Freecell Update

And that means what?

My cat has a tail and cats tails can be googled too.

Things that cannot be Googled would be more interesting.

Something to do with this http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/110198 ?

Signed

Confused of Nottingham

Edit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvDJoq5OsFk

Just googled "things that cannot be googled" and Google came back with all kinds of thing that cannot or should not be googled lol.

As can most things.

This in no way diminishes your accomplishment, we trust you came up with the solution by playing the game.

Yes found the solution myself, its a game I find keeps my old mind active?

We'll believe that when you give the solution.

What reason do 'we' have to think he is not being forthright? The bloke is having a bit of fun doing something challenging to keep his mind active. Why call him to account for that?

I do not think this is right.

The absence of a given solution.

Providing a solution is at his option. The absence of a solution does not make him a liar. It simply means that he has not yet supplied one, no? He is not on trial here and, if he is not, why the ugliness? Why the mean-spirited attitude towards him and others here? Yes, I've seen it before, several times now, and I've only been here a month. I can only assume it is a regular feature.

For my part, that I treated people thus would be a matter of far, far graver concern to me than some harmless bloke's FreeCell solution. Perhaps it should be yours also.

If you stick around a while, you may develop a deeper appreciation of how much nonsense goes on.

There seem to be quite a number of people here who have been here a while and yet who, in spite of the nonsense, do not seem to find it necessary to be ugly toward others. I do not accept 'a deeper appreciation of nonsense' as a viable rationale. It is one thing to address the nonsense; quite another to disparage the person.

Just who has directed criticism toward a person rather than to an unsuitable intellectual practice? Who has used the word "liar", and who has not yet done so? Who has furnished a claim without support? Why is this thread a separate thread, rather than a continuation of the obvious predecessor? How does asking proper questions become "ugly" toward anyone?

It's a little late for that now isn't it?

No.

Of course, this could all become moot if the claimed solution is ever provided. I bet hell freezes over first.

You may be reading in emotion and intent that is not there.

Being rigorous in demanding support for claims is a good thing in a place like an engineering blog. Sure, freecell is not a critical point of contention by most standards, but it has been posted in CR4 and it shouldn't be surprising that support might be expected for claims made.

It is important to be able to distinguish between a challenge to an idea proposed and an assault on someone's character. Healthy debate is hogtied if any contradiction is indistinguishable from calling someone a liar.

The ability to be accepting of people and yet elitist concerning ideas requires the ability to unambiguously separate the two.

.

Check out post #10. Does Tornado's stance seem a little more justified/understandable?

"You may be reading in emotion and intent that is not there."

Or I may be correctly reading what is not only there, but is exactly what I suspect it is. Why? 1) Tornado did not contest my assertion, and further 2) he appears to justify such 'emotion and intent' by suggesting a rationale for its application.

I agree with the rest of your comment; you are quite correct, but I think we can both see that is not what is really going on here.

Look at the sentence that started this;

'...We'll believe that when you give the solution....'

.

It does not say 'you are a liar, we don't believe things you say'.

It says essentially, 'belief is suspended until support for the claim is provided'.

.

His response to you also reads differently to me...once again, aimed at the claim, not at the person.

.

We have to be able to say a claim is ridiculous/absurd/unbelievable without having that imply the person is ridiculous/absurd/unbelievable.

.

Consider the possibility that the OP is mistaken; that he did not solve the problem. Tornado could enlighten the OP to reality and provide the opportunity to actually solve the problem. Isn't it possible the OP might be mistaken? ...have the wrong number or some other slip?

It's a combination of factors.

With people of a natural scientific and engineering or similar logical rationalizing mindsets a claim to having a solution that is not familiar and known to be likely true in some plausible way is fair game for calling out for further scrutiny to either confirm or refute the idea or statement.

Then on the more local forum aspects, most everyone who has been here has seen countless outrightly outrageous to fully wrong claims and postulations made over and about most every topic in existence by people who can't separate the facts of reality from their delusions of personal opinion. Climate change effects opinions VS plausible fact and realistic cause are one of my contentious points here as you have seen.

That, and most of us want to learn new things that fill in more gaps on our understandings of subjects or that show where we are wrong or have been misguided so when such a claim event pops up we want to know what's new and whether or not it has factual basis or is just more unfounded opinion/conjecture or outright bullshit which unfortunately, we tend to see a lot more opinion or outright bullshit based claims over supposed new information than we do see real bonified new working ones.

Also many of us have no problem compartmentalizing an attack on a poorly conceived idea or view we may have postulated from being a personal attack on us in general which many people can't do well or at all.

We may call you out for being an uneducated idiot half wit troll with delusions of grandeur for having made a bold claim that's easily proven wrong or to not be exactly what you claimed it to be and or represents total bullshit but that doesn't mean we don't like you as a person!

(Or you may very well be a stupid ass of a human being and we feel you need to know it for your own good and hopeful, but unlikely, future self improvement.)

It all can go any way at any time for any reason.

Andrew,

I think this is just a miscommunication. You should give Tornado the same kind of benefit of the doubt you imply he should extend to the OP.

If you want to take a stand on less than cordial comments, some are far obvious candidates for reform.

No I don't have any proof, only self satisfaction. My reason for the post was, a previous post, some weeks back, that referred to 11982 as being unsolvable? that therefore, was my motivation for my post, as I thought some might be interested.

Been playing FreeCell for a number of years, above might support my claim?

I have google'd and not found an answer? I maybe wrong about google providing an answer? so I think it's up to me to prove that I solved 11982, I'm working on a notation system that reflects my moves, so back to the drawing board, and in a few days I will hopefully post my answer. (proof )

I apologise for a claim I can’t prove. I’m confused as to what happened? The claim was not an act on my behalf to deceive anybody. Thank you to those that stood by my right to free speech, and I respect those that stood up for the standards of this forum.

PS I’m still working on it?

Best of luck. However, it has been claimed that the full game tree has been checked out by computer and found to be unsolvable. But then however however, how good was the program?

Oh it's on now, I didn't look into this before that much and didn't realise there was apparently no such solution to game #11982.

Are you able to post a quick screen grab of a brand new game #11982 for us from the computer you used? I am wondering if it is the same as the other #11982 games mentioned online where all possible combinations have been tried and failed or if something else is in play (like perhaps a different game version or something produced a different opening set of card locations).

You didn't use the known glitch cheat did you, that would explain the win.

Oh we must know or it will keep some of us up late trying to solve the apparently unsolvable.

This may be a solution: https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-mozilla-003&hsimp=yhs-003&hspart=mozilla&p=free+cell+11982+solved#id=2&vid=78da78faf719b73e0040ebf10f8a1595&action=click

Some early parts were faster than I could see, and the mention of "hidden trick" in a game of perfect information is a bit weird. But maybe this is it.

Another possible glitch is that there might be two different game sets with 11982 not being the same in each.

Yes looked at the video, solution 11982, I have windows 7 and the order of the cards in the video agree, but I don't agree that the solution used is normal, to unlock the ace of spades they used a manoeuvre, undo, to move the 8 of diamonds on to the 5 hearts, a move, fault in programme? that was a carry over move from a previous solution attempt.

I agree with all this. I watched it only once, and it seems you have caught some glitch better than I. That undo business was a part I didn't see well. But now anybody can pause/step/pause/step through the sequence and see if it is for real.

I can think of a notation using just one character per move, except where there are two choices; or a two-character-per-move scheme that is universal but largely redundant. I number the tableau columns 1-8 and the home columns A-D.