|
really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
37 24 23 RED125 30 49 32 CAT167 51 38 57 ANT195 56 44 57 MAN231 76 68 73 TWO287 74 76 68
solve for the next set of numbers and letters. I made this puzzle and posted it a while ago, so far its unsolved. (the letters dont HAVE to be a real word) |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
What I hate about puzzles is that there is often more than one solution, and they rarely include thinking. Actually that's what I hate them, but not why I hate them :P...
I hate them because I feel drawn to try to solve them even though i hate the process of doing it, and finding the answer doesn't make me feel any better (just relieved). |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
solve for the next set of numbers and letters. [/ QUOTE ] Do you just want something like "BED316" or the full "BED316 81 83 86" or more? |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
POSSIBLE SPOILER (in white):
<font color="white"> OMG357 </font> ^^ My #s are wrong... but I think the letters are right. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] solve for the next set of numbers and letters. [/ QUOTE ] Do you just want something like "BED316" or the full "BED316 81 83 86" or more? [/ QUOTE ] XXX### is the answers format, the other 3 numbers are given |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
numbers are wrong.
|
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
Is it: <font color="white"> OMG329 </font> (in white) ??
If not, I give up on the #s. :| |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
Is it: <font color="white"> OMG329 </font> (in white) ?? If not, I give up on the #s. :| [/ QUOTE ] "<font color="white"> OMG111 </font>" would seem to make the most sense as a joke answer, but I can't be bothered to think about the puzzle to determine whether this is plausible or not. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
nope. although u are close.
|
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
37 24 23 RED125 30 49 32 CAT167 51 38 57 ANT195 56 44 57 MAN231 76 68 73 TWO287 74 76 68 solve for the next set of numbers and letters. I made this puzzle and posted it a while ago, so far its unsolved. (the letters dont HAVE to be a real word) [/ QUOTE ] There is no unique solution to this puzzle. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 37 24 23 RED125 30 49 32 CAT167 51 38 57 ANT195 56 44 57 MAN231 76 68 73 TWO287 74 76 68 solve for the next set of numbers and letters. I made this puzzle and posted it a while ago, so far its unsolved. (the letters dont HAVE to be a real word) [/ QUOTE ] There is no unique solution to this puzzle. [/ QUOTE ] yes there is. at least im 99.7% certain of that anyways. |
My answer...
OMG327?
|
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 37 24 23 RED125 30 49 32 CAT167 51 38 57 ANT195 56 44 57 MAN231 76 68 73 TWO287 74 76 68 solve for the next set of numbers and letters. I made this puzzle and posted it a while ago, so far its unsolved. (the letters dont HAVE to be a real word) [/ QUOTE ] There is no unique solution to this puzzle. [/ QUOTE ] yes there is. at least im 99.7% certain of that anyways. [/ QUOTE ] Well, actually, there isn't. It is a general principle that I'm referring to that applies to these sorts of 'sequence puzzles' as you might call them. For example, what is the next number in this series: 1,4,9,16...? One possible answer is: 25. We get this answer by applying the 'rule': The next number in the sequence is the next natural square. But that is not the only right answer, because that is not the only rule that can explain the first four numbers in the sequence, yet yield a different next number. There are, in fact, an indefinite number of correct rules that we could invoke to yield an answer, each of which would correctly predict the first four numbers in the sequence, yet yield a different--but just as correct--next number. What's more, none of these solutions is more 'privileged' than any other; i.e., there is no philosophical or principled basis for deciding that one rule (like the rule you have in mind for your sequence, for example) is more 'correct' than another. This goes back to Wittgenstein's discussion of 'following a rule' in the Investigations. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
Well, actually, there isn't. It is a general principle that I'm referring to that applies to these sorts of 'sequence puzzles' as you might call them. For example, what is the next number in this series: 1,4,9,16...? One possible answer is: 25. We get this answer by applying the 'rule': The next number in the sequence is the next natural square. But that is not the only right answer, because that is not the only rule that can explain the first four numbers in the sequence, yet yield a different next number. There are, in fact, an indefinite number of correct rules that we could invoke to yield an answer, each of which would correctly predict the first four numbers in the sequence, yet yield a different--but just as correct--next number. What's more, none of these solutions is more 'privileged' than any other; i.e., there is no philosophical or principled basis for deciding that one rule (like the rule you