I dare you to solve this.

A forum for good logic/math puzzles.

Moderators: jestingrabbit, Moderators General, Prelates

Arkohn
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:57 pm UTC

I dare you to solve this.

Postby Arkohn » Sun May 20, 2007 5:24 pm UTC


User avatar
debuggingRL
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 1:12 am UTC

Postby debuggingRL » Sun May 20, 2007 8:36 pm UTC

Good puzzle, took about an hour to solve.

Arkohn
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:57 pm UTC

Postby Arkohn » Sun May 20, 2007 9:02 pm UTC

I did it with a lot of help (But no cheating) from someone much smarter than I.

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Postby skeptical scientist » Sun May 20, 2007 9:41 pm UTC

Yeah, good puzzle. I could deduce most of it, but at the end I had to resort to guesswork.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

Token
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:07 pm UTC
Location: London

Postby Token » Sun May 20, 2007 10:11 pm UTC

I hate you for wasting my valuable revision time with useless yet fascinating quizzes.

skeptical scientist wrote:Yeah, good puzzle. I could deduce most of it, but at the end I had to resort to guesswork.

Really? I don't think I ever had to guess... my faith in humanity just dropped a little.

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Postby skeptical scientist » Sun May 20, 2007 10:49 pm UTC

Well, at one point I had one question where I figured one answer was extremely unlikely, because it would put a very strict constraint on solving the rest of the puzzle without seeming possible, but I didn't actually prove it, and then I got down to the last three questions, and I just tried various combinations until one worked.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Postby skeptical scientist » Sun May 20, 2007 11:15 pm UTC

I dare you to solve this:
http://www.drunkmenworkhere.org/129
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

Arkohn
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:57 pm UTC

Postby Arkohn » Sun May 20, 2007 11:21 pm UTC

I'm pretty sure that isn't possible, and it's just one of those things you try for 1000000 hours and then go, "Oh shit, I just wasted X hours."

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Postby skeptical scientist » Mon May 21, 2007 12:14 am UTC

Spoiler:
Yeah, the matrix is actually randomly generated so that no matter how you choose 5 numbers in different rows and columns, the sum of those 5 numbers will be the same, and they rig it so the sum is always something like 97. You can get a good hint that it's impossible by looking at the high scores.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Postby ZeroSum » Mon May 21, 2007 2:29 pm UTC

I suggest that anyone who enjoys puzzles try the puzzle the OP posted. It's really entertaining.

User avatar
Cosmologicon
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:47 am UTC
Location: Cambridge MA USA
Contact:

Postby Cosmologicon » Mon May 21, 2007 4:45 pm UTC

I did the OP's puzzle about 10 years ago, and it took me a while. But when I did it this time, I was able to breeze through it. Can anyone figure out why?

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Postby ZeroSum » Mon May 21, 2007 5:04 pm UTC

The hard part is wrapping your head around the logic required, not executing that logic. You've already wrapped your head around the logic once and the brain is good at repeating things.

User avatar
Cosmologicon
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:47 am UTC
Location: Cambridge MA USA
Contact:

Postby Cosmologicon » Mon May 21, 2007 6:35 pm UTC

No, it's a little less obvious about that, and it has to do with this specific quiz, not puzzles like it in general.

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Postby ZeroSum » Mon May 21, 2007 6:37 pm UTC

Shrug. Maybe a part of you remembers this particular puzzle. First of the type you've ever solved maybe.

Hix
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:46 pm UTC

Postby Hix » Mon May 21, 2007 10:21 pm UTC

Cosmologicon wrote:I did the OP's puzzle about 10 years ago, and it took me a while. But when I did it this time, I was able to breeze through it. Can anyone figure out why?
I had a similar experience; I'd solved this puzzle previously (about 5 years ago) and it took quite a long time, even though I was working with a friend and we each contributed equally toward finding the solution. Doing it again earlier this afternoon, I breezed through it, although I am confident that I had no specific knowledge (whether it be conscious or subconscious) of the answers nor even any recollection of the questions themselves (such as which types of questions would turn out to be most pivotal toward discovering the solution). Upon reflection, I identify two factors as possibly contributing to being fast the second time around.

The first factor is what I would tend to classify as random/coincidence/luck. Basically, this time around, I found myself using one particular method of reasoning quite a bit (possible spoiler):
Spoiler:
Each question, of course, has exactly one correct answer. This is an important aspect of the puzzle, but it can be frustrating (and unproductive) if you fixate on this fact, insisting on always working specifically toward trying to determine which of the 5 answers is the correct one. Instead, I found it quite useful to make particular note of the fact that at least one of the possible answers to each question must be true, and seeing what I could decude from that simple fact.
This method happened to be quite effective for this particular puzzle, and I just happened to use it a lot. As coincidence would have it, I probably didn't use that method much last time (although I was quite capable of recognizing it as a valid line of reasoning). Given another instance of the same type of puzzle, this method may very well be among the least productive.

