Listener No 4399: Square Time Sums By Oyler

[Contrarian]

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.

[Contrarian]

Now I see it! Very clever.

[kdgs2]

That's certainly the quickest Listener I've ever solved. I do prefer my numericals of a type that permits solving with paper, pencil, calculator and maybe a list of primes...

[emcee]

Entry level numerical but, nevertheless, enjoyable.

[Postigod]

Very enjoyable workout, also probably my quickest ever solve.

[starwalker]

As one who is dislikes numericals, I could almost be converted by puzzles such as this. Clearly I over-engineered the solving process, but all the same . . . Thanks Oyler, from an out and out sceptic.

[olichant]

Oyler, thank you from me too. I really enjoyed this.

I'm getting increasingly enthused by the numericals. Has anyone ever published any sort of guide as to how to approach setting one, or is it rather a case of starting from first principles and working upwards?

[Oyler]

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.

[AHearer]

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.

[s_pugh]

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.

[icynorth]

I've hit a blocker, and as no-one else here has, then either I'm completely mistaken about my selection of triples, or there's a misprint in the printed version. Please could someone confirm that the clue for 16dn is "2 x (C + L + R + Z), and that the clue to 47ac is "Factor of 16dn". Thanks.

[olichant]

Icynorth - yes, those are right.

[Lewap]

Grid filled, and thought that I had shaded the right columns and rows - however Contrarians comment "Now I see it. Very clever." has left me thinking I have it wrong... Is the shading supposed to represent something?

[fyellin]

@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.

[BMACMAC]

Like others, I found the grid fill fairly easy, though perhaps a bit laborious. As far as the thematic part goes, I'm far from satisfied that I've fully uit: in particular, I can't relate the Title

[fyellin]

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.

[icynorth]

Thanks for confirming, olichant. My factorising's not what it was.

Yes, the second stage wasn't much of a challenge, but the mathematics is beautiful.

[Oyler]

Thank you for the comments regarding the puzzle which are, as always, much appreciated. I am in the process of writing a blog for LWO which will address the comments made here and on another site and give further insight into the setting of the puzzle.

[satori]

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.

[MIME007]

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...

[satori]

MIME007, specific assistance is not given on this forum. You have clearly made an error in calculating 16d.