Concerning the validity of I.Q.

Author: zedvictor4

Posts

Total: 134
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,388
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@SirAnonymous
That's why I thought it was Beta Delta, he mentioned a Greek thing with puzzle 2. I think Beta Delta would have been a better #1 answer and that they should have been done the other way around.
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Beta Delta was a logical answer. The problem with anagrams is that they often have multiple solutions.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,980
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@SirAnonymous
Yes, as I remember it.
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@FLRW
Cool. I'm probably not crazy, then.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Interesting, I would have got it fasters than Athias anyway but I was pretty sure the puzzle was Beta Delta. Anyway, what exactly makes the second puzzle ETA? 
You would've solved it "faster"? How do you figure? How do you get the first one wrong, and ask for my help on the second one, and boast the capacity to solve it "faster" than I?

And technically, I did not "solve" it. Zedvictor did. (No surprise there, since he's the one who conceived it.) I only explained the reason for his solution. Initially, I didn't bother attempting to solve it because there were no parameters for the solution, meaning it could have been any number between negative infinity and positive infinity. (Note that I conceived a few number puzzles demonstrating that very point.) When FLRW suggested it was 18 because it was the sum of the series of numbers excluding the 20's, I went with it because it was as reasonable as any other guess would be. After some prodding by zedvictor and an eventually successful provocation, I explained his solution. I harkened back to 3RU7AL's suggestion about they're being coded letters after zedvictor finally set a parameter (less than 27.) I realized it was an anagram, and that's how the cookie crumbled.

FLRW proceeded to solve the second one. In retrospect, the concept of these puzzles weren't all that bad, but the lack of parameters made it essentially a guessing game, and thus zedvictor had to relinquish some hints after numerous failed attempts. Hindsight is 20/20 RationalMadman and it's simpler to state that which you could've done after the fact. Here's a puzzle I, myself, conceived:

4, 8, 16, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, ? Here are the parameters: ? =/= 0; the first two numbers as well as the solution represents an aspect of this series. You have one try, Go!
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,388
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Athias
I instantly thought of letters when I saw the code and saw 1 was the wrong answer.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@RationalMadman
I instantly thought of letters when I saw the code and saw 1 was the wrong answer.
No, they weren't letters at all. 0 doesn't associate with any letter. The solution is 12.

4, 8, 16, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 12.

Four represents the total of non-zero numbers.
Eight represents the total of zeros.
12, the solution, represents the total amount numbers.

It's similar to the puzzle I presented on page two. I intended all non-zero numbers to have four as a factor, but 16 is essentially extraneous information meant to mislead.

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,388
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Athias
Was replying to yoyr question about why I said I could solve it faster.

As for your puzzle, 12 came to mind as did 32 but I don't comprehend why exactly.

fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
@Athias
I don't think your suggestion of a puzzle in your #79

1,2,3,4,5,?
is a puzzle at all, because you have violated the very point that Zed was trying to explain to Edge; that a puzzle need not have context,  just pattern. As Zed explained in his #59, your "solution," given in your #81 applies mathematic functions within the consecutive series of numbers, but one has no idea what functions are to be applied in what order. You have, first, an  exponent [really multiplication of the same number], then simple multiplication, then division, and then addition, thus using three pf the four simple functions [minus subtraction]. Even that subtraction would be the missing function is self-explanitory; it is "minus," that is, a missing function. Fine. But, the sequence applied is still a problematic issue due to it not being an obvious pattern without convoluted attempts, and this goes beyond the use of intelligence, requiring some guesswork to arrive at the solution. Zed's puzzle solves by pure intellect, alone. Guessing is not intelligence, because there is no absolute pattern to follow to arrive at your solution; no pattern at all because the sequence of application of math function does not follow a logical sequence. Logic is replaced by guess work. That is not puzzle-solving at all.

Whereas, Zed's first puzzle, though also remote in its solution, uses, consistently, the same, most simple of math functions: addition, and the patter of its use is consistent. Therefore, presented as a patterned puzzle, I agree with Zed's solution: 6.

fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Zed, I'll have to admit I did not see this string until tonight, and trying the first puzzle, I''ll have to depend on your good graces that I solved it before reading your #68, in which you solved it, but I did not solve it until after your #59. I realized that it was additive, but at first fooled by trying to include the 20 cipher. I then realized it was a red herring, and just added the first three ciphers in each series, and backed into 18 as the solution. I take it that this is the end of the puzzle; that the pattern is not  intended to continue.

