🧵 p7 ( 4/7, 4/7) puzzle_series_jp
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:27:22 UTC No. 16596264
Added " puzzle_series_jp " as a tag that people can search it up to see this and my future posts.
These 2 puzzles I'm not a big fan of their implementation, but the patterns are worth the hassle. I didn't find them difficult, but I can see them taking a lot of time. Consider B as training for a future, harder puzzle. A has a quite creative idea which I don't think it is conveyed well enough.
Good luck.
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.
All previous puzzles:
>>16594593
>>16594439
>>16593002
>>16592161
>>16591260
>>16591194
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:34:45 UTC No. 16596273
>>16596264
Not science or math
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:37:59 UTC No. 16596277
>>16596273
Don't care. Have you seen some of the posts here? Clearly no one gives a shit.
Plus i'm sure you can start a discussion about cognition and maybe bring Godel Escher Bach into the mix .
Many of the posts here are schizo drunken ramblings essentially.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:45:17 UTC No. 16596334
>>16596264
is A 35 for how many times you have to lift your pencil?
I was thinking b involved connecting like circles and counting the intersections but the second square has 3 of the same circle so idk
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:50:18 UTC No. 16596339
>>16596334
You got the right idea for A, but you miscounted, or made a typo.
Right track for B as well.
Hmm, I expected it would take longer for people to get these because of the ambiguous design, then again, A and B took me 5 minutes each. I just assumed I was lucky enough to get the right idea, but maybe they aren't so hard.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:51:23 UTC No. 16596342
>>16596334
er 51 I miscounted
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:52:10 UTC No. 16596344
>>16596342
I think you miscounted again.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:54:12 UTC No. 16596348
>>16596339
I'm thinking 14 for b then
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:55:41 UTC No. 16596349
>>16596344
NTA but would that make it 54? For A. Counting "pencil lifts".
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:56:01 UTC No. 16596350
>>16596348
I draw it for B, I solve this a few months ago and forgot the answer.. Give me a moment.
Btw, i was saying 51 isn't correct for A. I didn't refer to B in the previous comments.
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:57:57 UTC No. 16596353
>>16596349
The logic is right, but I don't get how you guys get 5?
I'll just say the answer, it is 24.
answer 5 can be resolved with lifting the pen 2 times or with 3 strokes.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:58:49 UTC No. 16596356
>>16596342
ok so 4 and 6 take 5 strokes
1,2, and 5 take 4 so there is a step I'm missing
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:00:24 UTC No. 16596358
>>16596353
ah I didn't see the circles touching, that was the issue
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:02:38 UTC No. 16596360
>>16596353
As for 5, I was thinking about it because it has 4 circles, but you're right that the big one and top one can be drawn without lifting.
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:02:48 UTC No. 16596361
>>16596356
Yeah, you are miscounting or not seeing the optimal paths.
4 takes 5 strokes
6 takes 6 strokes
5 takes 3 strokes
3 takes 3 strokes
2 takes 4 strokes
1 takes 3 strokes
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:07:37 UTC No. 16596365
>>16596348
Yeah, it is 14 for B, congrats.
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:09:14 UTC No. 16596368
Ok, you guys are ready to try the hard problems now.
Consider everything until now training / getting you used with the format.
I will add a 5/7 difficulty then a 6/7 and lastly 7/7.
For the 7/7 one I actually don't know the answer, I wasn't able to solve it, but it looks cool and I'm wondering if the community can crack it.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:09:15 UTC No. 16596369
>>16596361
>>16596365
well I'm glad I got the logic on both even if I dropped my spaghetti when answering
fun puzzles; I'm enjoying the series
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:13:25 UTC No. 16596371
>>16596368
My body is ready.
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:13:58 UTC No. 16596373
>>16596371
Alright. give me 5 minutes and I'll post the next.
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:29:06 UTC No. 16596383
>>16596371
>>16596382
there
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:07:09 UTC No. 16596449
>>16596264
Not that arguing fag but i have a different solution for B
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:13:03 UTC No. 16596451
>>16596449
I don't really understand it, could you explain?
Seems more arbitrary than the one I posted here : >>16596365
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:17:59 UTC No. 16596458
>>16596449
this take is interesting
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:21:34 UTC No. 16596463
>>16596458
Lol, I genuinely don't get it. I forwarded to a friend to see if he understands, but he is also perplexed.
Looks like nonsense to me, respectfully.
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:24:25 UTC No. 16596467
>>16596449
Is it connecting the balls that have black on black contact? or what?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:24:47 UTC No. 16596468
>>16596463
angular directions that directly align with another ball
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:25:47 UTC No. 16596469
>>16596468
>>16596463
no wait, that's not fully it, or if it is he forgot some out
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:30:02 UTC No. 16596473
>>16596469
either way it is a pretty bad logic given the numbers it generates 3 5 2 3 5 2
More like a coincidence.
because he is selecting 2 answers from a pool of 6 and they being orthogonally aligned is probably just the author's choice of placing the balls for convenience. Im not surprised the numbers would repeat like that.
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:34:39 UTC No. 16596475
>>16596365
I think this is better for a few reasons:
1) it is a linear sequence 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 with more terms than the one he suggested which breaks apart and repeats midway
2) it uses more information present in the problem such as the coloring of the balls
3) is consistent with the counting logic present in the previous items.
I don't wanna sound like an ass, but it isn't a sidegrade to the intended solution.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:37:27 UTC No. 16596479
>>16596449
My idea was that the black part of a circle is the "pointer" and i counted the number of "hits", but i didn't notice that the third answer option also has 3 "hits"
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:38:57 UTC No. 16596482
>>16596479
>My idea was that the black part of a circle is the "pointer" and i counted the number of "hits", but i didn't notice that the third answer option also has 3 "hits"
That's what I assumed here:>>16596467
>Is it connecting the balls that have black on black contact? or what?
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:40:10 UTC No. 16596483
>>16596479
Wait no, I'm slightly off. Basically I assumed the pointer logic, but also that it would have to hit at least partly a black area
John Puzzle at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:42:58 UTC No. 16596488
>>16596479
This is better than just this:>>16596468
>angular directions that directly align with another ball
because you have a usage for the coloring. Main weakness is producing a worse numerical pattern:
0 1 2 3 4 5 has more structure than 3 5 2 3 5 2 and is less likely to appear coincidentally.