The other factor which would tend to allow me to be faster this time around would be a sort of subconsious meta-reasoning. I know that the puzzle has a solution, and I know that it took a long time to solve the first time. Perhaps from these facts I subconsiously reasoned that I would likely solve it quicker by attempting lines of reasoning that went against my instincts. For example, perhaps I was subconsiously thinking things like "Oh, that's just the sort of thing I probably tried doing last time; remember how long it took? Try something else!"

User avatar
Cosmologicon
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:47 am UTC
Location: Cambridge MA USA
Contact:

Postby Cosmologicon » Wed May 23, 2007 4:50 pm UTC

Well, I guess my question was kind of obscure. I don't think anyone'll get it so I'll just say it: The reason I'm now able to do this puzzle really quickly is:

Spoiler:
I have the answers memorized. This is not as silly as it sounds. The only reason I was able to memorize them is because they spell a sentence. The person who made it says it was a clue that's supposed to lead to the movie "Fatal Attraction".

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Postby ZeroSum » Wed May 23, 2007 6:59 pm UTC

Re: Cosmo:
Spoiler:
Oh, I didn't realize it was a trivia question and I only saw the sentence after reading solution threads on it after I'd already responded with logical reasons you would be more adept at the puzzle the second time around.

makie_o
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 2:54 pm UTC

Postby makie_o » Fri May 25, 2007 6:16 pm UTC

I solved it without guessing. I couldn't say how long it took because I went to eat lunch in the middle.

JoshuaZ
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Contact:

Re: I dare you to solve this.

Postby JoshuaZ » Sun May 27, 2007 4:43 am UTC

Arkohn wrote:http://www.drunkmenworkhere.org/170


There's a very nice little property the final solution has which makes it further self-referrential. If you know what the property is it makes solving it much easier.

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Re: I dare you to solve this.

Postby skeptical scientist » Sun May 27, 2007 5:07 am UTC

JoshuaZ wrote:
Arkohn wrote:http://www.drunkmenworkhere.org/170


There's a very nice little property the final solution has which makes it further self-referrential. If you know what the property is it makes solving it much easier.

If you're referring to the property cosmo pointed out, I don't see how that's self-referential...?
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

JoshuaZ
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Contact:

Re: I dare you to solve this.

Postby JoshuaZ » Sun May 27, 2007 1:50 pm UTC

skeptical scientist wrote:
JoshuaZ wrote:
Arkohn wrote:http://www.drunkmenworkhere.org/170


There's a very nice little property the final solution has which makes it further self-referrential. If you know what the property is it makes solving it much easier.

If you're referring to the property cosmo pointed out, I don't see how that's self-referential...?


No. I didn't even know about that property, there's something else.
Answer:
Spoiler:
No question has an answer of "C" .

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Re: I dare you to solve this.

Postby skeptical scientist » Sun May 27, 2007 8:18 pm UTC

JoshuaZ wrote:No. I didn't even know about that property, there's something else.

I still don't see what's self-referential about that - it's certainly an unexpected property of the solution, but not one which the test itself references in any way I noticed, and not one which embodies some property of the test.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

JoshuaZ
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Contact:

Re: I dare you to solve this.

Postby JoshuaZ » Sun May 27, 2007 8:25 pm UTC

skeptical scientist wrote:
JoshuaZ wrote:No. I didn't even know about that property, there's something else.

I still don't see what's self-referential about that - it's certainly an unexpected property of the solution, but not one which the test itself references in any way I noticed, and not one which embodies some property of the test.


At least in the United States there is a cliche about when in doubt answering "C" and before they used computers to randomly assign answer numbers many test types actually had disproportionate quantities of answers that were that letter. So it is making fun of standardized test cliches in general.

User avatar
Drostie
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:17 am UTC

Postby Drostie » Tue May 29, 2007 10:06 am UTC

I did it in 1 h, 45 m. Skep, it doesn't require any guesswork.

User avatar
Mortomes
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 5:18 am UTC
Location: Utrecht, the Netherlands
Contact:

Postby Mortomes » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:15 am UTC

Took me about an hour, a pen and some paper to solve, no guessing.

User avatar
xooll
Posts: 804
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby xooll » Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:14 am UTC

Solved it without guessing... perhaps an hour? hour and a half? didn't measure.