Whereas, I have stopped reading as of your #68 to enter these comments.


Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Was replying to yoyr question about why I said I could solve it faster.
Yes, but when you realized they were letters, you still got it wrong. You assumed it was "Beta Delta."

As for your puzzle, 12 came to mind as did 32 but I don't comprehend why exactly.
You may have assumed 12 and 32 because each number had four as a factor. You also may have assumed 32 because eight is twice the amount of four, and figured the solution might be twice the amount of 16. Neither is a terrible assumption.


Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@fauxlaw
is a puzzle at all, because you have violated the very point that Zed was trying to explain to Edge; that a puzzle need not have context,  just pattern. As Zed explained in his #59, your "solution," given in your #81 applies mathematic functions within the consecutive series of numbers, but one has no idea what functions are to be applied in what order. You have, first, an  exponent [really multiplication of the same number], then simple multiplication, then division, and then addition, thus using three pf the four simple functions [minus subtraction]. Even that subtraction would be the missing function is self-explanitory; it is "minus," that is, a missing function. Fine. But, the sequence applied is still a problematic issue due to it not being an obvious pattern without convoluted attempts, and this goes beyond the use of intelligence, requiring some guesswork to arrive at the solution.
That was the point: this was nothing more than a contrived and unnecessarily convoluted guessing game.

(By the way, subtraction was not a "missing" operation, and the  order of operations dictates the order: parentheses, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction.)

no pattern at all because the sequence of application of math function does not follow a logical sequence. Logic is replaced by guess work. That is not puzzle-solving at all.
I agree. Thus making this statement of yours absurd:

Whereas, Zed's first puzzle, though also remote in its solution, uses, consistently, the same, most simple of math functions: addition, and the[pattern] of its use is consistent.
Zedvictor explicitly stated that it wasn't a sequence:

Post #4:
--> @FLRW
No incorrect.    It's a puzzle not a sequence.
Hence, I didn't even attempt to solve. Once it was made clear that his arrangement wasn't sequential, I knew that, as you stated, "logic [would be] replaced by guesswork."

Therefore, presented as a patterned puzzle, I agree with Zed's solution: 6.
I already addressed this:

So your answer is "6"? There's no need to separate yourself from your answer by stating, "one initially doesn't need to come up with anything other than 6..." And no, the answer is not "6." (You were close, though.) You see, I can't expect you to figure it out just from its mere presentation--not even for a "keen" puzzler like yourself. Of course, you're going to state that it's "6" based on the only reasoning you can grasp from its presentation, and that is its order. But if I keep the rules to myself, how can the answer be determined by you or anyone other than guessing at the rules?
I didn't expect Zedvictor or anyone else for that matter to assume anything other than six. The point I was making was that as long as I was keeping the parameters to myself, my "puzzle" was nothing more than an exercise at guessing rather than deductive logic.

Zed, I'll have to admit I did not see this string until tonight, and trying the first puzzle, I''ll have to depend on your good graces that I solved it before reading your #68, in which you solved it, but I did not solve it until after your #59. I realized that it was additive, but at first fooled by trying to include the 20 cipher. I then realized it was a red herring, and just added the first three ciphers in each series, and backed into 18 as the solution. I take it that this is the end of the puzzle; that the pattern is not  intended to continue.

Whereas, I have stopped reading as of your #68 to enter these comments.
But in post #74, FLRW made the same assumption. That 18 was derived from taking the sum of the series except for the 20's. And while 18 is the correct answer, that is merely coincidental as I explained in post #93. 18 isn't derived from any arithmetic. It's derived from its association to the English letter, "R." The series of numbers are coded letters, which 3RU7AL initially suggested. Once you substitute the numbers for letters, it becomes an anagram. When rearranged correctly, it spells out "DEBATEA?T." Realizing the missing letter is "R," you substitute it with its numerical counterpart, and it's 18. I explained all of this in post #93.

As I told RationalMadMan, it's simpler to assume that which could have and should have been done after the fact.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
it's simpler to assume that which could have and should have been done after the fact.
everyone thinks they're a genius in a bull market.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
I do find it odd that out of the woodwork, a couple of members are suddenly claiming the capacity to have solved it once all the information about the puzzles have been revealed.