Listener 4088 - Digimix by Oyler

[Philoctetes]

Well, thank goodness we have a long weekend. I think I might need that to work out what the blazes the clues mean! I had one theory, but the rubric that all entries are different turned me towards a slight revision of that. I shall go along on that hypothesis for now - but not until I have had a nice, strong cup of tea!

[Zabadak]

Actually, I've just figured that codepad thingy. Cheers!

[thebuzz999]

I take it that "missing entries" refers two the asterisked values in the clues - but those are not really "entries" are they...seems like poor wording to me...

[Mysterons]

'Entries' in the table of clues rather than the grid - the wording could have been a little clearer in this respect.

I'm sorry I didn't expand on how to use the codepad thingy Zabadak. I must confess it took me a while to suss it too. For others, scroll down to the last line (15):

(display (squares *********)) (newline)


and insert your own value for the 9-digit integer you want to break down to the sum of two squares. Then click 'submit' and you will find if there are any solutions, and whether they fit the requirement of nine different non-zero digits.

[Mysterons]

Sorry, before you can scroll down you must click on 'fork'

[Clamzy]

I'm blundering along right with you Zab. I don't think it's cheating to use code or a spreadsheet and if I could I would:-) I would be interested in knowing if turner jmw used any such skills to finish so rapidly.

[teuchter2]

I'm totally baffled on first reading of this, but there is hope it seems. I didn't manage the last numbers offering, although I can usually get there in the end. Anyway shopping calls so I'll have another look later.

[turnerjmw]

Hi Clamzy, for what it's worth I didn't use any code or programming. Mysterons' codepad looks far too complicated for me. I did, however, use Excel in a rudimentary way, as I found it useful to list possibilities. And I find it quicker to use Excel than a calculator, though as midazolam says, the mathematical operations are straighforward in this.

I will say, though, that I did find one shortcut by using google. This field is as new to me as I imagine it is to most of you, so I didn't know the mathematical term for what I was looking for, but it turned up anyway, and requires no special knowledge or access, so is freely there for all of you. No different from using Wikipedia to find thematic connections in a word puzzle, in my book. Cheating or resourcefulness? You decide

[daagg]

I would say that this was slightly harder than the average number puzzle. However, I have actually managed to get to the end without a single mistake, which is virtually unprecedented. I used Excel extensively because it is much faster than a calculator at displaying arrays of possible answers. I did start with my very old calculator, but it only displays 8 digits, so I had to upgrade.

It would have been nice to have a more exciting ending, but I guess everything is a bit constrained.

[dr b]

I'm finally devoting a block of time to this one, real life having intruded into my puzzling time yesterday. Was there a PDM whereby you say, oh, well now it's easy, or was it simply mechanically going through all the possibilities? I have been trying to apply logic and so far all I see is what J has to be. Perhaps I am thinking about it wrong.

Also, from the above discussion I gather that "entries" refers to values of P Q X Y Z and not grid entries. If so I agree that's poorly worded.

[bellabee]

first attempt at a maths grid, so apologies if my question seems odd - should I be working out the P squared + Q squared = X_Y_Z equation first? i have some notion of what this is about, so am thinking this is the way to go...

[dr b]

Ah. Appear to have a toehold now.

[daagg]

bellabee, you have to treat these as logic puzzles rather than as straight mathematical puzzles. You normally manage you find individual digits of grid entries or of terms in the clues, often in a random order. There is usually a single place to start, so you will need to search around to find this. This link might be a good place to start.

http://www.listenercr...d.com/PDF/mcross1.pdf

[bellabee]

thanks daagg will try a change of approach

[Jogler]

Thank you, Mysterons, for that formula. It saved a bit of annoying leg work, and probably contributed to why we got to the end without mistakes - as Daagg mentioned above. A little disappointed that there didn't seem to be something special along with the balloons and confetti at the end, but it was a nice construction and a pleasant change to be playing with numbers rather than words.

[silversolver]

I also spent a while scratching my head trying to work out what the preamble meant but once the penny dropped I managed to work my way through this one. This is only the second numerical Listener I have done and I have found them both a bit of a slog with a fair amount of trial and error to get there, so I am personally somewhat relieved that there are only 4 per year. On the other hand, it does make a change to exercise a different part of the brain...

[IainGrace]

I agree with easylistener. I know it's an old debate but, even though we have an interest in maths, we have no desire to attempt these number puzzles as they have nothing to do with the raison d'etre of Listener crosswords - wordplay, cultural references etc. It's in the (recycling) bin already. Is this not a general view?

[daagg]

Not at all, IainGrace - in fact number puzzles were my introduction to the Listener. They are certainly different from word puzzles, but they can have all sorts of thematic material and PDMs - the previous one (Square Bashing) had a brilliant conclusion which definitely involved words. I think this one was a bit light in the PDM department, but it still had my adrenalin flowing.

[BlackHugh]

I have decided that my previous view of the program I wrote to solve it was too puritanical and am going to submit it - not really sure I could have done without it!

I'm now going to have to think up something else to do while we are camping.

Iain - Surely one may or may not like the numerical ones (and in fact I prefer the word puzzles) but I have not seen a "mission statement" for the Listener against which to measure them :-)

[dr b]

Got there in the end, more through brute force than elegance. I could have lived without having to find the ***s in the last equation, but so be it.

Four times a year seems reasonable for this sort of change of pace.

[Zabadak]

BlackHugh: Quite right too. Now if I asked you to send me a copy of the program, or the solution, that really would be cheating. I've not been able to sort out some consistent time for this one (it's been that sort of weekend), but I'm still chipping away. All the best.