Also failed to notice all the neat properties people are now pointing out.
So, I got tired of the fact that the appearance of my band name in my signature made my posts on this forum the dominant result when googling for my music. Anyway, if you think I might happen to be a good musician, you can test this theory here.

legato
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:44 pm UTC

Postby legato » Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:13 pm UTC

That was a good one thanks!

Took me about an hour with no guessing. I did make a mistake but thankfully spotted it pretty quickly!

Spoiler:
I had D for question 8 as I knew there were 7 other questions with A or E, but forgot that if 8 could be E as that would increase the vowels...
I'm not a troll, I'm just an idiot

User avatar
MFHodge
Posts: 4246
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:27 pm UTC
Location: :noitacoL Raleigh, NC
Contact:

Postby MFHodge » Thu Jun 07, 2007 6:17 pm UTC

Great puzzle. It was a lot easier once I printed it out and could make If/Then notes and cross out stuff as I eliminated. Site bookmarked for future time wasting.
Image

Blades
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 7:58 pm UTC

Postby Blades » Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:01 am UTC

74 minutes

thedancecmmndr
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:57 pm UTC

Postby thedancecmmndr » Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:07 pm UTC

Five minutes, for me
Quite simple, if one has smarts
or the answer key :D


just kidding, but that was quite fun.

b4k4ni04
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:15 am UTC
Contact:

Postby b4k4ni04 » Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:40 am UTC

oh goodness, I'll have to try this sometime I should not be studying for my differential equations final. ... and an *arghfist* @ whoever posted that matrix game. *shakes head*.. ... anyways. back to studying for me >>;.

User avatar
dumbclown
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:45 pm UTC
Location: Hunting Godzilla
Contact:

Postby dumbclown » Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:42 pm UTC

Took me forever. Made a mistake. Spent hours trying to find it instead of just starting again.

User avatar
MFHodge
Posts: 4246
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:27 pm UTC
Location: :noitacoL Raleigh, NC
Contact:

Postby MFHodge » Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:32 pm UTC

I started off poorly too. I started by making an assumed answer for all of them and figured the I could just make cyclical revisions until it was solved.

Much easier to print and cross out the wrong answers.
Image

apeman5291
Posts: 634
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:19 am UTC
Location: Columbia, SC, USA
Contact:

Postby apeman5291 » Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:32 pm UTC

the first puzzle is kind of like this one:
http://math.cofc.edu/MATHMEET/truth-sprint.pdf

aguacate
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:29 pm UTC

Postby aguacate » Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:50 pm UTC

apeman5291 wrote:the first puzzle is kind of like this one:
http://math.cofc.edu/MATHMEET/truth-sprint.pdf


What tools were you allowed to use? I'll admit to using a list of the primes and a prime factor program.

Spoiler:
Part I:
2, 3, 8, 9

Part II:
R = {2893, 3289, 3982, 8239, 9328, 9823}

Fiddly
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:56 am UTC

Postby Fiddly » Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:41 am UTC

http://www.drunkmenworkhere.org/129

As most people already figured out, this is generally unsolvable. I can't rigorously prove that it never has a feasible solution, but I ran a few of the matrices through an assignment problem solver, and for a given matrix, any choice will yield the exact same number (the maximum and minimum possible values are equal). All the matrices that yield the same number can be gotten by performing row or column swaps on another matrix that yields the number. Maybe there's an instance that adds up to 100, but I'd doubt it.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Fri Jun 22, 2007 4:35 pm UTC

Looks like it does cap out at 99.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

Fiddly
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:56 am UTC

Postby Fiddly » Fri Jun 22, 2007 5:52 pm UTC

Some of the matrices always add up to 98 and also 97.

User avatar
Cosmologicon
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:47 am UTC
Location: Cambridge MA USA
Contact:

Postby Cosmologicon » Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:40 pm UTC

Without looking at it, I'm guessing that the matrix is an addition table. You'll always get the same sum from such a matrix: the sum of the 10 numbers used to make the table in the first place.

User avatar
MMoto
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:23 pm UTC
Location: Québec, Québec, Canada

Postby MMoto » Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:52 pm UTC

Fiddly wrote:http://www.drunkmenworkhere.org/129
As most people already figured out, this is generally unsolvable. I can't rigorously prove that it never has a feasible solution, but I ran a few of the matrices through an assignment problem solver, and for a given matrix, any choice will yield the exact same number (the maximum and minimum possible values are equal). All the matrices that yield the same number can be gotten by performing row or column swaps on another matrix that yields the number. Maybe there's an instance that adds up to 100, but I'd doubt it.


Subtract the minimum of each row from all entries in that row; after this it should be clear why your choices don't matter.


Return to “Logic Puzzles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests