Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,616

Hi phrontister;

I do not know if it was causing me any problems or not. Either way, I have downloaded the new pdf. Thanks for finding the mistake.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,116

Hi phrontister

No worries mate. I'm nowhere near needing to know that yet, but thanks for the revision.

Now the question I am left pondering is this:

Do I spend the rest of my life trying to solve this puzzle, or trying to understand an alternative view on how to solve a Rubik's cube?

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

Offline

**phrontister****Real Member**- From: The Land of Tomorrow
- Registered: 2009-07-12
- Posts: 3,811

Hi Bob,

Yes, I was hoping you hadn't yet made serious enough inroads into the solution to be affected by my blunder. >phew!<

The answer to your question is easy: the former. Why shouldn't someone spend an incredible amount of time trying to solve the puzzle if I spent an incredible amount of time creating it?

Given your feelings concerning the inequality of creation time vs solving time for your Ferris Wheel puzzle, you may feel that my observation is unfair. But I'll ignore that.

I do feel rather gratified to have my humble dustbin-bound puzzle mentioned in the same breath as the mighty Rubik's colossus, though!

"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." - Ted Nelson

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,116

hi phro,

The 'former' it is then. Anyway, it's actually much more of a challenge. (i) there's loads of books and stuff on rubik, (ii) once you've learnt a bit of group theory it's a synch anyway. To do your puzzle will require concentrated effort and some original thinking, so I'm happy to consider them in the same breath.

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

Offline

**phrontister****Real Member**- From: The Land of Tomorrow
- Registered: 2009-07-12
- Posts: 3,811

Hi Bobby,

The error didn't show up in my spreadsheet solution because of the way I'd set it up: it took the "twice" into account automatically...which I don't think is a flaw necessarily.

It therefore snuck under my guard with the puzzle wording.

The M solution (as done by the person who solved my puzzle) is set up differently, and requires its specific inclusion...which I'm sure is not a flaw either. The problem was that I didn't understand M's solution well enough to have realised the necessity of that inclusion.

After changing my M solution to that of your puzzle and finding that it disagreed with Excel's, I knew something was up. Luckily the fix wasn't too difficult to achieve.

It's nice that the two solution methods give the same result.

"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." - Ted Nelson

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,616

Hi phrontister;

I am working on one more try.

What I would like to see added to the pdf you have made a few examples of the output from the routines:

1) number's reverse

2) number's digit sum

3) number's digit product

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**phrontister****Real Member**- From: The Land of Tomorrow
- Registered: 2009-07-12
- Posts: 3,811

Hi Bobby,

I'll try to squeeeeze those examples onto the already-chockablock puzzle page, but there may be no room.

Here's an example for "the reverse of the digit product of the digit sum" of *n*:

If *n* = 51479, then we get: the reverse (21) of the digit product (12) of the digit sum (26) of 51479.

(a) n's digit sum = 5+1+4+7+9 = 26; from which...

(b) digit product of 26 = 2 x 6 = 12; from which...

(c) the reverse of 12 = 21

Btw, I've uploaded the solution files to my file host, ready to PM to you. Shall I send them later - after you've finished with this puzzle (ie, solved it or hurled it into the bin) - or would you like them now?

Good luck with it this time...hope you can get somewhere with it.

"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." - Ted Nelson

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,616

Hi;

Thank you for the examples. I was guessing at the correct output before.

You can PM them to me at your convenience. I will not need to look until I have exhausted all the possibilities for a solution by this method. It is probably a dead end but...

Good luck with it this time...hope you can get somewhere with it.

Thanks, I always get something when working on a problem.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**phrontister****Real Member**- From: The Land of Tomorrow
- Registered: 2009-07-12
- Posts: 3,811

Hi Bobby,

Thanks, I always get something when working on a problem.

If that's 'get' as in 'understand', that's good.

But if not, that might be bad.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,616

Did you see that i in there? Now I am hitting two keys for the price of one.

I get both.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**phrontister****Real Member**- From: The Land of Tomorrow
- Registered: 2009-07-12
- Posts: 3,811

Did you see that i in there? Now I am hitting two keys for the price of one.

I thought the 'i' was there as a pronunciation guide to that word, but I couldn't make head or tail of it and so removed it.

I get both.

I also get a cuppa when working on a problem.

PM sent.

*Last edited by phrontister (2012-06-16 00:46:15)*

Offline

**phrontister****Real Member**- From: The Land of Tomorrow
- Registered: 2009-07-12
- Posts: 3,811

Hi Bob,

I tried ringing her, but she must be out.

Which country code did you use?

But if the phone rang out without giving the 'unobtainable' tone, I think it would indicate that's a UK number. I didn't know that.

*Last edited by phrontister (2012-06-16 00:55:20)*

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,116

+61

I assumed she was in Oz.

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

Offline

**phrontister****Real Member**- From: The Land of Tomorrow
- Registered: 2009-07-12
- Posts: 3,811

Maybe so, but a reverse phone lookup came up blank.

Sorry I couldn't help.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,616

Hi phrontister;

Got it! Thanks, hopefully I will have something better...

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**phrontister****Real Member**- From: The Land of Tomorrow
- Registered: 2009-07-12
- Posts: 3,811

Hi Bobby,

I've managed to squeeze the wording example (see posts #106 & #107) into my puzzle doc (as Note #2).

I've updated the files in my file host: here are the links...

Thanks for that suggestion.

*Last edited by phrontister (2012-08-18 05:00:36)*

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,616

Hi;

Okay, thanks. I made a little progress today!

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**phrontister****Real Member**- From: The Land of Tomorrow
- Registered: 2009-07-12
- Posts: 3,811

Xlnt!

I'm wondering how you're going about it, though, and what you are/aren't seeing. But you can tell me further down the track.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,616

Hi;

Yes, I will tell you as soon as I get there.

Regarding our conversation:

If I have indeed come up with a novel solution, I ask that I be allowed to try to bring it to a conclusion. That is not saying that I will be able to. There are several points that are still mysterious to me.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**phrontister****Real Member**- From: The Land of Tomorrow
- Registered: 2009-07-12
- Posts: 3,811

Hi Bobby,

I think you'll find that concluding the novel solution will be quite challenging and interesting. Go for it.

Along the way you may even discover how some of the ideas can be ported over to the 'standard' solution.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,616

Hi;

In keeping with your comments in the first pm I will go over to a more conventional solution try. One you had in mind.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**phrontister****Real Member**- From: The Land of Tomorrow
- Registered: 2009-07-12
- Posts: 3,811

Hi all,

I've replaced the 'Solution check' in the *bobbym's YOB* puzzle to fix a problem with it and to make it more interesting.

Links are updated to the new version.

*EDIT 28/6/12: Improved the solution check...again! Links have been updated.*

*Last edited by phrontister (2012-06-28 00:34:10)*

Offline