A puzzle - diabetes not treatable with diet

On 5 May, 00:27, Quentin Grady <quen...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 02:58:26 -0700 (PDT), Helen Back
>
>
>
>
>
> <SiriusC...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> You are the one actively doing
> >> something about your own diabetes. You are the one asking questions
> >> and contributing to the health of others. *You matter.
>
> >Thank you for your valued responses, Quentin. *And thank you
> >especially for reminding me that *I* am doing for *me* and if my
> >friend chooses not to do for himself, then so be it.
>
> >I sent a post in response earlier but darn google had a glitch, so I
> >had to retype it - hope it doesnt repeat anywhere LOL
>
> >Thank you to everyone who responded - its most appreciated.
>
> >Love to all....
> >HB
>
> G'day G'day Helen,
>
> * I very much admire the way you "get it" * *A lot of people more
> especially women don't. *They feel somehow that they must sacrifice
> themselves for others regardless of whether other adults take
> responsibility for themselves. * Glad you aren't going there.
>
> Now you've mentioned a couple of thing that seem important from a
> zillion miles away. *He cared about his brother. *
>
> He saw what happened to him. * May I make the bold suggestion that
> when the time is ripe you PRAISE this bloke. *It sounds a bit screwy
> but he is taking his medication seriously. *That is worth hammering
> every time the topic comes up. Each time he comes up with the
> "different type of diabetes" routine, PRAISE him for taking his
> medication seriously. *So many don't. *It deflates the barrier he has
> erected. * Remind him of how he was there for his brother. *That
> surely is worth praise. *It also reminds him of what is in store if
> diabetes isn't dealt with effectively. *Now that is two parts of
> praise before the mayonnaise. *(Sorry Praise is brand name for
> mayonnaise here.) *What I'm suggesting rather badly is that one can't
> effectively communicate with people who've shut off communication if
> what they perceive as occurring is an argument. *
>
> So two parts praise ...repeated again and again. *
>
> THEN comes the bit about meds being most effective when supported by
> diet and exercise. *Notice that the meds and caring like he did for
> his brother have to come first, second and third before there's a
> chance he'll be thinking about a lifestyle change. *
>
> Even then it is his responsibility not yours and you must put yourself
> first because not only do you need yourself but so do your immediate
> family including pets and they do their bit to be worthy of love.
>

What a brilliant and reverse psychology approach! That's it, isnt
it! In my concern, panic, worry mode, I couldnt think about praising
him for what he has achieved through caring for his brother and what
he *is* doing now for his own condition. I was simply on a quest to
punish him for not complying to my demands. When really, I should be
simply praising him for what he has been capable of and is capable of.

Its going to help me and I pray, help him too.

And yes, I use a lot of energy up on people I care about, but my boys,
my dogs and I must come first - another valid observation from you.

When I sit down and reminisce over the day, I realise just how much
love is shown towards me from my teenage boys and the animals - and
that's a blessing in itself.

Bless you, Quentin.

convicted friend Helen Back wrote:
> Wes Groleau <groleau+n...@freeshell.org> wrote:
> > convicted friend Helen Back wrote:
>
> > > Here's thepuzzle! �He said his type of diabetes "isnt controlled by
> > > diet, only medication". �He is not on insulin just some tablets, which
> > > he cant remember the name of. �He has to take the tablets because the
> > > diabetes isnt controlled by diet. I repeat this because he keeps
> > > repeating it to me!
> >
> > "I can see that your diabetes is being treated by medication
> > instead of by diet. �My point is that it _should_ be treated
> > by diet, and would be if you had been given better advice."
> >
> > I know that's a bit flippant, but ....
> >
> Not flippant at all - a valid and honest comment. And I will
> incorporate it into my *praise* conversation (as so graciously
> suggested by our dear Quentin).

It remains smarter to pursue a possible cure of type-2 diabetes by
eating less, down to the right amount:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart

Here is yet again that very simple parable given in hopes of promoting
much greater understanding:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/Parable

LIfe in these industrialized nations is truly life in blessed
feedlots.

> Thank you.

