Monday, February 20, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[tiwonge]

I was thinking way too hard on that function clue.

"That's not a bijection. Is it a surjection or an injection?"

I don't have the clue in front of me to know whether or not either of those would satisfy the clue.

The clue is written properly, and there is nothing to indicate whether it's one-to-one or onto;

"It's the "useful" term for a relation that pairs members of one set with unique members of another set"

If that is the clue, injection is acceptable (and function is not, as the elements of the image of the domain are not necessarily unique). Although I guess it could be a function worded backwards, where the "another set" is actually the domain of the function and "one set" is the image.

Actually, since members of one set get paired (presumably, all of them), and members of the other set are unique, I think that this is a 1-1 function (but not necessarily onto, so not a bijection).

If it were up to me, I'd BMS a function response. (But if it were up to me, I'd have written it differently.)

I don't get how the "useful" word is useful.

ETA: If "function" is acceptable, then I'd think that less specific responses such as "mapping" or "relation" might be, too. (Unless "useful" disqualifies those? I don't understand the purpose of that word.)

[twelvefootboy]

I was thinking way too hard on that function clue.

"That's not a bijection. Is it a surjection or an injection?"

I don't have the clue in front of me to know whether or not either of those would satisfy the clue.

The clue is written properly, and there is nothing to indicate whether it's one-to-one or onto;

"It's the "useful" term for a relation that pairs members of one set with unique members of another set"

If that is the clue, injection is acceptable (and function is not, as the elements of the image of the domain are not necessarily unique). Although I guess it could be a function worded backwards, where the "another set" is actually the domain of the function and "one set" is the image.

Actually, since members of one set get paired (presumably, all of them), and members of the other set are unique, I think that this is a 1-1 function (but not necessarily onto, so not a bijection).

If it were up to me, I'd BMS a function response. (But if it were up to me, I'd have written it differently.)

I don't get how the "useful" word is useful.

ETA: If "function" is acceptable, then I'd think that less specific responses such as "mapping" or "relation" might be, too. (Unless "useful" disqualifies those? I don't understand the purpose of that word.)

Well, they didn't ask for a "functional", but "useful" is the second choice synonym for "functional". It's a pretty easy TOM if you remember it's a 600 dollar clue not looking for graduate number theory.

[IronNeck]

I was thinking way too hard on that function clue.

"That's not a bijection. Is it a surjection or an injection?"

I don't have the clue in front of me to know whether or not either of those would satisfy the clue.

The clue is written properly, and there is nothing to indicate whether it's one-to-one or onto;

"It's the "useful" term for a relation that pairs members of one set with unique members of another set"

If that is the clue, injection is acceptable (and function is not, as the elements of the image of the domain are not necessarily unique).

Wrong. A relation where a member of the domain is mapped to just one member of the target set is the definition of a function.

"Injection" would be wrong because there is absolutely nothing to suggest it is one-to-one. Two different members of the domain set can still map to the same element in the target set.

The clue is perfectly clear.

[opusthepenguin]

This heuristic has worked astoundingly well for me in predicting bad FJ bets. It's hardly surprising Alex might have picked up on it, too. After all, he might well be smarter than me.

Hey now, let's not get crazy.

[opusthepenguin]

Refreshing to see a higher difficulty level in week 2, but thought Monet's Waterlilies in the bottom box of ART & ARTISTS was a joke. Plus American Gothic, Venus de Milo, Mona Lisa....? come on!

You said it! When the American Gothic clue came up, I yelled, "Name the only Grant Wood painting we will EVER ask you about."

[opusthepenguin]

I said photobomb for FJ just to have something. I figured 2002 was too early for the term. (I see now that OED's first citation is from 8 May 2008). As soon as Lilly's response was revealed, I knew it was correct. I'll cast my vote with those saying this was a very good FJ clue. I'm kind of surprised that some boardies who thought of selfie stuck with it in desperation, figuring they were wrong. To me it just feels so right that it obviously has to be. Did we have anyone who actually thought of the right response and then talked themselves into saying something else?

[This Is Kirk!]

In the book by Chuck Forrest and Mark Lowenthal "Secrets of the Jeopardy! Champions" it mentions that the people who write the clues (and presumably oversee the placement of the Daily Doubles) are entirely separated from the people who select the contestants. In an ideal fair game the clues and Daily Doubles will be unrelated to the contestants that appear.

Not to mention (in normal games, at least) the assignment of players for a particular game is random AND one set of clues is thrown out completely (i.e., they tape five shows per day, but six sets of clues are brought in--one set is randomly thrown out). Tournaments may be slightly different, though.

[AFRET CMS]

Terrible FJ! wager by Alex. That was a perfect place to bet small/nil. Luckily, it didn't cost him.

I'm sorry to be so direct but you're completely wrong.

It was a very good FJ! wager by Alex.

