talkmagic.co.uk

I wonder if there is a possibility to sync K****** C****'s other than running out of cards, like in a differnt manner, or to sync em at a point before there is the end of a sequence is reached?

Hello Takwah.

Is this the procedure you're talking about?

http://www.talkmagic.co.uk/sutra224889. ... ht=#224889

Yes, thats it, I just mispelled, it, but I think its too obvious and takes too long, so I am trying of a method to pump this effect by force a synce before the natural end of the cards or no cards at all.
The problem is that you have different ammounts of cards until they merge, so if they merge you have two differing counts.

I wonder if theres a posibility to stop without knowing the counts. other then forcing a point like the end of the cards, something the spectator can decide and still has it synced.

Is that understandable? I don't know how to express properly.
Without to expose what assume someone else did on tv.

I think I understand what you mean Takwah. I'm very new to the count as you can probably tell from the linked post.

I have had a little play with it though and I've found that the longer you have for the counts to merge, the better the likelyhood of having just one termination. A shorter count may be a detriment, you see. I suppose you could remove all of the high cards and therefore give the counts more chances to merge, shortening the deck in the proceess
I'm just guessing here though.
Another thing I've found is that although there maybe two terminations in a deck, one of them is always far more likley than the other.

There are a few different presentations however; I remember one where the cards are simply counted through by the spectator face up in a 'necktie' position. This serves the same purpose as spreading them out but keeps the destination card secret, which is handy for force purposes.

But again I am not very familiar with this effect.

Mark

I'm not sure what you mean by sync, TakWah, but Kruskal's principle will get you to the same final card (including the last one in the deck) 5 out of 6 times on average. There's a good chapter on it in MacTier's "Card Concepts".

There's more information about Card Concepts here: http://www.talkmagic.co.uk/ptopic3083.php

Tomo wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by sync, TakWah, but Kruskal's principle will get you to the same final card

By sync, I ment synchronize, which means that the path's merge and thus the sequence is the same. What I ment was, that I want to forget about using cards at all. Since this applies to sequences, I thought of something like, association chains. The problem is, as you don't know where the personal count of the paticipants is, and as those assosciation chains are endless in nature, I wonder if there was a possibility like the end of an deck, to settle a person to stop at a specific point in that chain, thus force a sync'd end, after the association strains merged.

I would like to post a youtube video that got me to that idea. But I don't know how he achieved it, so I don't know if it would be kinda exposing to post an effect together with a method.

I see what you mean now. Unfortunately, I think the reason Kruskal's principle works is due to the number of cards in a deck and the distribution of values. It might be a lot of work to figure out how to generate similar conditions in other situations without a degree of "cheating"

I suppose you could adapt the count to feature other things. Fellow TM member Adrian Morgan came up with the idea of using dominoes. This would give a welcome break from cards yet still allow a Kruskal count.
It would take some tweaking though.

Off the top of my head I can't see a way of guaranteeing that all paths will converge, unless you fixed the run. There will always be runs which contain mutually exclusive paths that will never converge.

Have play around with it - there are a few ideas if you follow the links in the above thread. Even playing around with this yourself with cards shows a fair few presentations, some which hide the effect even deeper.

Oooooh! Marky, you've just jogged a memory.

It's the values of the cards in the original Kruskal principle that matters. In other collections of objects, there could be other attributes whose values you can engineer to allow them to sync up quickly. It might still be a bit of work, but doable.

I'm far from an expert, but I think the way to synchronise a run is to have multiple starting points that lead to a single finish point as quickly as possible.

I can think of three ways off the top of my head:

1. The original idea, which is to have a lot of single moves in the procedure.

2. Fix the order.

3. Reduce the number range.

For example, let's imagine you have a deck of cards with rainbow colours. You have, say, seven lots of each colour, or 49 cards.

You create a board by dealing out the cards in a seven by seven grid.

Now imagine that you have a table that shows a 'random' allocation of move numbers. Say, three colours are 'unlucky' and only give you one move, two colours give you two moves, one colour three moves and one super lucky colour gives you a whole four moves. You're immediately truncating the procedure because:

a) As a proportion of the total cards available, 3/7 have a one move value, instead of 4/13 in the original procedure.

b) The most moves you get is four, as opposed to ten in the original.

I might just be talking a load of nonsense; I've not tested any of this. Anyone care to give it a whirl?

Another possibility is cards with shapes. You move the number of spaces equal to the edges. Circles and ovals are one space, triangles three spaces, squares and rectangles four spaces, stars five spaces.

Mix it with colours, so red means subtract one (minimum one), orange means add one, green is subtract two, blue is add two, purple is leave unchanged. With the right combination of colours and shapes you could have lots of cards with values of only one or two moves, but without it being immediately apparent.

I hope none of this is considered exposure. It's really a mathematical principle, but moderators, please do move or edit this post as appropriate.

Tomo wrote:Oooooh! Marky

You're welcome.

Tomo wrote:In other collections of objects, there could be other attributes whose values you can engineer to allow them to sync up quickly. It might still be a bit of work, but doable

Yes you're right, you could engineer the attributes quite easily, such as the names of colours with the desired number of letters in them.

Part-Timer wrote:3. Reduce the number range.

You mean reduce the number of objects or reduce the value of each object?
I assume you mean the latter here, since the first would not work. You see, the larger the number of objects the more chance for the paths to converge. Although any two exclusive paths are never going to converge, and after a certain point you are flogging a dead horse anyway

Regards all.

Marvo Marky wrote:You mean reduce the number of objects or reduce the value of each object?

I mean reduce the range, although that is linked to reducing the values. Instead of 1-10 (as with cards), make it 1-4. You don't have to have fewer objects to do that. As you say, that would reduce the chances of synchronising.

Part-Timer wrote:I mean reduce the range, although that is linked to reducing the values. Instead of 1-10 (as with cards), make it 1-4.

Ah I see. That's what I thought you meant.