« λ (Lambda) | Main | θ (Little theta) »
ι (Iota)
Answer: 6502
Comments
Ahhh, the famous "Motorola question".
I see that I'm the first one to respond to this one. I thought there would be reams of discussion about this one by now, especially since the intended answer differs from what the actual answer should have been.
Let me say that the intended answer 6502, would have been correct if not for the two words "per Motorola" (after translation) in the question. Let me explain.
The original Apples had the capability of either using the 6502 MOS Technology, Inc. CPU or the Motorola 6800 CPU. Since the clue stated specifically "per Motorola" the answer is 6800.
But, in order to get a rational value for X, you have to use 6502.
I wonder what GAMES will do, use the correct answer of 6800 and rework the final value of X (and in the process have X be irrational) or use the incorrect answer of 6502 so as to have a rational value for X? Dilemma, dilemma...
Posted by: James | Feb 2, 2004 5:11:31 PM
OK, I goofed here! I found quotes such as this, from a 2001 interview of Steve Wozniak in The Guardian:
"To construct a computer quickly, I chose the 6502 microprocessor, which I bought for $25. I had actually designed my computer for the Motorola 6800 but the 6502 was cheaper, better, and pin compatible with the 6800."
I admit to being "History of Hardware" challenged, and it didn't occur to me from the likes of the above that the 6502 was a different manufacturer. I also found one or two other sources that tossed off 6502 or "the 6502 chip" without mentioning who made it, as though all readers would be expected to know. At least the MOS Technologies 6502 chip was the one actually used for Apple "cores" by the two Steves, and again, a reverse analysis from the formula shows which amount is needed. I sincerely hope all solvers mislead by my incorrect attribution to Motorola were not ultimately stymied by it.
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Feb 2, 2004 6:02:50 PM
Hmmm...this was probably the one I got stuck on. This part of the formula wasn't working right for me, and I even think I saw the 6502 number somewhere else but never thought it correct. At least I learned about computers, though. When I first read the clue, I had NO idea what they meant, even with the hint given! I learned a lot about old computers from this contest, though, I must say!
Posted by: Mike | Feb 2, 2004 6:19:06 PM
In answer to Bob's post--yes, the difficulty in this problem and in C
were mainly responsible for my giving up the contest after having
obtained (some, but not necessarily correct) answers for all 42
variables.
Posted by: Adam Bliss | Feb 2, 2004 8:09:25 PM
To respond to Adam, and this thread of discussion, I feel that what made the contest have an intangible quality was the notion that some of the answers you gave were not necessarily fully justified, or the ones you believed most correct.
I would argue against 6502, or with C = 76 all day long (I even have a gripe with K = 368pi and the way the expression 'as seen from the north pole' makes me think that it's only the visible (northern hemisphere) that's the answer...K = 184pi).
However, making all these clues fit together gave its true magic. If there was no equation, I could have had 5 years, and probably only scored 36 out of 42.
Posted by: Michael | Feb 2, 2004 8:21:48 PM
Iota is a good example of an answer that seems fishy or misleading -- but only until you get some other variables, and realize that *all* the divisions in that part of the equation are perfectly even. I felt that 6502 had to be the intended answer, without question, because the chance was slim that the math would be so easy with a wrong value. The three squared expressions under the big fraction on the right side is another place, where you pretty much know you're right when factors cancel so easily. The 157's and 587's above that fraction are another Aha moment.
--Kevin
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 3, 2004 12:01:23 AM
Though I have problems with C, this is the one I really felt let down on when I saw the solutions. (Though finding this site was a welcomed gem!) The "per motorola" to me was a clear reference to the fact that the founders of MOS Technology and makers of the 6501 and 6502 were ex-motorola employees. Motorola sued to keep these chips off the market because they were essentially, in their opinion, 6800's. In an out of court settlement, MOS Tech agreed to discontinue the 6501, but was free to sell the 6502. But since Motorolla's original claim was that it was a 6800 in disguise made this an easy answer, I thought. My biggest letdown, however, was that somehow, in my million readings of the question, i missed the hint I keep reading in here that the final answer is rational! *argh* Ah well, Its been almost two months... I've almost recovered...
Posted by: SteveV | Mar 26, 2004 11:23:30 PM
Post a comment
Commenters please note: do NOT discuss ANY contest information for a currently active contest outside of what is printed in GAMES magazine.
