really hard puzzle, noone has solved yet... - Page 2

billygrippo · #11 01-13-2006, 11:20 PM

[ 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.

Double Down · #12 01-14-2006, 05:29 AM

OMG327?

Philo · #13 01-14-2006, 05:21 PM

[ 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.

CallMeIshmael · #14 01-14-2006, 05:41 PM

[ 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)

billygrippo · #15 01-14-2006, 05:42 PM

[ 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.

billygrippo · #16 01-14-2006, 05:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
OMG327?

[/ QUOTE ]

no.

billygrippo · #17 01-14-2006, 05:47 PM

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.

_TKO_ · #18 01-14-2006, 05:54 PM

[ 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.

billygrippo · #19 01-14-2006, 06:03 PM

[ 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?

_TKO_ · #20 01-14-2006, 06:11 PM

[ 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.