🧵 Puzzle 4 (2 in one, Difficulty 2/7 for both )
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:15:15 UTC No. 16593002
Instructions:
In each puzzle, 2 panels are missing.
You must select 2 of these panels—in the correct order—to complete the pattern. ( 46 is different from 64)
It is possible for the same panel to appear twice (e.g., “11,” “22,” etc.).
None of the puzzle require external resources. You do not need any special knowledge to solve these items. None of the patterns are cultural.
Lastly, you need to provide both the answer choice and the explanation. Feel free to use drawing tools to aid with your explanation. I encourage it so that it is clear to everyone what you are saying.
Previous post:
>>16592161
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:15:27 UTC No. 16593263
Why is 6 afraid of 7?
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:21:18 UTC No. 16593297
>>16593263
That joke doesn't refer to the 2 puzzles in any meaningful way if that's what you wanted to try.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:26:41 UTC No. 16593325
>>16593002
A) 3, 2
They are symmetrical, like those kids' paper toys. If you fold them, how many red squares are cut?
0 1 2 3 4 5
I'll have a look at B when I'm back from the store.
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:40:16 UTC No. 16593392
>>16593325
Correct, but you could've just said that the symmetry line cuts through 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 black squares.
Good job
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:43:55 UTC No. 16593411
>>16593002
Fuck this nigga
He added the anime image to get more engagement
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:47:19 UTC No. 16593425
>>16593411
No shit
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:56:20 UTC No. 16593458
>>16593325
lmfao wtf are these people smoking?
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:57:22 UTC No. 16593465
>>16593411
in his defense it's a relatively old meem
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:04:37 UTC No. 16593489
>>16593458
check the previous puzzle. this one is easier.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:14:36 UTC No. 16593522
>>16593465
Brah his first thread didnt work and so he added the meme
Do not respect this pandering
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:18:14 UTC No. 16593533
>>16593489
imo the square and triangle in absolutely random positions makes 0 sense, or does it?
>>16593522
could be worse
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:18:55 UTC No. 16593536
>>16593465
"You should be able to solve this"
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:21:03 UTC No. 16593543
>>16593533
> imo the square and triangle in absolutely random positions makes 0 sense, or does it?
What are you even talking about?
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:23:43 UTC No. 16593553
>>16593543
this:
>>16593325
>>16593536
11112006825558016? I'm an old man who forgot maths long time ago
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:30:28 UTC No. 16593578
>>16593553
there are no squares and triangles. You are just misunderstanding what he did there. He just folded the panel across the symmetry line. There is no reason to do that in the first place.
The logic is simply that the symmetry line cuts through 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 black squares if you go from left panel to right most panel.
And for the 11112006825558016, idfk what that is, but if it is the answer to that question or even a lower bound, you clearly just googled it. I recall it took the combined effort of many autistic mathematicians to make progress on that problem.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:31:53 UTC No. 16593585
>>16593578
aight aight, I think I get it now
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:33:11 UTC No. 16593590
>>16593578
>
I just 14^14 on wolfram's
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:36:09 UTC No. 16593598
>>16593590
Ah, it's not that.
You misunderstood the task. I'll explain later. GTG
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:14:34 UTC No. 16593686
All I can see in B are the zig-zags created by white parts.
I'm going to sleep.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:20:52 UTC No. 16593697
>>16593325
Wrong.
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:26:17 UTC No. 16593714
>>16593697
I've seen this answer before and it is inferior to the one I provided as it doesn't take into account the symmetry line pattern.
This is such a garbage answer that I would be embarrassed to post. The other guy is right.
The symmetry line cuts through an increasing number of black squares from 0 in the first panel to 5 in the last.
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:35:59 UTC No. 16593736
>>16593697
This is the logic, it's just that the other guy needlessly mentioned folding which may confuse people:
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:36:17 UTC No. 16593738
>>16593714
c'mon, don't be so bitter, dude's answer is cool, symmetry is cooler but still
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:37:51 UTC No. 16593743
>>16593714
I would be embarrassed to be "John Puzzle" and get my own puzzle wrong.
>doesn't take into account the symmetry line pattern
You have an inferior primate brain that needs to see symmetry to recognize its own kind. It is an arbitrary trait that does not need to be accounted for.
Also, your name is John.
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:39:10 UTC No. 16593747
>>16593738
Fine. I just have PTSD from people posting weak solutions then relentlessly debating that they are more valid or that the problem is bad etc.
I guess it pissed me off how he said "Wrong" after he read symmetry solution. As if he is unable to tell which one is more full of intent, elegant and comprehensive.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:40:29 UTC No. 16593750
>>16593747
I wasn't aware of this:
>>16593736
which is very interesting and adds another level of abstraction on top of just folding
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:42:41 UTC No. 16593756
>>16593743
Lmao, see :>>16593738
He cannot grasp how garbage his answer is.
