Yep. Well done.
An American will happen by any minute to explain 'blue balls'....
Printable View
Yep. Well done.
An American will happen by any minute to explain 'blue balls'....
I'm not sure I want to know.
Here's one for Scher. I copied it, because I wouldn't know where to begin to do one of these. I don't know if its hard or easy.
http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k7.../mathsquiz.jpg
Does anyone here have experience with these? Maybe there's a name for them...
EDIT: removed a rambling and roundabout exploration of the question of "operator precedence" in this puzzle.
Mick, have you seen the solution to this one? Does the math check out? I have a VERY NEAR solution, but the hand-written alterations (?) have me wondering if there was something amiss along the way. That, combined with the issue of operator precedence. (I actually thought I had the right answer, but I was working in pen and missed the negative sign.)
I have a "solution", but the 36 isn't negative. Maybe I just have to work harder, but I'd like confirmation that there's a solution that checks out, if possible.
Again, the "solution" I have is done without operator precedence... I just went left-to-right, and top-down: multiplication didn't necessarily come before addition. (e.g. 1+2x3=9 is the nature of the solution I found.)
I'll post this "near answer" later if it stumps everyone for too long, and if Mick allows me to do so. That's just a sketchy looking puzzle--but my apologies, of course, if that is your handwriting, Mick.
Ah-ha Well spotted billl. I copied the puzzle straight from an old newspaper - and they have misprinted it - or made a mistake. I reckon that minus sign is wrong too, but it is there in the original.
That'll larn me not to use other peoples puzzles.
I left no instructions to add an extra layer of puzzlement.
So you saw the solution, and it didn't add up? Or is it correctly copied from a respectable newspaper?
I may have found a way (well, it isn't as simple as a single 'way') to prove that it is unsolvable, with or without operator precedence--but I'm not a professional mathematician, so... Looking at the mess on my note pad, there's no real reason to be very confident about it at all. Still, the top row and the first two columns produce certain limitations...
here's a tantalizingly close grid for the "using operator precedence" angle (middle row *just misses*):
+1, +8, +8
-1, +1, +13
-10, -13, +2
Sorry billl lets start again.
Ok, I wish I had never started this one, I am a total knobhead at maths.
The grid below is correct . (checked and double checked.)
The boxes along the bottom are totals of the column above them
The boxes down the right are totals of the line to the left of them
Those dashes are minus signs.
All you have to do is fill in the blanks.
http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k7...athsquiz-1.jpg
The problem, for me, is that the number above 21 has to be 21 because 1*x is always x.
And if it is 21, then the number to the right of 21 has to be -1.72, in order to get to -36.
At which point, I rather lose faith in either the puzzle or my understanding of it.
There is a number above the one (or the minus one I should say)
so its something minus 1 times something equals 21
Yeah, which would imply operator precedence and implicit brackets, wouldn't it? I mean, you'd have to have brackets around the (something minus something) in order for that bit to be done before the multiplication.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Start at the end furthest from the total
Thanks, Mick! I figured out an angle of attack that I had previously ignored, so I might be looking at it some more tonight.
(I think this is a good one, btw, now that the doubts have been addressed. Maybe it is just really difficult.)
Got it!
2,4,8
5,1,6
3,7,9
Looks easy all of a sudden. I thought I checked it last night, but I must have left a negative sign in a blank unerased or something.
Here's a crappy attempt to display the whole thing with the symbols:
2 x 4 - 8 = 0
- . - . -
5 - 1 + 6 = 10
x . x . -
3 - 7 x 9 =-36
==============
-9 21 . -7
That's correct billl. I'm such a numpty at maths I didn't know about operator whatsits.
I think I may have blown a legitimate concern (operator precedence) way out of proportion, and then cast a stain of suspicion over what turned out to be a challenging and welcome addition to the thread, and I really do apologize Mick. Like Scher, I enjoy getting away from the screen and using pencil and paper for a while, at least some of the time. I just came across some near misses, looked at the hand-written alterations, and figured it wasn't MY fault that I wasn't getting it, or something, so again, I'm sorry about that.
Anyhow, I have no idea where Scher is, but I have another that might be a little fun to work on with pencil and paper. It shouldn't take quite so long, however, as this last one did... With luck, Scher and few more of us will get a crack at it before it gets solved.
If you get the solution in the first few hours, consider sending me a Private Message rather than posting in this thread, and I'll be sure to give you credit as first to solve it (if you are):
The puzzle of the socalled "Poster Variations".
There was recently a (since-deleted) thread on LitNet that explored a topic I dare not revisit, even in vaguest summary. By mentioning that it involved hanging chads and escalatingly ribald personal accusations, I only invite the risk of censorship once more.
However it should be possible to reconstruct the basic structure of the thread by using the clues below. See if you can describe which particular posts were written by which particular poster, and which posts (if any) the particular posts were in response to (a post can only be in response to ONE other post).
- Six posts total.
- Only one post received more than one reply.
- No one replied to the 4th post.
- IamNobody was the last person to participate in the thread.
- Mark was the last person to participate in the thread.
- IamNobody replied to Scher twice.
- Scher replied to IamNobody and Mick.
- Mark replied to the reply to the OP.