have in mind for your sequence, for example) is more 'correct' than another. This goes back to Wittgenstein's discussion of 'following a rule' in the Investigations. [/ QUOTE ] Ive often thought of this myself, and agree with everything expect that in bold. Or, at least, the part in bold can be debated. It doesnt seem unreasonable to use ockham's razor (or a slight modified version): the rule that be described in the fewest words is best. (Im sure there are better ways to define the 'best solution', but it seems like a reasonable starting point) |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 37 24 23 RED125 30 49 32 CAT167 51 38 57 ANT195 56 44 57 MAN231 76 68 73 TWO287 74 76 68 solve for the next set of numbers and letters. I made this puzzle and posted it a while ago, so far its unsolved. (the letters dont HAVE to be a real word) [/ QUOTE ] There is no unique solution to this puzzle. [/ QUOTE ] yes there is. at least im 99.7% certain of that anyways. [/ QUOTE ] Well, actually, there isn't. It is a general principle that I'm referring to that applies to these sorts of 'sequence puzzles' as you might call them. For example, what is the next number in this series: 1,4,9,16...? One possible answer is: 25. We get this answer by applying the 'rule': The next number in the sequence is the next natural square. But that is not the only right answer, because that is not the only rule that can explain the first four numbers in the sequence, yet yield a different next number. There are, in fact, an indefinite number of correct rules that we could invoke to yield an answer, each of which would correctly predict the first four numbers in the sequence, yet yield a different--but just as correct--next number. What's more, none of these solutions is more 'privileged' than any other; i.e., there is no philosophical or principled basis for deciding that one rule (like the rule you have in mind for your sequence, for example) is more 'correct' than another. This goes back to Wittgenstein's discussion of 'following a rule' in the Investigations. [/ QUOTE ] im pretty sure that there are unique solutions to problems like this. Maybe not all of them, but certain "rules" usually must be repeated in the puzzle to make them undeniably correct. If this puzzle happens to have more than 1 unique solution, the simplest logical solution is considered correct. i think youre just mad cause you cant even get the letters. |
Re: My answer...
[ QUOTE ]
OMG327? [/ QUOTE ] no. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
philo, if there is a puzzle that starts like this:
2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 how is the next number ANYTHING BUT 61?!?!?!? this must be the only unique answer to this puzzle. if you can come up with some math or logic that will yeild a different number, please show us now. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
philo, if there is a puzzle that starts like this: 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 how is the next number ANYTHING BUT 61?!?!?!? this must be the only unique answer to this puzzle. if you can come up with some math or logic that will yeild a different number, please show us now. [/ QUOTE ] The next number is 1, as the second hand on a clock only goes to 59. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] philo, if there is a puzzle that starts like this: 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 how is the next number ANYTHING BUT 61?!?!?!? this must be the only unique answer to this puzzle. if you can come up with some math or logic that will yeild a different number, please show us now. [/ QUOTE ] The next number is 1, as the second hand on a clock only goes to 59. [/ QUOTE ] that is not a logical solution. also, according to your answer, whats to say the next number isnt 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 etc? |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] philo, if there is a puzzle that starts like this: 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 how is the next number ANYTHING BUT 61?!?!?!? this must be the only unique answer to this puzzle. if you can come up with some math or logic that will yeild a different number, please show us now. [/ QUOTE ] The next number is 1, as the second hand on a clock only goes to 59. [/ QUOTE ] that is not a logical solution. also, according to your answer, whats to say the next number isnt 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 etc? [/ QUOTE ] I didn't bother trying to recognize the pattern. I used the assumption that the "correct" pattern would lead to 61 (as you stated). Without stating any other considerations, both 1 and 61 are valid answers in a mod-60 number system. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] philo, if there is a puzzle that starts like this: 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 how is the next number ANYTHING BUT 61?!?!?!? this must be the only unique answer to this puzzle. if you can come up with some math or logic that will yeild a different number, please show us now. [/ QUOTE ] The next number is 1, as the second hand on a clock only goes to 59. [/ QUOTE ] that is not a logical solution. also, according to your answer, whats to say the next number isnt 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 etc? [/ QUOTE ] I didn't bother trying to recognize the pattern. [/ QUOTE ] well, since its a logical problem, perhapse you should use some logic. what is the number after 61? |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] philo, if there is a puzzle that starts like this: 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 how is the next number ANYTHING BUT 61?!?!?!? this must be the only unique answer to this puzzle. if you can come up with some math or logic that will yeild a different number, please show us now. [/ QUOTE ] The next number is 1, as the second hand on a clock only goes to 59. [/ QUOTE ] that is not a logical solution. also, according to your answer, whats to say the next number isnt 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 etc? [/ QUOTE ] I didn't bother trying to recognize the pattern. [/ QUOTE ] well, since its a logical problem, perhapse you should use some logic. what is the number after 61? [/ QUOTE ] Ah, I see it now. 61, 67. You're right, the answer cannot be 1, but it can be 2. If you stated that there is no repitition of numbers, then 61 would be a reasonable solution. Of course, you could always stump someone by stating that the pattern up until 60 is the prime numbers, after which it turns into the sequence of odd numbers. In order for there to be a unique answer, you have to restrict the solution set in such a way that the answer is indeed unique. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
In order for there to be a unique answer, you have to restrict the solution set in such a way that the answer is indeed unique. [/ QUOTE ] it is. using the seconds on a clock is not given anywhere in the puzzle, therefore is not the simplest logical solution. there should be no reason whatsoever to think that a clock is involved, as there is no indication of it to be used whatsoever. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
there should be no reason whatsoever to think that a clock is involved [/ QUOTE ] A set of numbers from 1-59 is always second or minutes unless stated otherwise. My point is just that without rigidly stating the required assumptions and number set of your solution, it will always be possible to hear an answer that you wouldn't have expected. Sorry about the hijack... |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] there should be no reason whatsoever to think that a clock is involved [/ QUOTE ] A set of numbers from 1-59 is always second or minutes unless stated otherwise. [/ QUOTE ] its actually quite the opposite. it will always be based on regular old numbers, unless stated otherwise. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 37 24 23 RED125 30 49 32 CAT167 51 38 57 ANT195 56 44 57 MAN231 76 68 73 TWO287 74 76 68 solve for the next set of numbers and letters. I made this puzzle and posted it a while ago, so far its unsolved. (the letters dont HAVE to be a real word) [/ QUOTE ] There is no unique solution to this puzzle. [/ QUOTE ] yes there is. at least im 99.7% certain of that anyways. [/ QUOTE ] Well, actually, there isn't. It is a general principle that I'm referring to that applies to these sorts of 'sequence puzzles' as you might call them. For example, what is the next number in this series: 1,4,9,16...? One possible answer is: 25. We get this answer by applying the 'rule': The next number in the sequence is the next natural square. But that is not the only right answer, because that is not the only rule that can explain the first four numbers in the sequence, yet yield a different next number. There are, in fact, an indefinite number of correct rules that we could invoke to yield an answer, each of which would correctly predict the first four numbers in the sequence, yet yield a different--but just as correct--next number. What's more, none of these solutions is more 'privileged' than any other; i.e., there is no philosophical or principled basis for deciding that one rule (like the rule you have in mind for your sequence, for example) is more 'correct' than another. This goes back to Wittgenstein's discussion of 'following a rule' in the Investigations. [/ QUOTE ] im pretty sure that there are unique solutions to problems like this. Maybe not all of them, but certain "rules" usually must be repeated in the puzzle to make them undeniably correct. If this puzzle happens to have more than 1 unique solution, the simplest logical solution is considered correct. i think youre just mad cause you cant even get the letters. [/ QUOTE ] A good book on this is: Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern by Douglas R. Hofstadter from the guy who brought us Godel, Escher Bach chez |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