Laus Deo

http://HeartMDPhD.com/LausDeo

Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be euglycemic:

http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthier

Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
A latter-day disciple of the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/DiscipleNow

On 4 May, 19:32, "Michelle C" <bookb...@frys.com> wrote:
> "Helen Back" <SiriusC...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:05e1d1cb-e18f-4a94-8b99-c2256f7bded2@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 2 May, 12:33, Nicky <ukc802466...@btconnect.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1 May 2008 09:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Helen Back
>
> >> <SiriusC...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >Can anyone work out what is going on!
>
> >> He's ostriching. Sorry you're going to have to go through that again
> >>
>
> > Yes, as I was responding to Quentin, blinkin' tears started pouring
> > down my face.
>
> > Not quite over my mum and other friend yet, obviously!!
>
> Hi Helen,
>
> I'm so sorry. *It makes a person feel so helpless to know that a person
> needs to take better care of himself and he pretends he doesn't. *And it's
> especially frustrating in the fact that he felt the same type of
> helplessness when his brother was going through it, yet can't/won't see it
> now.
>
> Wish I had some profound thought to offer, but I don't. *It just sucks.
> --

Thank you so much for your kind words. I am hoping that Quentin's
suggestion to praise, rather than panic mode demand positive results
from my friend, will make something *click* for him.

Cheers xx

On May 6, 9:40 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> convicted friend Helen Back wrote:
>
>
>
> > Wes Groleau <groleau+n...@freeshell.org> wrote:
> > > convicted friend Helen Back wrote:
>
> > > > Here's thepuzzle! �He said his type of diabetes "isnt controlled by
> > > > diet, only medication". �He is not on insulin just some tablets, which
> > > > he cant remember the name of. �He has to take the tablets because the
> > > > diabetes isnt controlled by diet. I repeat this because he keeps
> > > > repeating it to me!
>
> > > "I can see that your diabetes is being treated by medication
> > > instead of by diet. �My point is that it _should_ be treated
> > > by diet, and would be if you had been given better advice."
>
> > > I know that's a bit flippant, but ....
>
> > Not flippant at all - a valid and honest comment. And I will
> > incorporate it into my *praise* conversation (as so graciously
> > suggested by our dear Quentin).
>
> It remains smarter to pursue a possible cure of type-2 diabetes by
> eating less, down to the right amount:
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart
>
> Here is yet again that very simple parable given in hopes of promoting
> much greater understanding:
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Parable
>
> LIfe in these industrialized nations is truly life in blessed
> feedlots.
>
> > Thank you.
>
> Laus Deo
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/LausDeo
>
> Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be euglycemic:
>
> http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthier
>
> Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
>
> Andrew <><
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Lawful steward ofhttp://EmoryCardiology.com
> A latter-day disciple of the KING of kings and LORD of lords.http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/DiscipleNow

When signed into Google, with a Chung Dung post open, look to the
upper right hand corner. Click on "more options" Then click on "report
this message" and "Type of abuse* I am seeing spam" Be sure to include
a description of Chung's worthless, repetitive, off topic, self-
serving spam and point out that he gives bad, nonstandard medical
advice and has multiple Google accounts.

> On May 6, 9:40 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
>> convicted friend Helen Back wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Wes Groleau <groleau+n...@freeshell.org> wrote:
>>>> convicted friend Helen Back wrote:
>>>>> Here's thepuzzle! ïÿ½He said his type of diabetes "isnt controlled by
>>>>> diet, only medication". ïÿ½He is not on insulin just some tablets, which
>>>>> he cant remember the name of. ïÿ½He has to take the tablets because the
>>>>> diabetes isnt controlled by diet. I repeat this because he keeps
>>>>> repeating it to me!
>>
>>>> "I can see that your diabetes is being treated by medication
>>>> instead of by diet. ïÿ½My point is that it _should_ be treated
>>>> by diet, and would be if you had been given better advice."
>>>> I know that's a bit flippant, but ....
>>> Not flippant at all - a valid and honest comment. And I will
>>> incorporate it into my *praise* conversation (as so graciously
>>> suggested by our dear Quentin).
>>
>> It remains smarter to pursue a possible cure of type-2 diabetes by
>> eating less, down to the right amount:
>>
>> http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart
>>
>> Here is yet again that very simple parable given in hopes of promoting
>> much greater understanding:
>>
>> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Parable
>>
>> LIfe in these industrialized nations is truly life in blessed
>> feedlots.
>>
>>> Thank you.
>>
>> Laus Deo
>>
>> http://HeartMDPhD.com/LausDeo
>>
>> Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be euglycemic:
>>
>> http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthier
>>
>> Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
>>
>> Andrew <><
>> --
>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>> Lawful steward ofhttp://EmoryCardiology.com
>> A latter-day disciple of the KING of kings and LORD of
>> lords.http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/DiscipleNow
>
> When signed into Google, with a Chung Dung post open, look to the
> upper right hand corner. Click on "more options" Then click on "report
> this message" and "Type of abuse* I am seeing spam" Be sure to include
> a description of Chung's worthless, repetitive, off topic, self-
> serving spam and point out that he gives bad, nonstandard medical
> advice and has multiple Google accounts.

