somebody wrote:
> If I don't trust you, no amount of reiterating that it's solvable will
> convince me ( "if ((((x=true)=true)=true..." syndrome ).

There are also puzzles of the sort "because I have some of the same 
information you do, and because you *can't* solve the problem, I *can* 
solve the problem."

http://puzzles.nigelcoldwell.co.uk/twelve.htm

Fun puzzles.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> A problem is either solvable, not solvable, or a fields medal candidate. We
> can safely ignore the last possibility here I think. If you ask me a
> problem/puzzle to find a solution to, and if I trust that you are not
> leading me to a wild goose chase, it means it's given that it *is* solvable.
> If I don't trust you, no amount of reiterating that it's solvable will
> convince me ( "if ((((x=true)=true)=true..." syndrome ).

  Well, it should suffice to say that I couldn't have solved the problem
without the hint given by the "the problem is solvable". While what it
stated is more or less obvious, it was still a rather helpful *hint*. It
made me think about it in a different way than I would have it if hadn't
been there.

  In other words, it made the problem easier, at least if you get the
hint and deduce what is it trying to insinuate.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I haven't looked at the solution. This is what I'm thinking:
>
> ...Thus the problem is reduced to calculating the trivial volume of a
> sphere of diameter of 6m, which should be something like pi*r^3*4/3 =
> pi*3^3*4/3 = pi*36.
>

Nice one, Warp. A good demonstration (to my mind) of problem-solving using
"reductio ad absurdum," if that's the properly-spelled phrase. In this case,
reducing the cylinder down to a radius of zero and thus eliminating it
altogether.

Ken W.

Post a reply to this message