philo, if there is a puzzle that starts like this: 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 how is the next number ANYTHING BUT 61?!?!?!? this must be the only unique answer to this puzzle. if you can come up with some math or logic that will yeild a different number, please show us now. [/ QUOTE ] If the rule is, "X=the next prime number," then the next number is 61. If the rule is, "If n<59, then X=the next prime number; if n=59, then X=10," then the next number is 10. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] philo, if there is a puzzle that starts like this: 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 how is the next number ANYTHING BUT 61?!?!?!? this must be the only unique answer to this puzzle. if you can come up with some math or logic that will yeild a different number, please show us now. [/ QUOTE ] The next number is 1, as the second hand on a clock only goes to 59. [/ QUOTE ] that is not a logical solution. also, according to your answer, whats to say the next number isnt 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 etc? [/ QUOTE ] I didn't bother trying to recognize the pattern. [/ QUOTE ] well, since its a logical problem, perhapse you should use some logic. what is the number after 61? [/ QUOTE ] Ah, I see it now. 61, 67. You're right, the answer cannot be 1, but it can be 2. If you stated that there is no repitition of numbers, then 61 would be a reasonable solution. Of course, you could always stump someone by stating that the pattern up until 60 is the prime numbers, after which it turns into the sequence of odd numbers. In order for there to be a unique answer, you have to restrict the solution set in such a way that the answer is indeed unique. [/ QUOTE ] For there to be a unique solution there would have to be one and only one rule that predicted the first n numbers in the sequence correctly. But there is never only one such rule, there are always an indefinite number of rules that can fit or 'predict' the pattern, and which may all yield distinct answers (all equally 'correct') for what the next number is in the sequence. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
For there to be a unique solution there would have to be one and only one rule that predicted the first n numbers in the sequence correctly. But there is never only one such rule, there are always an indefinite number of rules that can fit or 'predict' the pattern, and which may all yield distinct answers (all equally 'correct') for what the next number is in the sequence. [/ QUOTE ] occam's [censored] razor!!! jesus [censored]! |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] For there to be a unique solution there would have to be one and only one rule that predicted the first n numbers in the sequence correctly. But there is never only one such rule, there are always an indefinite number of rules that can fit or 'predict' the pattern, and which may all yield distinct answers (all equally 'correct') for what the next number is in the sequence. [/ QUOTE ] occam's [censored] razor!!! jesus [censored]! [/ QUOTE ] Those sorts of puzzles have nothing to do with Occam's razor. Occam's razor (say, adopt the theory that is most ontologically parsimonious) has to do with choosing between scientific theories that are equally empirically adequate. You simply gave a puzzle and asked for a solution. Now we could invoke some principle like Occam's razor in our instructions for answering that sort of puzzle--like saying "give the simplest rule/formula that solves the problem," but that still does not mean there is a unique solution to the original puzzle--just one that we favor over others on grounds other than that it's an accurate solution. I simply claimed there was no unique solution to those sorts of sequence puzzles, and that is true whether or not we decide to adopt some standard for choosing among equally adequate solutions in terms of simplicity of formula, or some such standard. But even in such a case you might be surprised at how difficult it is to provide an adequate philosophical defense of 'simplicity criteria.' |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
I simply claimed there was no unique solution to those sorts of sequence puzzles [/ QUOTE ] True, true. Often missed by people who set them. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] For there to be a unique solution there would have to be one and only one rule that predicted the first n numbers in the sequence correctly. But there is never only one such rule, there are always an indefinite number of rules that can fit or 'predict' the pattern, and which may all yield distinct answers (all equally 'correct') for what the next number is in the sequence. [/ QUOTE ] occam's [censored] razor!!! jesus [censored]! [/ QUOTE ] Those sorts of puzzles have nothing to do with Occam's razor. Occam's razor (say, adopt the theory that is most ontologically parsimonious) has to do with choosing between scientific theories that are equally empirically adequate. You simply gave a puzzle and asked for a solution. Now we could invoke some principle like Occam's razor in our instructions for answering that sort of puzzle--like saying "give the simplest rule/formula that solves the problem," but that still does not mean there is a unique solution to the original puzzle--just one that we favor over others on grounds other than that it's an accurate solution. I simply claimed there was no unique solution to those sorts of sequence puzzles, and that is true whether or not we decide to adopt some standard for choosing among equally adequate solutions in terms of simplicity of formula, or some such standard. But even in such a case you might be surprised at how difficult it is to provide an adequate philosophical defense of 'simplicity criteria.' [/ QUOTE ] very well put. however, try to solve the original puzzle. I assure you there is a "simple" answer, that stands out from the other possible soultions. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