Most folks have reported him only to find that he opens more accounts.
Putting it in simple words: He is unstoppable.

In addition if you have a Google account, be careful. Chung will
report you from all his multiple accounts to Google until you get
removed. It has happened here to certain poster that started a group
against Chung's spam.

Hope this helps.

On Tue, 6 May 2008 09:39:45 -0700 (PDT), Helen Back
<SiriusC-63@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>On 5 May, 00:27, Quentin Grady <quen...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 May 2008 02:58:26 -0700 (PDT), Helen Back
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <SiriusC...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> You are the one actively doing
>> >> something about your own diabetes. You are the one asking questions
>> >> and contributing to the health of others. *You matter.
>>
>> >Thank you for your valued responses, Quentin. *And thank you
>> >especially for reminding me that *I* am doing for *me* and if my
>> >friend chooses not to do for himself, then so be it.
>>
>> >I sent a post in response earlier but darn google had a glitch, so I
>> >had to retype it - hope it doesnt repeat anywhere LOL
>>
>> >Thank you to everyone who responded - its most appreciated.
>>
>> >Love to all....
>> >HB
>>
>> G'day G'day Helen,
>>
>> * I very much admire the way you "get it" * *A lot of people more
>> especially women don't. *They feel somehow that they must sacrifice
>> themselves for others regardless of whether other adults take
>> responsibility for themselves. * Glad you aren't going there.
>>
>> Now you've mentioned a couple of thing that seem important from a
>> zillion miles away. *He cared about his brother. *
>>
>> He saw what happened to him. * May I make the bold suggestion that
>> when the time is ripe you PRAISE this bloke. *It sounds a bit screwy
>> but he is taking his medication seriously. *That is worth hammering
>> every time the topic comes up. Each time he comes up with the
>> "different type of diabetes" routine, PRAISE him for taking his
>> medication seriously. *So many don't. *It deflates the barrier he has
>> erected. * Remind him of how he was there for his brother. *That
>> surely is worth praise. *It also reminds him of what is in store if
>> diabetes isn't dealt with effectively. *Now that is two parts of
>> praise before the mayonnaise. *(Sorry Praise is brand name for
>> mayonnaise here.) *What I'm suggesting rather badly is that one can't
>> effectively communicate with people who've shut off communication if
>> what they perceive as occurring is an argument. *
>>
>> So two parts praise ...repeated again and again. *
>>
>> THEN comes the bit about meds being most effective when supported by
>> diet and exercise. *Notice that the meds and caring like he did for
>> his brother have to come first, second and third before there's a
>> chance he'll be thinking about a lifestyle change. *
>>
>> Even then it is his responsibility not yours and you must put yourself
>> first because not only do you need yourself but so do your immediate
>> family including pets and they do their bit to be worthy of love.
>>
>
>What a brilliant and reverse psychology approach!

G'day G'day Helen,

Perhaps it is brilliant and perhaps it is reverse psychology. I'm
not much into labels except as after thoughts. It came to me as I
was walking the dogs along the beach where the gazanias grow
profusely.

I thought about what WAS there. That's our FIRST reaction.

Then I thought about what WASN'T there. That's the SECOND reaction
that only occurs if we give it a chance by asking the question out
loud.

"What wasn't there that ought to be there? "

One positive thing about being terminally ill and walking with sticks
is the no one cares if you mumble a bit to yourself. Being on a
lonely beach where no one but a blind dog hears you helps too. <griN>
We can all be brilliant once we know the secret. It's simple, eh?

