My TicTacToe Hypothesis

I've long wondered about the relation of the size of a TicTacToe grid and the number of squares to the outcome of a game.  For example, a 2x2 grid will always be won by the first player:

The odd numbers are the first player's moves, and the even are the second player's moves.

Part one of my hypothesis is that an n to the nth grid will always be won by the first player.  So far, so good!

If we now try a 3x3 (n+1 to the nth+1) grid, we get the following result:

Many people know that in 3x3 TicTacToe game that either the first player will win or a tie will result, especially if the first player always starts from the center.  In the above example, we have a tie because neither player has any moves that will lead to a win. The red numbers are blocking moves.  The only way player two would lose is by making his or her next move in the lower left corner.


Now let's try a three-dimensional game.  If the grid is 3x3x3, then player one can always win with careful play:

Again the red numbers are blocking moves and the green numbers are the winning moves.  The second player has only two choices for the fourth move (8), as shown or where the first player made the winning move (9).  Neither would have prevented the first player's win.

OK, let's try a 4x4x4 game.  After several tries where the first player won, I found one where the second player won, even though the first player kept trying to take the initiative:

The two red X's are the only choices the first player has, either of which still allows the second player to make the winning move.  Can you find which move by the second player put the first player on the defensive?

And thus goes my hope of a grand theory of TicTacToe crashing to the ground, pulled down by the weight of contrary evidence.  My hypothesis is that I went too long to test my TicTacToe hypothesis and kept getting my hopes higher and higher.

Facebook comment on Charles M. Blow's editorial on MLK and leadership

I posted a link to Charles M. Blow's New York Times editorial "The Most Dangerous Negro" on my Facebook page with the comment:

"I won't remonstrate if you don't demonstrate,
but I will if you don't put down the remote and vote!"

This was considering that demonstrations sometimes have a better turnout than the elections.

In other words, demonstrate if you will, don't demonstrate if choose not to, but be sure to vote if you demonstrated for a cause.  My take on voting turnout in state after state is that many will sign petitions or show up at a demonstration, but their number too often far exceeds the votes actually cast in support of that cause.

Shame on Wisconsinites!

Scott Walker won the governorship of Wisconsin in 2010 with about a quarter of the eligible voters in a light turnout.  Then in February 2011 there were big demonstrations against some of Walker's anti-union legislation.  See "The "people" are speaking, but a bit late".

Then this year many started a petition to recall Gov. Walker.  They collected 900,939 signatures.  That is about 40 percent of the 3,285,704 registered voters (July 2010).  These figures are from the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board.

So what happened on primary day on May 8, 2012?  Did 900,939 voters vote for any of the Democrats?  Right, and we will have 100% turnout in the Presidential elections this fall!  The five Democratic candidates received 665,928 votes together.  Where were the other 25 percent of the petition signers?  And it is probably worse than that because many who showed up to vote didn't sign a recall petition. (Election results from the Green Bay Press Gazette.)

Demonstrations take a lot more effort than voting.  But it seems many people would rather demonstrate than vote.  See "Which is better, civil disobedience or voting?"

Remember, "The 1% may have the money, but the 99% have the votes", but your vote doesn't count if you don't show up!

Fair and balanced reporting?

Fox News posted a video clip entitled "'Occupy D.C.' Goons Push Elderly Woman Down the Stairs". But where in the video is she shown being deliberately or accidentally pushed? We only know two things for sure from this video.
1) There was a demonstration in front of an event.
2) A women fell at the bottom of a stairway and was distraught.

Did she trip? Was she bumped in the crush of a crowd? Because somebody was blaming the demonstrators for pushing the woman doesn't mean that they actually pushed her. And the use of "Goons" in the headline doesn't inspire confidence in this reporting being unbiased.

"Fair and Balanced" is still part of the Fox News logo, but is making charges without more substantiation "fair and balanced"?

For a more detailed analysis of the situation and the larger context, see http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/occupy-police.

Business people are demonstrating against business?

I kid you not! "A suited protester from the Occupy London Stock Exchange holds a placard stating 'Time's Up!' whilst business people walk by as they continue their demonstration that started on Saturday outside St Paul's Cathedral, near the London Stock Exchange in London, Monday, Oct. 17, 2011." This was in the notes to photo 6 of 63 from "Occupy Wall Street: Images from the Front Lines", Yahoo Finance!, 2011-10-17.

I read this as "business people are demonstrating as they walk by." "Business people" is the first plural subject in the above paragraph.

I guess I can't complain too much. Today I found a "the the" in a blog entry I wrote five years ago.

The suit with the cigar, an update

This morning's Duluth News Tribune had pictures of the Occupy Twin Ports demonstration. The guy with the suit and the cigar sign was "I support Wall Street!" And you can see the cigar in his mouth.

Occupy Twin Ports, 12 Oct. 2011

I spent about a half hour today at the Occupy Twin Ports in Duluth. My guess is that about a hundred people showed up, several with home-made signs. I knew about a dozen of the people attending. As far as "the media" ignoring it, there were several reporter/photographers and at least one TV crew. Many people beeped their horns as the drove by and some passengers hollered out encouraging remarks.

When I walked by before the official start, I think there was one police officer. When I participated I never saw a police officer.

There was a Tea Party demonstration on an opposite corner, but I couldn't read their signs.

On our side a suit was smoking a cigar right next to other people. I don't remember the sign he was holding, but if he was an anti-demonstrator, his smoking a cigar in a crowd was indicative of the disdain Wall St. holds for us 99%.

A downpour started about fifteen minutes after the start. Umbrellas came out and then the person with the bullhorn announced a Plan B and marched off toward the banks. After the rain dwindled they came marching back.