Listener No 4412: Analogy By Nod

[AHearer]

I thought I was doing so well when I had A-Z identified using a nice logical process, and working carefully enough that I didn't have to backtrack at any point. It then took me just as long to fill in the grid -- perhaps my arithmetic batteries had been drained by then, and I missed a short-cut, or perhaps this really is one-and-a-half puzzles. As ever, I marvel at the skill involved in setting the numericals: hats off and thanks to Nod.

[Contrarian]

After a series of fairly straightforward numericals, that was pretty tough.

I'm also deeply impressed with the ingenuity that goes into constructing this sort of puzzle - that allows you just enough to go on, but no more.

Thanks Nod.

[Oyler]

Excellent puzzle. Not as fearsome as it looked if you tackle it in a certain way.

This next bit is slightly off-topic but is to gauge the interest in a couple of projects.

Firstly Zag and I are in the final stages of self-publishing a book of 60 crossnumber puzzles of the type seen in Listener/Magpie. The majority have not been published before, those that have have been in journals. The book should be out before Christmas and would make an excellent gift.

Secondly we intend to start a quarterly newsletter Crossnumbers Quarterly which will contain some puzzles. The launch issue will be free and has puzzles by Arden, Nod, Oyler and Zag so far. If anyone wishes to contribute then email me. If it is a goer then it is intended that there would be a fee.

Feel free to email me regarding any of the above.

[s_pugh]

Admittedly I'm a numerophobe (though I managed the last two) but this one has me beaten just with the pre-amble, the second paragraph of which is gibberish to me with all this talk of r and s.

The worst pre-amble I have ever read. Really hacked off as I had a 100% submission rate so far this year.

[Lewap]

Hi

Would anyone be willing to give me a hint on how to start on this one? I understand the first part of the preamble. With regards to the second part, I also can see that if for example a=3,b=4,c=5, then r and s would have to be 2 and 1.
I have no idea what use this information has! Any assistance to start me off would be appreciated (I will not be sending it off should I complete!)

Thanks

Lewap

[Lewap]

Further to my previous message, to avoid 'spoilers', please send advice to [email protected]

Thanks!

[AHearer]

Lewap, this reply is probably unhelpful but it's certainly not a spoiler! Other solvers may have found the swap from {x,y} to {r,s} helpful, but being a bear of little mathematical brain I read that paragraph, didn't see how it would help me, and solved successfully without it.

[emcee]

Superb construction -- how on Earth was it done?

Definitely one of the tougher numericals for a while.

Thanks and kudos to Nod.

[icynorth]

Yes, a tough example of the genre, but perfectly formed, thanks Nod.

I didn't use Euclid's formula, but I can see why it was included.

[Encota]

Finished after a bit of a slog. Very cleverly constructed puzzle - thanks Nod.

[starwalker]

I am somewhat in awe of puzzles like this, and how they are put together. That said, I found this to be a long slog, with little to smile about. Thanks anyway Nod, I do respect your work but I'm still a numerophobe.

[tnap]

I didn't use Euclid's formula either. I could see it would be useful if you had to generate a list of Pythagorean triples, but that's not really needed to solve this puzzle.

Oyler - do keep us posted on your project.

[JustinTime]

Finished at last and as usual disappointed by what appears to be an over-complicated way of displaying pythagorean triples.
The second part with the multiples was almost as tough as the soving and certainly twice as boring. Still its done and we can look forward to 12 weeks of real puzzles.

[crucifer]

I enjoyed working my way through this, although I agree that the second paragraph was surplus to requirements (for me at least). I had no qualms about finding a list of possible triples and focusing on the logic.

There seems to be an interesting feature of the finished grid that perhaps could have been made more of (if only to give the solver some confidence they'd arrived in the right place).

[olichant]

Nod, I can't tell you how long this took me. I'm sure I didn't take the easiest or cleverest route! I would really love to see a setter's blog for this, if possible. I ended up breaking this with brute force (if BBC basic can be so described - which, on reflection, I'm sure it can't). I am sure I have not properly appreciated the puzzle, for which I feel a little bad.

[BMACMAC]

I concur Olichant. I used spread-sheet somewhat more than I'd have liked, and found the gridfill process very laborious.