Personally I wouldn't bother with the reverse psychology tag though I
can see how it would help some people. To me asking a useful question
at the right time is more important. Hope that's clearer than mud.

>That's it, isnt it! In my concern, panic, worry mode, I couldnt think about praising
>him for what he has achieved through caring for his brother and what
>he *is* doing now for his own condition. I was simply on a quest to
>punish him for not complying to my demands.

IMHO you are incredibly perceptive. Not many people would have had
that degree of self realization. I'd be proud of myself if I made
that sort of leap. You really are a smart cookie.

>When really, I should be
>simply praising him for what he has been capable of and is capable of.

Try "could" rather than "should" "Should" tends to elicit the type
of response where one does "forgetting"

"Could" kicks off "can" and a feast of remembering in time.
Just a wild hypothesis of mine. Don't get too excited about it.

You'll know instinctively when will be the best time to praise him and
bring about a real change. I typed cry if you like. It works on me.
Then I deleted it. Then I wondered why so I put it back in.

>Its going to help me and I pray, help him too.
>
>And yes, I use a lot of energy up on people I care about, but my boys,
>my dogs and I must come first - another valid observation from you.

I sensed that when you mentioned the tears. It was something you'd
momentarily overlooked. You're far too special to let that happen
again.


>When I sit down and reminisce over the day, I realise just how much
>love is shown towards me from my teenage boys and the animals - and
>that's a blessing in itself.

Absolutely. Lots of plusses

>Bless you, Quentin.

Thank you.

A friend pulled this trick on me today. Wonder if someone can solve
it as it embarrasses me that I don't know how they did it. (They
didn't use the Chinese Remainder Theorem which I've tried
unsuccessfully to teach them.)

Think of a number between 7 and 100.

Divide by five. What is the remainder? Two I answered.
Divide by four What is the remainder? One I answered.
Divide by seven. What is the remainder? Zero.

The number is 77 my friend replied with little hesitation.

Please put me out of my misery.
It's got to involve nothing more than primary school arithmetic.

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

On 5 May, 00:38, Quentin Grady <quen...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 02:27:55 -0700 (PDT), Helen Back
>
> <SiriusC...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 2 May, 12:33, Nicky <ukc802466...@btconnect.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1 May 2008 09:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Helen Back
>
> >> <SiriusC...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >Can anyone work out what is going on!
>
> >> He's ostriching. Sorry you're going to have to go through that again
> >>
>
> >Yes, as I was responding to Quentin, blinkin' tears started pouring
> >down my face.
>
> >Not quite over my mum and other friend yet, obviously!!
>
> Helen, you're a person who cares and cares deeply. *Some might suggest
> that is a rarity in today's world. *Frankly ASD let's us bare witness
> to some pretty magnificent acts of human kindness.
>
> IMHO your caring says to me that you are a better person. *When I've
> cried I notice the colours in the room are brighter afterwards. *
>
> *The question is how best to support YOU. * On ASD it is primarily the
> person who is posting who needs our support. *That's you not the guy
> whose behavior isn't helping his future happiness.
>

How could I miss this post? Arent nice things said about us such
boosts to the soul )) And yes, I notice colours are brighter after
a good release through crying.

What I am definitely sure of is that if I need help here, I will
receive it - and that is a great comfort and I thank you and everybody
who takes the time to write and the energy to care.

Thank you xx

http://HeartMDPhD.com/Despairingsatan

<><

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Counsels

Quentin Grady wrote:
> Think of a number between 7 and 100.
>
> Divide by five. What is the remainder? Two I answered.
> Divide by four What is the remainder? One I answered.
> Divide by seven. What is the remainder? Zero.
>
> The number is 77, my friend replied with little hesitation.

How much hesitation? It took me fifteen minutes
to come up with a method, but the first time
I used it, I had less than a second of hesitation:

(a) X mod 5 = 2 : last digit must be 7 or 2

(b) X mod 4 = 1 : X must be odd ( _7 )

(c) X mod 7 = 0 : X must be 7 or 77

(d) 7 mod 4 = 3 : X must be 77

For (c) you only need to know the sevens--if you had said
remainder six, I would know that X + 1 must be 28 or 98.
If 0 < X < 100, then (c) has at most two choices, and
since the difference between them is seventy, only one
can have the desired mod four value.

