect to earn between 5:55 p.m. and 7 p.m.?

And for extra credit:

Now let’s add one more wrinkle. At some point during the race, if you’re unhappy with the loop you’ve just been randomly assigned, you’re granted a “mulligan,” allowing you to get another random assignment. (Note that there’s a 25 percent chance you’ll be assigned the same loop again.) You don’t have to use your mulligan, but you can’t use it more than once.

As before, the time is 5:55 p.m. You have just completed a loop, and you haven’t used your mulligan yet.

With an optimal strategy (i.e., using the mulligan at the right moment, if at all), on average, what score can you expect to earn between 5:55 p.m. and 7 p.m.?

How Far Can You Run Before Sundown?

Intermission:

So. I didn’t get the extra credit last week. No shame in that. I had all the points from the previous puzzles of Q3. We were a group of 10 persons able to say that. I am now in the group of 6 persons, who dropped out from that max points group, now counting 4 members.

Still. It made me wonder. What was required to solve the extra credit? How does one find a strategy?

• Make a list of all the strategies you can think of. Remember to include the optimal one. 😉
• Test every item on the list.
• Declare a winner.

This requires good brainstorming skills. Also in this case I couldn’t leap this hurdle:

• A strategy is a list of “given voucher situation A, choose bet option B”.

As it turned out, the strategy also needed to include “is this the 1st bet, yes or no”.

Because I actually had the pieces. I had the $55 strategy for the 1st bet. And I had the $35 strategy for having all vouchers. I could just have combined them to get the correct extra credit result.

Ah well.

Highlight to reveal (possibly incorrect) solution:

Program

Information:

• 4 kinds of loops: 1, 3, 3.5 and 4.5 miles.
• Each loop is randomly assigned.
• The time is 5.55 p.m.
• The run ends at 7.00 p.m.
• Speed: 6 mph. (1 mile = 10 minutes.)
• The score equals the number of miles run.
• A loop not finished when the run ends doesn’t count towards the score.
• Question: What will the expected score be for the remainder of the run?

My solution:

• This could probably be done by hand (as I actually ended up doing below), but I wrote a recursive program.
• Begin with the 65 remaining minutes.
• Go through each option / each of the 4 loops that might be assigned.
  • If there’s time enough for a given loop, add this loop to the score and then go through each option again for the remaining time.
  • Stop when time runs out.
• Going backwards through the options, calculate the average of what happened given the 4 options.
• Finally the average for 65 minutes represents the average score.

Example:

• The program has been running for some time. I am looking at the situation with 30 minutes left.
• Going through the 4 options:
  • Option 1, 1 mile, 10 minutes. Note 1 mile and keep looking at the remaining 20 minutes.
    • Option 1, 1 mile, 10 minutes. Note 1 mile and keep looking at the remaining 10 minutes.
      • Option 1, 1 mile, 10 minutes. Note 1 mile and stop.
      • Option 2, 3 miles. Note 0 miles and stop. (Not time enough to run those 3 miles.)
      • Option 3, 3.5 miles. Note 0 miles and stop.
      • Option 4, 4.5 miles. Note 0 miles and stop.
      • The average for the 4 options is 1/4 miles = 0.25 miles.
    • Option 2, 3 miles. Note 0 miles and stop.
    • Option 3, 3.5 miles. Note 0 miles and stop.
    • Option 4, 4.5 miles. Note 0 miles and stop.
    • The average for the 4 options is (1 + 0.25)/4 miles = 0.3125 miles.
  • Option 2, 3 miles. Note 3 miles and stop.
  • Option 2, 3.5 miles. Note 0 miles and stop.
  • Option 4, 4.5 miles. Note 0 miles and stop.
  • The average for the 4 options is ((1 + 0.3125) + 3) / 4 = 1.078125 miles.

Result: Miles added to score, 4.866.

And for extra credit:

Mindomo Program Image

Information:

• Same as above, plus:
• A mulligan can be invoked once during the run and a new random loop be assigned.
• This leads to an optimal strategy.
• Question: What will the expected score be for the remainder of the run, using this strategy?

My solution. The strategy will look like this:

• Given that there’s A minutes left of the run, and a loop requiring B minutes got assigned, and that the mulligan hasn’t been used, should it be used now, yes or no?
• This can be written in a table with all the combinations of A and B.
• Some of the combinations are very easy. If running this loop means there will be 0 minutes left, keep it, we hit the max possible. If running this loop means the loop won’t be finished before the deadline and a better option exists, use the mulligan.
• In general: If the average score over all 4 loop options without a mulligan is C, and keeping the assigned loop on average adds D to the score, and D < C, use the mulligan.

My table:

\ loop time
time left \	45	35	30	10
5	keep	keep	keep	keep
10	mull	mull	mull	keep
15	mull	mull	mull	keep
20	mull	mull	mull	keep
25	mull	mull	mull	keep
30	mull	mull	keep	keep
35	mull	keep	keep	mull
45	keep	keep	mull	mull
55	keep	mull	mull	keep
65	keep	keep	keep	keep

Let me go through an example, related to the image. (Might contain errors as I later changed the algorithm a little.)

• When there’s 10 minutes left (yellow), from left to right the 4 options (in minutes 45, 35, 30, 10, green) add nothing (-0), nothing, nothing and 10 (*) to the score (calculated in minutes). Furthermore, the first 3 options left no time. The 4th option uses all the time left. Therefore the first 3 options are good for a mulligan, while the 4th is a keeper.
• Mulligan = happy smiley, yes, please use the mulligan.
• Keeper = green flag, you have reached a good option.
• (*) From the yellow to the right most option below, there’s a difference from 10 to 0. This is because the route was through a 10 minute loop. Reaching the green flag, there’s no time left and nothing further added to the score.
• The 4 possible options from the yellow state adds 0, 0, 0 and 10 to the score. This is 10/4 = 2.5 in average.
• Another way to say the green flag is a keeper, is because 2.5 < 10.
• When there’s 20 minutes left (orange), similar construction.
• The 4 possible options from the orange state adds 0, 0, 0 and 10 + 2.5 to the score. Therefore the 3 cyan options are good for a mulligan, while the yellow option is a keeper (purple).
• When there’s 65 minutes left, 1 of the options (orange) will add 45 + 3.13 to the score. As this is less than the average for all 4 options, 48.66, this option is good for a mulligan (red).

I change my program. First I calculate all averages without the mulligan. Then I calculate new averages for the situation with a mulligan. Every time I use a mulligan I drop down to the mulligan free version of the averages. I also fill in a table showing whether I use a mulligan in a given situation.

The result appears to be 5.352 miles.

Just for fun I also implemented a monte carlo program, covering all situations with 0-10 mulligans, assuming the mulligan table is the same all the way up.

Expected score with  0 mulligans: 48.677
Expected score with  1 mulligans: 53.514
Expected score with  2 mulligans: 56.563
Expected score with  3 mulligans: 58.585
Expected score with  4 mulligans: 59.967
Expected score with  5 mulligans: 60.997
Expected score with  6 mulligans: 61.748
Expected score with  7 mulligans: 62.318
Expected score with  8 mulligans: 62.773
Expected score with  9 mulligans: 63.123
Expected score with 10 mulligans: 63.391

It confirms both my results.