Topic: Playground
Read most recent comments
Post a comment
This forum is for discussion of thoughts arising from and extending materials in Serendip's Playground section. Comments entered here will be automatically posted. Comments not meant to be posted can be sent by Serendip.
Serendip's forums sometimes get longer than what can conveniently be accessed and displayed. They are, at the same time, in their entirety an important part of what Serendip has become at any given time (and, of course, particular contributions may well be of lasting significance). To try and balance needs for easy display and those of continuous and permanent record, only this year's forum comments are displayed on this page with earlier comments being preserved elsewhere. To go to the forum for prior years, click on the year below.
Year:
- Current postings - 1999/2001 - 1998/1999 -1997 - 1996
Name: Paul Grobstein
Username: pgrobste@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Evolving
Date: Fri Oct 29 11:50:09 EDT 1999
Comments:
To all visitors:
Serendip was born in 1994, and developed forums in 1996. The forums have been and continue to be a place where everyone is invited to make comments, ask questions, and carry on conversations about anything and everything that comes to mind when exploring Serendip. As such, they have been and continue to be an essential part of Serendip's development. At the same time, any developing organism needs periodically to refresh itself. The past remains but is put in boxes to clear the mind for the next part of the future. So have we done, as of today, with Serendip's forums. All past material is still available, by clicking on highlighted years above to access forum archives. And we have, as of today, a blank slate for the next phase of Serendip's development. If you have been here in the past, you're already a part of what Serendip has become so far. Please leave your thoughts as part of the next phase of Serendip's life. And if you're new, please join in as well.
Name: Howard
Username: hglasser@haverford.edu
Subject: Experience
Date: Thu Feb 10 18:38:26 EST 2000
Comments:
I just finished looking through the links to "The Magic Sierpinski Triangle," "Can You See What You Don't See?," and "Tricks of the Eyes, Wisdom of the Brain." These were all phenomenal, and I especially enjoyed "Can You See What You Don't See" because it was easiest to follow and I felt it lead me to pose new questions and desire to learn more. Additionally, I was drawn into changing my parameters numerous times to see how much slight changes had on my results.
Unfortunately, I was slightly confused by the other two links. I found the directions to be initially unclear, and I wonder what students (grade/age level) these were made to teach. The actual experiments themselves were much fun and interactive. Having them online allows individuals the opportunity to alter various parameters and see the new results. Additionally, students may reproduce experiments and try to draw conclusions from their data. I greatly enjoyed how the links introduced topics, gave clear explanations, and then the experiments solidified their point(s) while leading students to ask more questions. The links listed on these sites may allow students the chance to continue their exploration indefinitely and allows them to follow a 'choose-your-own-adventure' course for learning. They may study those questions and areas which spark their interest.
Name: Krista Andreza
Username: keasea@hotmail.com
Subject: Interesting
Date: Sun Feb 27 22:41:43 EST 2000
Comments:
Well to start with I co operateded and i got 3 coins. I then repeated my move (cooperation) and got 6 coins. It seemed like if i stuck to the same move twice in a row that I won some coins. I ended up coming out of the game with 17 coins. It was an interesting game to play to try and come up with some strategies. The score was as follows:
me
3
6
11
12
12
17
opponent
3
6
6
7
12
12
Name: jeremy
Username: mecks86@hotmail.com
Subject: neat
Date: Tue Mar 7 17:35:27 EST 2000
Comments:
well initially I competed and I won 5 coins. I then proceeded to cheat the next turn and I received 1 coin, which I followed up with a cooperative move and i received 3 coins. I then cheated again to receive 5 coins. No I'm not sure how they measure this, but it seemed if I cheated and then cooperated every second move, or every other time I cheated I would receive 5 points. The score is as follows me..5 6 6 11 12 13 13 18
Serendip..0 1 6 6 7 8 13 13
Name: Jad Cross
Username: b_cross316@hotmail.com
Subject: Pretty cool
Date: Thu Mar 9 19:12:42 EST 2000
Comments:
I first started with co-operation and recived three coins but that was not enough for me so I decided to cheat. That had a much better return of five coins. So I tried it again and only recieved one coin so I realized that it was a tit for tat type of game and only ended up with 37 points by mostly cheating. So I changed my strategy so that I would co-operate with the computer up until thirty coins then I would cheat by using this strategy I collected 43 coins before the wizard ended the game, but I think that co-operating is the best way to go. Not only do you maximize your gain but the computer's as well.
Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject:
Date: Sun Apr 23 19:27:54 EDT 2000
Comments:
Name: Sebastien Ross
Username: serendipitysoup @aol.com
Subject: the dilemna
Date: Mon Aug 21 11:33:19 EDT 2000
Comments:
Well I managed to impose a moral dilemna upon myself in that i didn't want to gain by disadvantaging even an imaginary opponent, and didn't dare even experiment by cheating to see what the gains would be for fear of being disillusioned by discovering that you gain more.... I'm sure that I'm not entering into the spirit of the experiment, but I want to believe that cooperation and sharing is the way to win....
Go to first comment or
Post a comment
|
