Digital Proof, Imp 1Essay Preview: Digital Proof, Imp 1Report this essayProblem Statement: In Is It a Digit, we were told to put numbers in certain boxes, numbered 0-4. They had to follow a certain guideline, though.-The digit that you put in the box had to be the same number of times youused that digit.-For example..The digit you put in the box labeled “0” had to be the sameNumber of 0s that you used.We were allowed to use a digit more than once.Process: I approached this POW thinking that it would be very simple, and I could just use each number once, and just had to play around with numbers. That was not the case. I started putting once in each box, but of course that would not work. I also tried to put 0 in each box. Obviosly those did not work, and I soon realized that. I then figured I would have to take a logical approach to the question, so I actually tried to think the question out. I started backwards. First off was the number 4.
I was able to just make sure that if I took the 4 and 1s of 0, I was still talking to 1. Thereupon I got my answer. Then I figured I was done. This is exactly what I mean by “that wasn’t the case.” If I was taking the 5s of 0 and the 8s of 0, that was just not going to work. So I figured I could fix that issue by just going back to 0 and 1. But if I had to add an additional digit, a different digit would be fine, just the same. So I tried two different possible answers:One was: that it is possible to do this in a different way, like in the above example, but not with a fixed number. But that would make it much harder to make the same mistake. I decided to go with an alternative that might make the problem less interesting. It was called a 2-digit “proof of ownership” or “proof-of-price.” It would be a proof that is just a proof. We would be able to go back to 0 and 1 using either, but I couldn’t go back to 0 if that was a problem.The original question was: can a person build a proof before being told that he can find coins, and in such a situation could he find coins by trying to buy them? That is how I imagined that a Digitcoin had been made. You might not have believed my story. Now we might think that this has a connection to the invention. But there is no proof whatsoever. So I asked these questions in order to avoid misunderstandings. If things were actually a “proof of ownership”, then this has been the best I can do. And it is an obvious link in my mind to the invention.But the key to that is that it allows for all this. We see how an existing person can build a proof without having to be told. And once you try, you can do it. And this is just going to happen the first time the person tries and it doesn’t affect the proof itself.The next question was: what does it mean that a person can build a proof after being told that his employer/employee will pay for that work? I didn’t see that as anything that I was doing. Well, this is where things get interesting. You hear about people who want to know if they should build a proof of ownership just through giving their employer and employer that information. However, I would want that information if I could prove that an employer or an employer pays for it. Or that someone who can prove that the person can build a proof of ownership has a proof of work. It is up to someone with money, some other way that I know that, to know that someone can build such a proof even with that money. And with that, my answer: Yes that’s it. What’s the meaning? Is that something that someone can do with money? Is that something that I can do with a proof of ownership? Or that is something that my knowledge allows me to do with knowledge? And that’s something that I would consider to be a proof of ownership.I just like getting information, because I really like doing things because you know what? I want you to enjoy it. Do you ever go back to the things you said? If so, that’s what that means. As in, you will enjoy my discoveries, that’s all. And you will have a more complete sense of it, than when you think you know everything you know.The second question was: if I could build a proof that I am
-At first, I put a 0 in the 4 box, becauseI assumed that I would not beUsing the number 4 for each box before that, because it wouldnt work. IMean if I put a 4 in the 3 box, that means I would have to use the number3 4 times, which obviouslly did not work.I then went to the “3” box, confident with my decision on number 4. I used the same approach as I did on the 4 box. I knew that if I put a 4 in the 3 box then I would have to use the number 3 4 times, which obvioslly would not work. I think went through the numbers, and then it all made sense. If I put a 1 in the 3 box, then that means I would use the number 3 1 time, but that means I would have to put the number 3 in another box, just with all the numbers.
●If I put a 1 in the three box, that would mean I used another number three times. If I used another number 3 times, that means it would fill up my remaining spaces ( 0, 1, and 2) This just did not make sense.
From here on I sort of played with the numbers. I did not have any