If he had answered the clue correctly with the wager he made then he would have won. If he answers incorrectly he would have lost regardless of his wager.

If he had bet small/nil like you suggest he would have lost regardless of his response in this game - that would be a bad wager.

I understand the math behind it but I think a lot of the conventional wisdom on wagering is plain wrong. When more than one player must select their wager based on what they think their opponents will wager it becomes an entangled problem and there is no correct solution.

I would not wager that the Caltech and MIT students were bad at math. In this particular game Alex's wager was excellent.

I would submit that it's a different situation in a ToC semi than in a regular game. Since both second and third are eliminated from the tourney with the same winnings, there's no entanglement. They're each playing one-on-one with the leader, and the leader is playing one-on-one with the person in second place. No other considerations are necessary.

[mxc_takeshi]

32 right.

Day (4), Art (5), Silent "K" (3), Math (2), Place (2), Rap (0) (heard of the artists, but not familiar with those lyrics)
President (5), Women (3), Peak (4), Flowers (1), British (2), "R" Entertainment (1)

No Lach Trash.

Instaget FJ- I remember reading the story of its origins.

[snowdenscold]

Pretty quick get on FJ - and I felt confident sticking with it.

I do want to echo someone post on page 1 about the Teddy Roosevelt clue, as my thought process went something like:
"Oh that sounds like it would be Teddy. But it's 1909 - one year too late. But maybe it was before the inauguration. But the clue says February. But that was pre 20th amendment when it was in March. So I guess I was right after all!"

But that's a lot of thinking for the top row clue...

[Volante]

Pretty quick get on FJ - and I felt confident sticking with it.

I do want to echo someone post on page 1 about the Teddy Roosevelt clue, as my thought process went something like:
"Oh that sounds like it would be Teddy. But it's 1909 - one year too late. But maybe it was before the inauguration. But the clue says February. But that was pre 20th amendment when it was in March. So I guess I was right after all!"

But that's a lot of thinking for the top row clue...

Focusing too much on date and not 'Conservation'

[cthulhu]

0 / 5 on the rap category.
Instaget FJ.
I'll take it.

[Maven]

I knew I was in trouble in the rap category when I saw Weezy and my only thought was about Louise Jefferson.

LOL...that was so the one rap clue I should have gotten because I remembered they had fun with Lil Wayne's nickname in what was EASILY my favorite commercial during last year's Super Bowl.* But alas, Lil' Wayne just couldn't come to me quick enough, dagnabit.

* - Blame the IMO brilliant use of "Movin' On Up"/The Jeffersons theme AND Brad Bellflower/Jeff Goldblum being a, again IMO, humorous send-up of the Steve Jobs persona. At least in this particular ad anyway...and hand it to Goldblum, he delivers some cool Lou Rawls-esque chops with his singing there.

[Lore]

Here's a link to a guy on Twitter who took Alex's doing the clues in the Let's Rap, Kids category and put them to the proper music.
https://twitter.com/tole_cover/status/8 ... 0407399425

[IronNeck]

Here's a link to a guy on Twitter who took Alex's doing the clues in the Let's Rap, Kids category and put them to the proper music.
https://twitter.com/tole_cover/status/8 ... 0407399425

The overproduced, awful beats reminds me of the subject matter of one of my favorite rap songs.

[dhkendall]

Here's a link to a guy on Twitter who took Alex's doing the clues in the Let's Rap, Kids category and put them to the proper music.
https://twitter.com/tole_cover/status/8 ... 0407399425

OMG! This guys deserves all the everything for his incredible service to mankind. Screw the guys who helped defeat polio, humanity has a new hero now.

[Maven]

Here's a link to a guy on Twitter who took Alex's doing the clues in the Let's Rap, Kids category and put them to the proper music.
https://twitter.com/tole_cover/status/8 ... 0407399425

OMG! This guys deserves all the everything for his incredible service to mankind. Screw the guys who helped defeat polio, humanity has a new hero now.

I 75% agree...the other 25% says all that is a missing is a little accompaniment from Johnny Gilbert.

[Woof]

I second IronNeck on the trans-uranics, but I don't want to diss Seaborgium here on the board. The whole endeavor of making these things in the laboratory is pointless, just like manned space missions, and have nothing to do with the advance of knowledge.

I must respectfully disagree on this point. The synthesis of trans-Uranic elements has advanced knowledge in several key ways. Only in recent years has theory advanced to the stage that it can confidently predict nuclear stability. For instance, while the nuclear shell model has been kicking about since the '60s, the idea that the heavier elements have non-spherical nuclei didn't emerge until 1999 and relied in large part on experimental data from the trans-Uranics. The exact location of the predicted "island of nuclear stability" is still debated. Experimental studies will be need to resolve the question.

Regarding the game: well-played. I thought that Alex certainly showed that he had the chops to be a Finalist, but Lilly triumphed by getting a FJ clue that eluded me.