Somehow he thinks a combo of an arithmetic progression ans symmetry working together is a coincidence while his mediocre, counting square pattern is designed.
First of all, this isn't my own puzzle. I solved it. I saw both solutions and picked the one that made more sense.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:49:58 UTC No. 16593780
>>16593756
John Puzzle doesn't even make his own puzzles. Disappointing, but not unexpected.
Especially from someone named John.
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:56:13 UTC No. 16593793
>>16593780
I'm sharing puzzles I found cool, what's wrong with that?
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:00:11 UTC No. 16593804
>>16593002
any progress on b?
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:01:32 UTC No. 16593810
Is B 14? The black area in the third circle is the sum of the first two, plus an additional 1/4 for each step, until it maxes out to all black. Not sure if I like this solution though since limiting the black area instead of wrapping or something is unsatisfying, and the answer might just as easily be 41.
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:01:51 UTC No. 16593811
>>16593804
Haven't seen anyone try B) yet.
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:06:17 UTC No. 16593821
>>16593810
not exactly, but keep playing around with it.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:11:48 UTC No. 16593828
>>16593821
nta, 2,3
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:13:06 UTC No. 16593833
>>16593819
I already thought of that, it just doesn't work.
I'm so tired of you wanna be smartasses providing inferior solutions that I literally saw within the first minute of the problem. It is extremely cringe.
Go ahead and explain the big jump from 4 and 5.
There is no satisfying rotational solution to this problem.
For the record, most people think of this. I've shared this problem on reddit and discord and people see a rotational pattern with the line of symmetry, but can never complete it or just count all the squares.
Just look at the amount of rotations you do between adjacent panels:
1, 1, 4, 2, 2. There are many more combinations of clockwise and anticlockwise movement, but nothing really works at least not without making it extremely convoluted.
So shut your dumb ass. Muh motion thinking. Fking cretin.
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:14:07 UTC No. 16593835
>>16593828
no, but write a logic...
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:21:58 UTC No. 16593864
>>16593835
1st square: sum of the two first circles is thrid
2nd square: sum of the two first circle plus an extra one of them
3rd square: sum of the two plus 2 extra
appl
4th: +4 (here I realise it doesn't make sense)
*correction
4th: +3 extra => 1
5th: + 4 extra => 2
5th square: sum of the two plus 5 extra (of the little ones)
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:26:40 UTC No. 16593882
>>16593864
Yeah that's it.
I thought of it this way:
1st circle is the offset
2nd circle is the unit
(3rd circle - 1st circle)/ 2nd circle give:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
But we practically have the same logic
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:27:35 UTC No. 16593883
>>16593821
ok I get it now, this unlocked it
>>16593864
The third circle is the sum of the first, and the second multiplied by the step. So the answer is 12.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:28:45 UTC No. 16593884
>>16593882
2bh, I cheated, when I saw this:
>>16593810
I realized what was going on
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:30:26 UTC No. 16593887
>>16593884
Eh, it's fine.
I'll post 2 more puzzles later.
I'm just annoyed that if some of them have weaker unintended solutions, people will point them out and act like smartasses.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:33:06 UTC No. 16593891
>>16593882
>1st circle is the offset
>2nd circle is the unit
>(3rd circle - 1st circle)/ 2nd circle give:
I don't follow
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:35:43 UTC No. 16593895
>>16593891
since the 2nd circle represents a unit, you look at how many units 1st circle is away from the 3rd circle.
it is really just that.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:38:29 UTC No. 16593902
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:40:03 UTC No. 16593907
>>16593895
>>16593902
I see
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:41:04 UTC No. 16593911
>>16593895
will yah post the link to the next one itt?
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:44:25 UTC No. 16593921
>>16593902
Thanks, I just drew this and was about to post, but you were faster.
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:45:52 UTC No. 16593924
>>16593911
sure, but I will post in a few hours.
I will add a link in the comments here for the next post.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:47:42 UTC No. 16593928
>>16593924
aight thx pham, enjoying the fuck out of these, and glad I got one more right, even if someone else half-figured the logic behind it for me
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:48:50 UTC No. 16593933
>>16593924
I'm trying to help you guys build some intuition for the harder puzzles. I intend to post at some point some puzzles I couldn't solve to see if we can crack them together, but it is going to take a while until we get there.
John Puzzle at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:50:00 UTC No. 16593936
>>16593928
All good, you're rolling.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 22:38:36 UTC No. 16594027
>>16593458
weed nigga
>>16593002
A) 7
B) also 7
final answer
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 04:23:32 UTC No. 16594420
>>16593553
>>16593578
Not OP, but I will give it a shot.
