|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 26, 2022 20:16:01 GMT
nerdlegame 66 3/6
⬛🟩⬛🟩🟪🟩🟩⬛ 🟪🟩🟪🟩⬛🟩🟩⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 27, 2022 3:36:30 GMT
nerdlegame 67 4/6
⬛⬛⬛⬛🟪⬛🟩🟪 ⬛⬛🟪🟪⬛🟪🟩⬛ 🟪🟪🟩🟩🟪🟪🟩🟪 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
I got wrecked on that one, lad.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 27, 2022 7:39:48 GMT
nerdlegame 67 3/6
⬛🟪🟪⬛⬛🟪🟩⬛ 🟩🟪⬛⬛🟪🟪🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
A weak start so I was quite pleased with this one.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 28, 2022 12:56:34 GMT
nerdlegame 68 2/6
🟪🟩🟪🟪🟩🟪⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Sheer skill.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 29, 2022 6:40:29 GMT
nerdlegame 69 3/6
🟪⬛⬛🟩🟪⬛🟪⬛ 🟩🟪🟩🟩🟪🟩🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Deadly close to getting it in 2.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 29, 2022 10:52:14 GMT
nerdlegame 69 3/6 🟪⬛⬛🟩🟪⬛🟪⬛ 🟩🟪🟩🟩🟪🟩🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Deadly close to getting it in 2. 4 for me. Another where two digits were interchangeable but the first answer (row 3) still works (looks like you had the same between your rows 2 and 3). Here's a tough one for you: work out the number of possible permutations.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 29, 2022 10:58:39 GMT
nerdlegame 69 3/6 🟪⬛⬛🟩🟪⬛🟪⬛ 🟩🟪🟩🟩🟪🟩🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Deadly close to getting it in 2. 4 for me. Another where two digits were interchangeable but the first answer (row 3) still works (looks like you had the same between your rows 2 and 3). Here's a tough one for you: work out the number of possible permutations. Yeah, same thing happened to me.
Permutations by round 3? Only 1 possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 29, 2022 11:06:25 GMT
Yeah, same thing happened to me.
Permutations by round 3? Only 1 possibility.
No, I mean total permutations that can be the result.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 29, 2022 11:09:08 GMT
Yeah, same thing happened to me.
Permutations by round 3? Only 1 possibility.
No, I mean total permutations that can be the result. The result of 92 with the addition in the same place?
Assuming we keep the format of two-digit numbers and don't do goofy shit like "02", I reckon 72.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 29, 2022 11:18:00 GMT
No, I mean total permutations that can be the result. The result of 92 with the addition in the same place?
Assuming we keep the format of two-digit numbers and don't do goofy shit like "02", I reckon 72. No, not to do with this specific puzzle. I mean starting from blank, how many permutations are there?
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 29, 2022 11:19:41 GMT
The result of 92 with the addition in the same place?
Assuming we keep the format of two-digit numbers and don't do goofy shit like "02", I reckon 72. No, not to do with this specific puzzle. I mean starting from blank, how many permutations are there? Of equations in general?
You go first.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 29, 2022 11:44:06 GMT
No, not to do with this specific puzzle. I mean starting from blank, how many permutations are there? Of equations in general?
You go first. I was thinking about it in the shower - lots of conditional statements to be taken into account. Lots and lots. I got scared.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 29, 2022 11:55:35 GMT
Of equations in general?
You go first. I was thinking about it in the shower - lots of conditional statements to be taken into account. Lots and lots. I got scared. Yeah, you're a bastard. I'm pondering it now. I'd have to write a program for it.
8 slots, 15 possible items to put in those slots. 35,184,372,088,832 possible combinations... but the vast majority aren't going to be valid equations.
For a valid equation, you need an equals sign and at least one operator. The equals sign couldn't be placed in slot 1 or 8, no operators aside from "-" could be in slot 1 (this game allows for negative numbers), and no operators at all could be in slot 8. That would cut you down to a cool few hundred billion possible equations by rule of thumb; not necessary valid, but with the necessary structure.
What I would do is brute force through every field with those rules in mind. I don't even want to think about how much computing power and time that would take.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 29, 2022 12:03:41 GMT
I was thinking about it in the shower - lots of conditional statements to be taken into account. Lots and lots. I got scared. Yeah, you're a bastard. I'm pondering it now. I'd have to write a program for it.
8 slots, 15 possible items to put in those slots. 35,184,372,088,832 possible combinations... but the vast majority aren't going to be valid equations.
For a valid equation, you need an equals sign and at least one operator. The equals sign couldn't be placed in slot 1 or 8, no operators aside from "-" could be in slot 1 (this game allows for negative numbers), and no operators at all could be in slot 8. That would cut you down to a cool few hundred billion possible equations by rule of thumb; not necessary valid, but with the necessary structure.
What I would do is brute force through every field with those rules in mind. I don't even want to think about how much computing power that would take. Lots of rules. E.g. two operators cannot be adjacent; if dividing by 2, the result of the prior calc cannot be an odd number; if diving by 3, the result of the previous calc can only be 3, 6 or 9 UNLESS it start with a 1 (in which case 12, 15, 18 are okay) or a 2 in which case.... etc etc etc. And then all of these rules have to be applied in order to each part of the initial equation (if there are multiple parts, of course). You're right that brute force may be faster but I'd still feel a lot smugger if I worked it out formulaically.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 29, 2022 12:12:27 GMT
Yeah, you're a bastard. I'm pondering it now. I'd have to write a program for it.
8 slots, 15 possible items to put in those slots. 35,184,372,088,832 possible combinations... but the vast majority aren't going to be valid equations.
For a valid equation, you need an equals sign and at least one operator. The equals sign couldn't be placed in slot 1 or 8, no operators aside from "-" could be in slot 1 (this game allows for negative numbers), and no operators at all could be in slot 8. That would cut you down to a cool few hundred billion possible equations by rule of thumb; not necessary valid, but with the necessary structure.
What I would do is brute force through every field with those rules in mind. I don't even want to think about how much computing power that would take. Lots of rules. E.g. two operators cannot be adjacent; if dividing by 2, the result of the prior calc cannot be an odd number; if diving by 3, the result of the previous calc can only be 3, 6 or 9 UNLESS it start with a 1 (in which case 12, 15, 18 are okay) or a 2 in which case.... etc etc etc. And then all of these rules have to be applied in order to each part of the initial equation (if there are multiple parts, of course). You're right that brute force may be faster but I'd still feel a lot smugger if I worked it out formulaically. The smugness would be earned. I wouldn't even know where to begin.
Also two operators can be adjacent. "3*-2+7=1" as an example. You would need to factor for that and make special exception for the minus sign, depending on its meaning.
|
|