How did I do all that in less than a second?
I didn't! My son picked a number, and I said,
"Divide by five and tell me the remainder."

He also said "Two," and so I knew the last digit
was either two or seven _before_ I finished saying,
"Divide by four and tell me the remainder."

He said "Two," and so I knew the number was
even (last digit two) _before_ I finished saying,
"Divide by seven and tell me the remainder."

He said, "Four," so in the time it takes to say,
"Your number is," I figured that it had to be
three less than a multiple of seven that ends in
five. There's only one choice: 32, so I did not need
the tie-breaker (d).

But I was wrong! The number is 92! How did that happen?

The instructions are not clear. His computations were:

Divide by five and tell me the remainder:
92 / 5 = 18 R 2

Divide by four and tell me the remainder:
18 / 4 = 4 R 2

Divide by seven and tell me the remainder:
4 / 7 = 0 R 4

which my method turns into
(a) X mod 5 = 2 : last digit must be 7 or 2
(b) X mod 4 = 2 : X must be even ( _2 )
(c) X mod 7 = 4 : X+3 can only be 35
: X = 32

If I had bothered to check
(d) 32 mod 4 = 0
then I might have realized that he did not do what I wanted.

Instead, I said, "Your number is 32" and he said "92"
I said "92 divided by seven has a reminder of one."
He said, "Oh, I thought you meant....."

Before I even worked out the technique, I had realized two
possible interpretations of the instructions, so if I had
checked step (d), I would have suspected what happened, and
I could have taken a little more time to figure:

Third remainder is also the dividend (divide X < 100 by 5,
second dividend < 20, divide that by four: less than
five).

So second dividend is 4 * 4 + 2 = 18 and
the number is 18 * 5 + 2 = 92

However, with a little more practice and thought, I would
have rephrased the instructions to make the alternate
method unnecessary.

--
Wes Groleau
Heroes, Heritage, and History
http://UniGen.us/PGV

<<Can anyone work out what is going on!>>

without being there, it's difficult to say. his doc may have said you
cannot control this with diet...meaning he needs more like a medication
too.

when i was diagnosed, it was evident that diet alone was not going to
work. i was put on a med immediately. but i was given a diet to go with
it.

Helen Back wrote:
> Hi guys - remember my poor friend who died just before New Years Eve?
> He had uncontrolled diabetes and was subjected to numerous strokes and
> major hypos before he passed. Anyway, his brother, also my friend,
> has just been diagnosed with diabetes.
>
> Here's the puzzle! He said his type of diabetes "isnt controlled by
> diet, only medication". He is not on insulin just some tablets, which
> he cant remember the name of. He has to take the tablets because the
> diabetes isnt controlled by diet. I repeat this because he keeps
> repeating it to me!
>
> Now, I dont know if this guy is lying as he knows he has no intention
> of radically changing his dietary habits (he hates salads,most
> vegetables and fruit - will not experiment with anything more exotic
> than deep fried sausages, deep fried bacon, chips (fries), etc etc.)
> or his consultant is aware, judging from his general health and family
> history that my friend has no intentions of making an effort on the
> dietary front.
>
> I have told him that unless he changes his diet and ups the exercise
> he can look at the same kind of misery his own brother went through.
> That diet and exercise play a huge part in keeping it under control,
> no matter how many tablets he takes.
>
> Can anyone work out what is going on!

Your diabetic friend is the classic accident waiting to happen. His
inability to remember the name of his medicine may be an indication of
more than carelessness. Bernstein wrote about this in his book "Diabetes
Solution" long before we started seeing a link established between
Alzheimer's and poorly controlled diabetes.

Helen Back wrote:

>
> His whole family are unhealthy through either the lack of wishing to
> understand a healthier lifestyle or are simply incapable of
> understanding.

The medical costs to support this family's freedom to eat in this manner
is expensive.

In 2002, dialysis costs per patient in the U.S. was $66,000 a year with
a 7% yearly growth in the number of patients needing dialysis.

