really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet...

[billygrippo]

[ 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?

[_TKO_]

[ 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.

[billygrippo]

[ 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.

[_TKO_]

[ 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...

[billygrippo]

[ 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.

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[Philo]

[ 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.

[Philo]

[ 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.

[billygrippo]

[ 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]!

[Philo]

[ 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.'