Originally Posted by tellyho
I actually like the "jumble" argument, because it sounds like the guy knows what he's talking about. As opposed to me.
The term "jumble" and the rest of my method comes right from Barnett's. I'm just paraphrasing. The way I am using "n" is that ["n" = the number of balls it takes to first jumble]. So "n-1" = the number of balls where the jumbling goes away and the balls seat in a perfect circle.