| Go to page 1 ~ 2 (Next) |
|
|
Metalepsis
Loyal user
232 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 31, 2004 8:51am
I have recently become very interested in this principle, it is strange how people have more trouble understanding this than convergence. Remarkable. Anyway, one of my new favs is 'The angel may shuffle but the devil still deals'. Anybody else have favourite GP tricks?
M
|
Scott Cram
Inner circle
2458 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 31, 2004 10:43am
In no particular order:
"Aunt Mary's Terrible Secret" by David Williamson (available in a book of the same name)
"Best Bet Yet" by Terry LaGerould (From "A Magical Baker's Dozen", available via Lew Brooks)
"Please Don't Match" by Terry LaGerould (unpublished) - In this effect, the spectator shuffles the deck, takes out 7 cards, and shuffles them. These cards are torn in half, and then these 14 halves are shuffled together. This half-card stack is placed into the performer's pocket (examined previously), and he pulls cards from the pocket one by one, betting that he'll never pull out the remaining half of any card that was previously pulled. The performer always wins the bet.
Grey Matters:Blog|Videos|Mental Gym|Presentation|Store
|
rgranville
Elite user
Boston area
458 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 31, 2004 10:44am
While I know several effects based on the Gilbreath Principle, and I know it is "a thing of terrifying beauty," I don't precisely know the exact principle itself. Where can I find a write up defining and detailing the Gilbreath Principle?
|
Metalepsis
Loyal user
232 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 31, 2004 11:57am
College Math Journal: Volume 31, Number 3, Pages: 173-177 2000 Modeling Mathematics
With Playing Cards Martin Gardner
If you want some homework!
faculty1.coloradocollege.edu
I will look for better explanations...although using coloured balls in tubes is a good way to explain it visually (ask me for details if you like). Are you looking for academic formal analysis or a (mathematically speaking) laymans explanation?
Our own Jim Morton has offered to e-mail anyone a PDF on the subject in a previous thread:
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=3268&forum=2&38
Which also has some great tricks listed already for this topic, still even though I found that I wanted to start a new thread and hear what people think (maybe someone has changed their mind...or there are new people unaware of the beauty).
M
|
Hushai
Veteran user
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
331 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2004 2:26am
I am hoping that Phil Goldstein will in fact publish his long-awaited book on Gilbreath before I am too old to shuffle a deck of cards. If it is anything like as clear an explanation of Gilbreath as "Redivider" was of Rusduck, all of us like rgranville and me who are still not sure we understand Gilbreath will rejoice. "Redivider" was wonderful -- the right mix of theory and effects for a non-mathematical layperson like me.
|
rgranville
Elite user
Boston area
458 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2004 9:48am
But I do have a mathematical background. I have asked Jim Morton for his writeup. I'm still looking for a precise definition of the principle.
|
EmmanuelM
New user
24 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 12, 2004 4:19am
Quote:
|
I'm still looking for a precise definition of the principle.
|
|
Well, the scientific literature about this principle quote the Linking Ring article by Gilbreath ! 
I found some references about the Gilbreath principle not for any real use, but as a test for inductive theorem prover programs : Gilbreath's principle is at the same time easy to formalize, and non-trivial when you want to convince someone that your prover has "found something" that was "neither written in the rules nor in the prover", I guess.
You can find such a reference in :
www.cs.utexas.edu
which starts with :
Quote:
|
A Mechanical Checking of a Theorem About a Card Trick
Robert S. Boyer, May 22, 1991
This is a formalization, in the Nqthm logic, of a card trick theorem that de Bruijn taught Huet, Huet taught Moore, and Moore taught me.
|
|
|
Metalepsis
Loyal user
232 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 15, 2004 2:48pm
Quote:
|
I found some references about the Gilbreath principle not for any real use, but as a test for inductive theorem prover programs : Gilbreath's principle is at the same time easy to formalize, and non-trivial when you want to convince someone that your prover has "found something" that was "neither written in the rules nor in the prover", I guess.
|
|
I think I'm in love. That's my language. Is this your field or do you just visit?