Most governments, including the U.S., cover the costs of dialysis.

http://jasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/cont...13/suppl_1/S37

On Thu, 08 May 2008 02:59:13 GMT, Wes Groleau
<groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

>Quentin Grady wrote:
>> Think of a number between 7 and 100.
>>
>> Divide by five. What is the remainder? Two I answered.
>> Divide by four What is the remainder? One I answered.
>> Divide by seven. What is the remainder? Zero.
>>
>> The number is 77, my friend replied with little hesitation.
>
>How much hesitation? It took me fifteen minutes
>to come up with a method, but the first time
>I used it, I had less than a second of hesitation:
>
>(a) X mod 5 = 2 : last digit must be 7 or 2
>
>(b) X mod 4 = 1 : X must be odd ( _7 )
>
>(c) X mod 7 = 0 : X must be 7 or 77
>
>(d) 7 mod 4 = 3 : X must be 77

G'day G'day Wes,

I'm sure that is likely to be the method my friend used. I must I'm
feeling particularly dumb now having explored some arcane methods
rather than the obvious. As it happens my friend actually said it
must be 7 or 77 No, No it must be 77.

I introduced the puzzle because I wanted to get past the idea of me
being brilliant. Believing that wouldn't have helped them find their
own solution in the future.

>For (c) you only need to know the sevens--if you had said
>remainder six, I would know that X + 1 must be 28 or 98.
>If 0 < X < 100, then (c) has at most two choices, and
>since the difference between them is seventy, only one
>can have the desired mod four value.
>
>How did I do all that in less than a second?
>I didn't! My son picked a number, and I said,
>"Divide by five and tell me the remainder."
>
>He also said "Two," and so I knew the last digit
>was either two or seven _before_ I finished saying,
>"Divide by four and tell me the remainder."
>
>He said "Two," and so I knew the number was
>even (last digit two) _before_ I finished saying,
>"Divide by seven and tell me the remainder."
>
>He said, "Four," so in the time it takes to say,
>"Your number is," I figured that it had to be
>three less than a multiple of seven that ends in
>five. There's only one choice: 32, so I did not need
>the tie-breaker (d).
>
>But I was wrong! The number is 92! How did that happen?
>
>The instructions are not clear. His computations were:
>
>Divide by five and tell me the remainder:
>92 / 5 = 18 R 2
>
>Divide by four and tell me the remainder:
>18 / 4 = 4 R 2
>
>Divide by seven and tell me the remainder:
> 4 / 7 = 0 R 4
>
>which my method turns into
>(a) X mod 5 = 2 : last digit must be 7 or 2
>(b) X mod 4 = 2 : X must be even ( _2 )
>(c) X mod 7 = 4 : X+3 can only be 35
> : X = 32
>
>If I had bothered to check
>(d) 32 mod 4 = 0
>then I might have realized that he did not do what I wanted.
>
>Instead, I said, "Your number is 32" and he said "92"
>I said "92 divided by seven has a reminder of one."
>He said, "Oh, I thought you meant....."
>
>Before I even worked out the technique, I had realized two
>possible interpretations of the instructions, so if I had
>checked step (d), I would have suspected what happened, and
>I could have taken a little more time to figure:
>
>Third remainder is also the dividend (divide X < 100 by 5,
>second dividend < 20, divide that by four: less than
>five).
>
>So second dividend is 4 * 4 + 2 = 18 and
> the number is 18 * 5 + 2 = 92
>
>However, with a little more practice and thought, I would
>have rephrased the instructions to make the alternate
>method unnecessary.

Yes. The instructions weren't clear. It is just as they were given
to me originally. That's how stories are sometimes. The come with
their imperfectios.

Best wishes and thanks for your solutions. They've helped me
considerably.
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

On Thu, 08 May 2008 02:59:13 GMT, Wes Groleau
<groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

>Quentin Grady wrote:
>> Think of a number between 7 and 100.
>>
>> Divide by five. What is the remainder? Two I answered.
>> Divide by four What is the remainder? One I answered.
>> Divide by seven. What is the remainder? Zero.
>>
>> The number is 77, my friend replied with little hesitation.
>
>How much hesitation? It took me fifteen minutes
>to come up with a method, but the first time
>I used it, I had less than a second of hesitation:
>
>(a) X mod 5 = 2 : last digit must be 7 or 2
>
>(b) X mod 4 = 1 : X must be odd ( _7 )
>
>(c) X mod 7 = 0 : X must be 7 or 77
>
>(d) 7 mod 4 = 3 : X must be 77
>
>For (c) you only need to know the sevens--if you had said
>remainder six, I would know that X + 1 must be 28 or 98.
>If 0 < X < 100, then (c) has at most two choices, and
>since the difference between them is seventy, only one
>can have the desired mod four value.