terrible example,
obviously when the sequence is presented to us by its inventor, there is a hidden assumption that the property of the m^th-rule used to generated the m^th entry (x_m) can't be dependent on m (the structure of the rule that is, it might of course contain m as a variable). also there is sth of the form (razor or no razor): 'this rule is not ridiculously hard to formulate' in there. in almost all examples the rule will be rigid and only contain the variables x_{m-1}... x_0 and m. in more complicated examples the rule itself might change, but only in such a way that that pattern in which it does can be observed in the initial data. these assumptions are there, b/c it was presented as a puzzle. it's understood as part of what we all agree to be a 'puzzle'. without the assumptions any random continuation is fine (i guess i should add to the assumption: there is a rule). in a different context (like when you are a scientist looking at nature) you can't rely on such matters and your (well...) point makes some more sense (although i'm sure you're counting on the sun coming up tomorrow). you'll have to find somebody else to debate that though, i've had my share. anyways... you say they are infinite, i'd say suprise me by getting 1 (alternative one with the assumption that is), no way you can get 2. (it's obvious your example doesn't work with these assumptions, saying sth to the effect of: use a diffent formula when n>M (and thus referring to M)) cheers, matt |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
these assumptions are there, b/c it was presented as a puzzle. it's understood as part of what we all agree to be a 'puzzle'. [/ QUOTE ] It was likely only brought up because nobody can answer the original puzzle. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] these assumptions are there, b/c it was presented as a puzzle. it's understood as part of what we all agree to be a 'puzzle'. [/ QUOTE ] It was likely only brought up because nobody can answer the original puzzle. [/ QUOTE ] I got close. :P |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
philo, if there is a puzzle that starts like this: 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 how is the next number ANYTHING BUT 61?!?!?!? this must be the only unique answer to this puzzle. if you can come up with some math or logic that will yeild a different number, please show us now. [/ QUOTE ] Let F(n): R==>R be the function defined by: F(n) = a0*(n^17) + a1*(n^16) + ... + a16*n + a17 where n is any real number, and {a0, a1, ... , a17} is a set of 18 real constant coefficients. It is easy to show by construction that there exist particular values of {a0, a1, ... , a17} which have the property: F(1) = 2, F(2) = 3, F(3) = 5, ... , F(17) = 59, but that F(18) <> 61. (i.e. F(18) does not equal 61.) As Philo stated, there is no reason to favor the number 61 over F(18) as the next number in the sequence. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
As Philo stated, there is no reason to favor the number 61 over F(18) as the next number in the sequence. [/ QUOTE ] there is plenty of reason. when "61" is the answer, you can explain the result in like 5 words. Id bet some children could get 61. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
So if a child can undertand it, that makes it the correct answer? I understand the aesthetic reasons why 61 is better (it's more intuitive), and I assume the answer to your problem is also more intuitive than other answers. But that doesn't necessarily make it more correct, does it?
|
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] As Philo stated, there is no reason to favor the number 61 over F(18) as the next number in the sequence. [/ QUOTE ] there is plenty of reason. when "61" is the answer, you can explain the result in like 5 words. Id bet some children could get 61. [/ QUOTE ] Of course I meant there is no mathematical reason to choose one solution over another. You claimed 61 "must" be the next number in the sequence, and challenged someone to construct an alternative rule (i.e. function) that gives a different solution, which is exactly what I did. (And my solution can be understood with grade school level math.) Obviously, given how our pattern-seeking brains understand mathematics, the sequence of primes is the most intuitive or natural solution. But that solution is not unique, which was Philo's original (and correct) point. |
Re: really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...
[ QUOTE ]
So if a child can undertand it, that makes it the correct answer? I understand the aesthetic reasons why 61 is better (it's more intuitive), and I assume the answer to your problem is also more intuitive than other answers. But that doesn't necessarily make it more correct, does it? [/ QUOTE ] what makes it correct is that its the simplest logical solution. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.