M
|
Aron Devin
New user
Chattanooga, TN
78 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 16, 2004 10:59am
One of the best effects I've ever seen was Max Maven's "Mockingbird" effect on his "VideoMind" series. Unbeliveable. It's pert of the L and L series. I remember first seeing it and thinking there had to be a stooge helping him out.
|
Caliban
Special user
659 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 18, 2004 3:28pm
There are some good tricks using the principle in the excellent Card Conspiracy Volume 1 by Duffie and Robertson.
|
mindhunter
Inner circle
Upstate NY
1664 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 23, 2004 7:29am
"Double-Down", but of course I am biased.
The principle really IS a "thing of terrifying beauty..."
Bryn
THE LOGAR SCROLLS eBook is now available.
Price is $45.
Available at Outlaw Effects:
http://www.outlaw-effects.com/store/the-arsenal/e-books/the-logar-scrolls.html
Or PayPal me at: cavscout19@hotmail.com
Contact me for LOGAR & SAFWAN PAPERS Combo Deal
|
LobowolfXXX
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1598 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 17, 2004 1:06am
Nick Trost's "The Lone Stranger."
-DFO
"All I wanted to do was work with John for the rest of my life."
LSAT tutor & author of "LSAT 60 Dissected," available online.
|
JSBLOOM
Inner circle
1895 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 13, 2005 11:33am
Mocking bird by Max Maven.
|
Scott Cram
Inner circle
2458 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 13, 2005 11:47am
For those who like Mockingbird, check out Sal Piacente's "Memory Opener", which uses a similar approach.
Grey Matters:Blog|Videos|Mental Gym|Presentation|Store
|
landmark
Inner circle
By now they've deleted all but
2884 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 13, 2005 3:57pm
Nick Trost's Odd Man Wins
Simon Aronson's Point Spread
Jack Shalom
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
|
Vandy Grift
Inner circle
Milwaukee
3505 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 14, 2005 5:00pm
Quote:
|
On 2005-03-13 11:47, Scott Cram wrote:
For those who like Mockingbird, check out Sal Piacente's "Memory Opener", which uses a similar approach.
|
|
I use Sals' memory opener a lot, its a great trick. I also believe Sals' "Paint Poker" uses the principle as well, but I am not certain about that one.
Vandy
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
graemesd
Veteran user
367 Posts
|
Posted: Jul 21, 2005 7:26pm
Clash of symbols in Thavant - phil goldstein/maven
|
LordPH
Regular user
Finland
189 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 15, 2006 4:46am
Aunt Mary's Terrible Secret by David Williamson
Mockingbird by Max Maven.
Lucas Ace & Simeon Salakavala & Julius Joker
Ultimatemagic.Net
Helsinki Street Team
|
TomasB
Inner circle
Sweden
1078 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 15, 2006 3:09pm
LordPH, what do you do the times Mockingbird doesn't work? There seem to be a fairly big chance of it failing...
Ooops, I was thinking about The Hawk and now this post can only be edited but not erased. Please ignore.
/Tomas
|
Magiguy
Inner circle
Seattle, WA
4555 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 16, 2006 11:36pm
Aunt Mary's Terrible Secret by David Williamson... I really like this one and the book is so entertaining that it's difficult to put down. You'll also find many, many effects and interesting references in the volumes of "The James File."
Magic of Japan
|
Doctor Whoston
Regular user
Leeds, England
149 Posts
|
Posted: Apr 7, 2006 9:51am
Tomas,
I noticed the Hawk doesn't always work (when I tried to prove that it did work!). Does anyone know Max Maven's opinions on the problem?
Maybe one is just supposed to play the percentages on this one. However, the chances of failing are quite high as you say. About 25% at a quick guess.
As an out, one could use an invisible deck but that's a bit lame.
DW
|
Cody Fisher
Special user
884 Posts
|
Posted: May 24, 2006 11:21am
Sal Piacente's Memory Opener is awesome and can be adapted to fit the performer's style. It can be found on his Expert Card Magic Lecture Notes DVD's.
Cody
|
TomasB
Inner circle
Sweden
1078 Posts
|
Posted: May 26, 2006 3:26am
Doc, Max told me that he had a fix for it but not what the fix was. As I remember I found a solution myself a couple of years ago. Will try to recover the notes and PM the ideas to you if I find them.