This is where I got slower. The first part where one works out what
the last digit is takes very little time.

However the part that slows me down is deciding what the first digit
is from the remainder when dividing by 7. That takes me ages ...
well it feels like ages.

Can you give me a couple of examples so I can get a feel for how it is
done? Thanks.

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

Quentin Grady wrote:
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 02:59:13 GMT, Wes Groleau
> However the part that slows me down is deciding what the first digit
> is from the remainder when dividing by 7. That takes me ages ...
> well it feels like ages.
>
> Can you give me a couple of examples so I can get a feel for how it is
> done? Thanks.

It's not really computation from remainder to first digit,
it's memory. Well, it's both.

Suppose the last digit is six and the remainder mod seven is two.

remainder two means it is a multiple of seven, plus two.

If that number ends in six, then the multiple of seven
must end in four. Which multiples of seven end in four?

7 _14_ 21 ... 77 _84_ 91 98

reverse the 6-2=4 shift and you have 16 and 86.

Take a "random" number--the minutes in my posting time above (59)

Mod 5 = 4 -- last digit 4 or 9

mod 4 = 3 -- number odd, last digit odd (9)

mod 7 = 3 -- three above a multiple of seven which ends in 6

7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, _56_

56 + 3 = 59

If the subtraction involves a "borrow", i.e., the remainder mod 7
is bigger than the last digit, you can instead add the complement:

Remainder Complement
0 7
1 6
2 5
3 4
4 3
5 2
6 1

For example, 51 mod 7 = 2

so _1 = X - 2 where X = multiple of seven ending in 11 - 2 = 9 (49)
OR _1 = X + 5 where X = multiple of seven ending in 1 + 5 = 6 (56)


--
Wes Groleau

If you put garbage in a computer nothing comes out but garbage.
But this garbage, having passed through a very expensive machine,
is somehow ennobled and none dare criticize it.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 04:12:28 GMT, Wes Groleau
<groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

>Quentin Grady wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 May 2008 02:59:13 GMT, Wes Groleau
>> However the part that slows me down is deciding what the first digit
>> is from the remainder when dividing by 7. That takes me ages ...
>> well it feels like ages.
>>
>> Can you give me a couple of examples so I can get a feel for how it is
>> done? Thanks.
>
>It's not really computation from remainder to first digit,
>it's memory. Well, it's both.
>
>Suppose the last digit is six and the remainder mod seven is two.
>
>remainder two means it is a multiple of seven, plus two.
>
>If that number ends in six, then the multiple of seven
>must end in four. Which multiples of seven end in four?
>
>7 _14_ 21 ... 77 _84_ 91 98
>
>reverse the 6-2=4 shift and you have 16 and 86.
>
>Take a "random" number--the minutes in my posting time above (59)
>
>Mod 5 = 4 -- last digit 4 or 9
>
>mod 4 = 3 -- number odd, last digit odd (9)
>
>mod 7 = 3 -- three above a multiple of seven which ends in 6
>
>7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, _56_
>
>56 + 3 = 59
>
>If the subtraction involves a "borrow", i.e., the remainder mod 7
>is bigger than the last digit, you can instead add the complement:
>
>Remainder Complement
> 0 7
> 1 6
> 2 5
> 3 4
> 4 3
> 5 2
> 6 1
>
>For example, 51 mod 7 = 2
>
>so _1 = X - 2 where X = multiple of seven ending in 11 - 2 = 9 (49)
>OR _1 = X + 5 where X = multiple of seven ending in 1 + 5 = 6 (56)

G'day G'day Wes,

Thanks. I hadn't considered using complements. It shows how
important it can be to share what one is attempting with someone else.
Different approaches greatly widen the approaches one considers.

Once again, thank you.

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin