|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
S2000magician![]() Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts ![]() |
I am utterly unfamiliar with magic with dice - apart from my Die Box and seeing a large die as a final load in a Cups and Balls routine.
I'm looking for a routine that would work well with a Monte Carlo simulation theme, so a routine that uses dice seems a natural fit. Any ideas for routines that would work with this theme? Thanks! |
|||||||||
Pete Biro![]() 1933 - 2018 18558 Posts ![]() |
Dice stacking. Switching, magnetic dice, whip cup dice? Matrix? Poker Pot?
STAY TOONED... @ www.pete-biro.com
|
|||||||||
Donal Chayce![]() Inner circle 1770 Posts ![]() |
"Dr. Sack's Amazing Dice Trick." You'll find it (among other places) in Bruce Elliott's trusty "Classic Secrets of Magic"
|
|||||||||
TheAmbitiousCard![]() Eternal Order Northern California 13425 Posts ![]() |
If you're looking to do this:
1. Define a domain of possible inputs. 2. Generate inputs randomly from the domain, and perform a deterministic computation on them. 3. Aggregate the results of the individual computations into the final result. 1 would be the pips on a die (1-6) 2 inputs would come from a spectator 3 predict the number the spectator picks every single time would that work?
www.theambitiouscard.com Hand Crafted Magic
Trophy Husband, Father of the Year Candidate, Chippendale's Dancer applicant, Unofficial World Record Holder. |
|||||||||
S2000magician![]() Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts ![]() |
The idea of Monte Carlo simulation is that instead of solving a problem analytically, you do a bunch of random trials and see if a solution materializes from the results. The name "Monte Carlo" comes from this idea of random trials: like rolling dice.
Here's a simple example, which came from a thread in the Magical equations forum: Larry Barnowsky wanted to know the probability of getting at least four cards of the same color in a row in a randomly shuffled deck of cards. To try to count all possible arrangements of 52 cards that have at least four red cards in a row or at least four black cards in a row (without mistakenly counting the same arrangement more than once) is a very, very difficult problem. But it's easy to write a computer program to simulate a random shuffle. So you tell this program to generate, say, 100,000 random shuffles, count how many of those have at least four cards of the same color in a row, and that's probably a pretty good approximation to the real number. Frank's thinking along the right lines: something that involves the randomness of the dice, but leads to a (magically) predictable result would be great! As I say, I'm not familiar with dice magic, so while Dr. Sack's Amazing Dice Trick might be perfect, I haven't any idea, because I have no idea what the effect is. Thanks for your help, guys! I know that it's a tall order. |
|||||||||
TheAmbitiousCard![]() Eternal Order Northern California 13425 Posts ![]() |
After reading your explanation of Monte Carlo...
Isn't that how the 4 Color Theorem was "proven"? If so, I prefer the proof of the 5 color theorem. Much more interesting. Howie Schwarztman was trying to teach me a dice trick a couple days ago that might have suited you fine but he could not remember how to do it. If I figure out the solution to that one, I'll let you know. It's interesting.
www.theambitiouscard.com Hand Crafted Magic
Trophy Husband, Father of the Year Candidate, Chippendale's Dancer applicant, Unofficial World Record Holder. |
|||||||||
S2000magician![]() Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts ![]() |
Quote:
On 2008-06-11 22:03, Frank Starsini wrote: Not exactly. The proof of the Four Color Theorem comprised two parts. The first part was a general proof that a planar map could be colored with no more than four colors with no two adjacent regions being the same color, which covered all but a finite number of cases; unfortunately, that finite number was huge: several hundred billion cases or something like that. So these mathematicians wrote a computer progran to check all of the cases that the general proof didn't cover. They ran the program and it started ticking off all these cases: 1, check!; 2, check!; 3, check!; and so on. It got to the end and said, "They all work." (Thus, the review of the proof consisted of trying to verify that the computer algorithm didn't miss any of the cases. How fun!) It's interesting that for more complicated surfaces than a plane - the surface of a doughnut (a torus), for example - the general proof is comparatively easy. Quote:
On 2008-06-11 22:03, Frank Starsini wrote: Another possibility is a dice routine where the result is completely wrong - something along the lines of Topsy-Turvy Bottles - because occasionally the results of a Monte Carlo simulation are counterintuitive. |
|||||||||
marty.sasaki![]() Inner circle 1117 Posts ![]() |
You can tell a story that makes pseudo scientific sense but is completely wrong, or highly implausible. Only a few will question you, even if they are engineers. There are so few scientists and mathematicians out there.
Marty Sasaki
Arlington, Massachusetts, USA Standard disclaimer: I'm just a hobbyist who enjoys occasionally mystifying friends and family, so my opinions should be viewed with this in mind. |
|||||||||
Tony Iacoviello![]() Eternal Order 13151 Posts ![]() |
Marty, that made me smile. "There are so few scientists and mathematicians out there." you live between Harvard and MIT.
![]() |
|||||||||
marty.sasaki![]() Inner circle 1117 Posts ![]() |
The proof actually went more this way:
It was proved that all planar maps could be reduced to a finite, although still relatively large, number of equivalent maps. A computer program was created to examine all of these equivalent maps. Many mathematicians don't accept the proof since there is no way to verify that the results of the program can be trusted. This requires that the program had no errors in it, that the computer system properly translated the program into something that the machine can execute. You also have to believe that there were no hardware errors. So there are still mathematicians who are looking for a proof.
Marty Sasaki
Arlington, Massachusetts, USA Standard disclaimer: I'm just a hobbyist who enjoys occasionally mystifying friends and family, so my opinions should be viewed with this in mind. |
|||||||||
cfrye![]() Special user Portland, Oregon, USA 940 Posts ![]() |
You can find more information on the map-coloring problem in Four Colors Suffice, by Robin Wilson. A quick trip to Amazon.com showed several used paperback copies available for under a dollar (before shipping).
Curt |
|||||||||
S2000magician![]() Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts ![]() |
Quote:
On 2008-06-16 19:43, marty.sasaki wrote: Thanks for the clarification; I was trying to recall it from (an evidently slightly foggy) memory. For more details, check here. |
|||||||||
GlenD![]() Inner circle LosAngeles, Ca 1293 Posts ![]() |
Best of luck with it, Bill.
"A miracle is something that seems impossible but happens anyway" - Griffin
"Any future where you succeed, is one where you tell the truth." - Griffin (Griffin rocks!) |
|||||||||
TheAmbitiousCard![]() Eternal Order Northern California 13425 Posts ![]() |
Well Bill, what did you discover....
www.theambitiouscard.com Hand Crafted Magic
Trophy Husband, Father of the Year Candidate, Chippendale's Dancer applicant, Unofficial World Record Holder. |
|||||||||
S2000magician![]() Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts ![]() |
Just today I got a package from Gambler's General Store: sleeves of dice in red, green, blue, pink, amber, black, and white.
I'm going with Chink-a-Chink from Stars of Magic. I can talk of Monte Carlo simulation having its origins at the dice table, use the dice to represent various risks that can arise, and explain that the purpose of using Monte Carlo simulation is to analyze the risks in combination: first one risk at a time, then two together, then three, then all four. I'd like to finish by pointing out that there are generally more than four risks to consider, and illustrate that by producing dozens of dice of various colors. I haven't settled on a method yet, so I'm going to put that off for a bit: I'm going to be taping the routine (along with two others) at the Castle on July 5. Thanks for everyone's suggestions. Pete, ultimately, nailed it - matrix - but I'm going to be learning the Sachs (Sack's?)routine for my strolling magic. |
|||||||||
TheAmbitiousCard![]() Eternal Order Northern California 13425 Posts ![]() |
Since you'll be studying matrix and Dice, I urge you to check out Charlie Frye's routine on one of his Eccentricks DVDs.
His Matrix is quite unique. There's a clip of it toward the beginning of this video. http://youtube.com/watch?v=JwRwKRhzKqk
www.theambitiouscard.com Hand Crafted Magic
Trophy Husband, Father of the Year Candidate, Chippendale's Dancer applicant, Unofficial World Record Holder. |
|||||||||
manal![]() Inner circle York ,PA. 1412 Posts ![]() |
Whew...... now that you fellers is done with all that scientifical stuff,there is a nice dice routine on No Jacket Required. It is his version ,I believe of the Sach routine
|
|||||||||
TheAmbitiousCard![]() Eternal Order Northern California 13425 Posts ![]() |
That's the Carl Andrews routine. Pretty standard sack's faire. A nice routine.
www.theambitiouscard.com Hand Crafted Magic
Trophy Husband, Father of the Year Candidate, Chippendale's Dancer applicant, Unofficial World Record Holder. |
|||||||||
ringmaster![]() Inner circle Memphis, Down in Dixie 1974 Posts ![]() |
Also check out Bob Farrell's Four Dice Chink-A Chink on Daryl's Fooler Doolers Vol.3. The dice go in numerical order. There is also a decent into to the Sack's (Sach's ?) trick on there.
One of the last living 10-in-one performers. I wanted to be in show business the worst way, and that was it.
|
|||||||||
TheAmbitiousCard![]() Eternal Order Northern California 13425 Posts ![]() |
Both of those are also on the WGM DVD
www.theambitiouscard.com Hand Crafted Magic
Trophy Husband, Father of the Year Candidate, Chippendale's Dancer applicant, Unofficial World Record Holder. |