/Tomas
|
Doctor Whoston
Regular user
Leeds, England
149 Posts
|
Posted: May 26, 2006 1:06pm
Hi Tomas!
Thanks. Since I posted I emailed Max Maven and asked him - mainly because I have a fix involving three spectators. I did come up with some two spectator versions but they were ugly or achievable by simpler means.
I'd still be interested to see your solutions.
DW
|
TomasB
Inner circle
Sweden
1078 Posts
|
Posted: May 31, 2006 3:31pm
DW and others that might be interested. This won't make any sense unless you are familiar with Max Maven's clever The Hawk.
A fix for The Hawk
------------------
Have the two spectators cut the deck repeatedly. Spectator 1 takes the top card and spectator 2 takes the next card. Both are asked to remember the cards. Ask spectator 1 to place his card on top of the deck and cut the deck as directed in "The Hawk", but just before he does, say "Oh wait, you might suspect that I caught a glimpse of the bottom card somehow. Please put the bottom card of the deck away in your pocket." He will pocket the bottom card then cut the deck after which you go through the rest of Max Maven's "The Hawk" to right after the shuffle. Ask spectator 2 to replace his card about a quarter from the bottom of the deck. You are set to complete "The Hawk".
After you have gone through the routine and revealed the two selections, you can say "You really made it hard for me by putting that Five of Spades in your pocket!"
/Tomas
|
hjelm
Regular user
Sweden, Borlänge
111 Posts
|
Posted: Jun 1, 2006 11:59am
... and any tricks with the Gilbreath principle without any playing cards?
http://www.lennarthjelm.se
|
Doctor Whoston
Regular user
Leeds, England
149 Posts
|
Posted: Jun 1, 2006 1:10pm
Hi hjelm,
Does using ESP cards count?
DW
|
Doctor Whoston
Regular user
Leeds, England
149 Posts
|
Posted: Jun 1, 2006 1:19pm
Tomas,
I don't see how this fixes the Hawk. Forget the cutting and taking of two cards we can model the problem by the following. Start with the Hawk set up. Remove say the fifth card from top and put it in a pocket. Now imagine a riffle shuffle that does not disturb the top 6 cards. Such a situation is possible in your method.
See the problem?
Maybe I'm missing something...
DW
|
TomasB
Inner circle
Sweden
1078 Posts
|
Posted: Jun 1, 2006 3:43pm
Doc, you are indeed missing something. You can't possibly find a case where what I suggested does not work. I'll try to explain why it works and can't fail since I don't quite see how the situation you describe can be reached from my instructions.
By removing the card below the first selection (it's the second selection which is put in the deck much later after the riffle shuffle) AND the card above it (in fact the face card of the deck) we have created a row of three cards of the same orientation in the deck where the middle card is the first spectator's selection.
Now, imagine that middle card being of the opposite orientation instead. We'd then have an ordinary deck set up for Gilbreath and that card WILL be paired with a card of the opposite orientation after the shuffle, thanks to Gilbreath. But the selecton in fact has the opposite orientation in this case hence it will be paired with a card with excatly the _same_ orientation so we will indeed find it with the method Max Maven intended in "The Hawk". In short, if Gilbreath works, my solution works. And Gilbreath works. 
/Tomas
|
Doctor Whoston
Regular user
Leeds, England
149 Posts
|
Posted: Jun 1, 2006 4:53pm
Sorry, yes indeed I did miss something: The bottom card is removed before the cut. I get it now. My apologies.
My solution uses three spectators and the same idea of having "three-in-a-row" cards. It should be fairly easy to deduce how to do this!
Anyhow, yours is a good solution. I hadn't thought of getting the spectator to remove the bottom card. I did consider palming it off but once you are allowed to touch the deck in such a manner you may as well use a different (non-Gilbreath) method to achieve the effect.
DW
|
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Magical equations » » Best Gilbreath Principle Tricks |
|
|
| Go to page 1 ~ 2 (Next) |
![[8]](/forums/images/digits/8.gif)
![[1]](/forums/images/digits/1.gif)
![[7]](/forums/images/digits/7.gif)
![[5]](/forums/images/digits/5.gif)
![[4]](/forums/images/digits/4.gif)
![[6]](/forums/images/digits/6.gif)