ChatterBank0 min ago
Listener No 4399: Square Time Sums By Oyler
20 Answers
Thanks Oyler for an enjoyable workout.
Pretty clear which rows and columns are intended, but I can't help feeling that I'm missing something.
Pretty clear which rows and columns are intended, but I can't help feeling that I'm missing something.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Contrarian. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Yes is the answer Olichant. The Listener site has Derek Arthur's article on how to solve the numerical puzzles along with some tables. The Listen With Others site has setters blogs and some other useful things. I have an electronic version of an article I wrote for The Mathematical Gazette entitled Cryptic Crossnumber Puzzles that explains the setting process. Email me and I can send you or anyone else for that matter who's interested a copy.
Apologies for missing this thread and posting a red herring.
I was surprised at how few clues were needed to pin down the identities of the triples, after which a little light arithmetic filled the rest of the grid. I didn't immediately twig what the theme was, but overall I found this one of the gentler numericals. Perhaps I was just lucky in choosing the right angle of attack. As ever, something interesting and original from Oyler, to whom respect and thanks.
I was surprised at how few clues were needed to pin down the identities of the triples, after which a little light arithmetic filled the rest of the grid. I didn't immediately twig what the theme was, but overall I found this one of the gentler numericals. Perhaps I was just lucky in choosing the right angle of attack. As ever, something interesting and original from Oyler, to whom respect and thanks.
A numeric that even this maths dunce could solve. Tedious and ultimately pointless - where's the attraction? Contrast this say with the likes of Shackleton's recent Endurance-themed puzzle, which was a work of art and at the same time educational (introducing an element of history that I had been previously unaware of). Sorry Oyler, not a fan.
@lewap: I had the same experience as Contrarian. It was quite obvious to me which rows were to be highlighted, but my reasons were rather boring. A co-worker pointed out to me that the rows were much more interesting than I had realized. That four of them could be fit into the grid is rather amazing.
Google may be of some help.
Google may be of some help.
I was noticing that the intended rows and columns have both a very interesting property and a less interesting but more obvious property. I think the setter could have made the puzzle a little bit more challenging by giving more rows and columns the less interesting property. We'd be forced to get the right answer for the right reason.
And I repeat my previous comment: You might think that Google can't help you on a numeric. It can.
And I repeat my previous comment: You might think that Google can't help you on a numeric. It can.
With respect, s-pugh, isn’t your post rather unfair? Given your dislike of numerical Listeners it seems unfair to me to post a wholly negative one on a particular example of the genre, and then to compare it to a conventional puzzle that no numerical puzzle can possibly emulate. These puzzles are not compulsory, so if you dislike them so much it might be better not to tackle them, but if you feel compelled to tackle them would it not be better to keep the negatives to yourself.
Oyler’s puzzles are invariably solver-friendly, and they don’t require advanced maths skills like some Listeners do, so as far as I’m concerned his puzzles are always welcome. I was quite happy to complete this one in a couple of hours on Saturday.
I saw the 'mysterious' additional feature that some refer to immediately. This was because I misread a figure in my grid and thought there were five candidates for highlighting, so one had to be eliminated.
Oyler’s puzzles are invariably solver-friendly, and they don’t require advanced maths skills like some Listeners do, so as far as I’m concerned his puzzles are always welcome. I was quite happy to complete this one in a couple of hours on Saturday.
I saw the 'mysterious' additional feature that some refer to immediately. This was because I misread a figure in my grid and thought there were five candidates for highlighting, so one had to be eliminated.
Late addition to this string - I have just picked this up after getting diverted for a few days! I am sure I have the 4 sets of triples correct (having eliminated 2 of the 6 possibles I worked out due to duplication of 2 and 3 figure numbers). But my answer to 16D has a 0 as 2nd digit which is not compatible with my answer to 20A which ends in 2 - in any case 7 x A cannot end in 0! I'm sure I have made a simple error somewhere but cannot see it - any guidance much appreciated! Thanks in advance...
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.