Initially, the first number that comes to mind is 14*14! (14! total sequences possible, 14 letters per sequence [episode numbers])
But, we can do better. Consider the smaller problem of 2, 3, 4 episodes (separation added by me)
2: 12 1 => 3
3: 12321 32132 => 10
4: 1234123 1324132 1243123 1423142 1432143 1342134 => 42
From this, we see that each time we add an episode, we have to build sequences of length (2N-1) which each provide N different sequences of episodes. Since there are N! total sequences we must cover, we need N!/N = (N-1)! of these (2N-1) sequences.
This leaves us with 168129561600 as the least number of Haruhi episodes you would have to watch in order to watch them in every order possible. Verifying against the naive case: [math]N\cdot N!=N^2\cdot (N-1)!\leq (2N-1)\cdot(N-1)![/math] for all positive N.
Or, I may just be retarded, which I probably already am for waiting 15 minutes to post this garbage
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 04:32:14 UTC No. 16594424
>>16594420
The reason the problem is hard is because you have a continuous chain of episodes. For example, for 2 episodes, the naive approach yields "12 21" or 4, whereas the most efficient answer is "121." N! is only a distant upper bound.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 04:36:46 UTC No. 16594430
>>16594424
Yes, the challenge now is whether or not compressing N sequences into (2N-1) letters is the best you can do
John Puzzle at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 05:05:29 UTC No. 16594441
>>16593924
>>16593928
Continuing in this post with 2 more puzzles:
>>16594439
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:05:42 UTC No. 16594472
>>16593887
>I'm just annoyed that if some of them have weaker unintended solutions, people will point them out and act like smartasses.
Some people derive a lot of self-esteem from their supposed intelligence, so failing to solve a logic puzzle correctly is a threat to their identity and must be rationalized at any cost. The best thing to do is appease their fragile ego with a gentle tone and some light compliments while telling them they're wrong.
John Puzzle at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:34:19 UTC No. 16594484
>>16594438
Fair enough, but it is especially difficulty when they come in chat and condescendingly type something that clearly doesn't work, insulting everyone who probably saw that and moved past it like here:
>>16593819
> It's ironic to me how STEM bugmen never seem to think in motion only statically
Bro here thinks he got some next level abstraction when it is just something that is immediately obvious and after playing with it a bit you know it goes nowhere.
John Puzzle at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:36:27 UTC No. 16594489
>>16594472
Lmao I referenced accidentally the comment of a different thread. Let me correct that:
Fair enough, but it is especially difficulty when they come in chat and condescendingly type something that clearly doesn't work, insulting everyone who probably saw that and moved past it like here:
>>16593819
> It's ironic to me how STEM bugmen never seem to think in motion only statically
Bro here thinks he got some next level abstraction when it is just something that is immediately obvious and after playing with it a bit you know it goes nowhere.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 10:50:55 UTC No. 16594646
Ayo this tiny dicked faggot John seethes whenever someone is smarter than him and reveals how dumb the puzzles are and how he's even dumber
John Puzzle at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 11:04:34 UTC No. 16594655
>>16594646
Why do you even say that? Just to piss me off or do you genuinely believe that these people raised good points?
Because it is very apparent to anyone with a working brain that they just posted low iq trash logics and are overconfident in them. If you are so sure, why not show me how their solutions are better?
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 11:07:31 UTC No. 16594659
>>16594655
You're so narrow-minded you're incapable of seeing an alternative. In your world, all that matters is these puzzles. I'm telling you that I'm not offering a counter solution. I'm instead saying the puzzle is retarded and so are you. Perhaps an analogy will help.
You ask people which animals poop tastes the best. Some anons say cow dung. You call them low IQ because obviously it's horses. I show up and say you're a shit-eating retard. Your rebut is to demand I say which animal has the best tasting poop. You're unironically failing the breakfast question rn champ.
John Puzzle at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 11:16:42 UTC No. 16594662
>>16594659
So you have nothing of value to say and like them you came here to throw your slop in some attempt at intellectual masturbation. That is such a vacuous analogy. Because it tires to equalize objectively differently ranked things.
It is not a matter of me failing to see alternatives, it is precisely because I saw them that I could tell how bad they are based on principles and a hierarchy of rarity and common sense.
For the record only one of them actually provided a working alternative solution even though it is inferior.
The other guy had absolutely nothing going one, he just noticed half of a pattern that went nowhere.
You are just the stereotypical midwitted shitposter that tries to reach some highground of wisdom and intellect through sheer sophistry.