Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Listener 4281: Sporn By Hedgehog
54 Answers
A very straightforward numerical. I was surprised at how few candidates there were for some of the number patterns, giving very clear entry points to the puzzle. Thanks, Hedgehog, for not taking up as much of my weekend as usually goes into a numerical!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AHearer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I do agree with Oyler. For some of us, the numerical puzzles are a dreaded three-monthly break in what is otherwise an enjoyable weekly challenge. The editors claim that to solve a numerical puzzle only 'O level skills' (or something like that) are required. I have those skills but they don't give me the ability that is so often required, or the understanding of things like triangular numbers or how to use base 25. You clever mathematicians who scorn an easier numerical should consider those of us who need to be encouraged to have a go at a number one - (or maybe do your solve without your lists of squares and primes). Thanks, Hedgehog - I, at least, am very happy.
I do not normally attempt these but tried this one as it looked easy. I have to disagree with the last two posts from Oyler and Ruthrobin. It was indeed tedious, and no way would it encourage me to attempt others of this nature. It may have pleased those egos who like to try and wangle all corrects, but as I don't submit solutions, my impartial view concurs with the boring and unsatisfactory camp.
I tihnk if this one had been any bigger then it would have added nothing to it. But the cluing method was fairly cute, and the clues were short, and while lists could help there was a lot of logic that could be applied to get you going. Any puzzle that relies on well-known numbers such as Primes, Squares, cubes, Triangle numbers etc., has the risk of being attacked by an exhaustive search method, and towards the end that's what I was doing so the finish was a bit tiring.
The advantage is that the clues for short and elegant. There was a number I think it was the first one I did actually, 4151 Number or NUmmer, where one of the clues was, I kid you not,
(16a) = (A - 2Z)(Z + E + I + T + F + A + Z + B + I + L + D + S + D + Z)(I - D)^2 - (B + E + S)(DI - D - F)Z^2
Which was, naturally, a bit awkward to work with! At least there's no such mess here.
While you are here Oyler, thanks too for an excellent puzzle in the Magpie. Very elegant clues and grid. Thanks too to Hedgehog. It might have been an easy puzzle, but it's nice to have those sometimes. I have more than enough hard maths to worry about in my job!
The advantage is that the clues for short and elegant. There was a number I think it was the first one I did actually, 4151 Number or NUmmer, where one of the clues was, I kid you not,
(16a) = (A - 2Z)(Z + E + I + T + F + A + Z + B + I + L + D + S + D + Z)(I - D)^2 - (B + E + S)(DI - D - F)Z^2
Which was, naturally, a bit awkward to work with! At least there's no such mess here.
While you are here Oyler, thanks too for an excellent puzzle in the Magpie. Very elegant clues and grid. Thanks too to Hedgehog. It might have been an easy puzzle, but it's nice to have those sometimes. I have more than enough hard maths to worry about in my job!
Re Rhombus archive. It doesn't seem to be displaying my email. [email protected] for those who want a challenge.
As someone mathematically-challenged even I found this achievable, so I can imagine why those who like them tougher might grumble. For me a rare chance to complete one, albeit with a bit of help from Excel for some of the number crunching. At least I get my weekend back to enjoy the weather ..... ;¬( Thanks Hedgehog.
Easy enough.
I'm somewhere in the middle as regards whether this is a 'real' Listener.
I think the absence of any thematic material or a significant PDM militates against it, but equally I can see that it's fair that numericals should be 'do-able' without any abstruse mathematical techniques or programming skills.
Perhaps in the brave new world of computers and the interweb we've forgotten how to enjoy a more simple challenge - I actually think the 'arms race' between setters and solvers has removed some of the fun I used to have when attacking the weekly puzzle armed only with (physical) copies of the BRB and ODQ etc.
I'm somewhere in the middle as regards whether this is a 'real' Listener.
I think the absence of any thematic material or a significant PDM militates against it, but equally I can see that it's fair that numericals should be 'do-able' without any abstruse mathematical techniques or programming skills.
Perhaps in the brave new world of computers and the interweb we've forgotten how to enjoy a more simple challenge - I actually think the 'arms race' between setters and solvers has removed some of the fun I used to have when attacking the weekly puzzle armed only with (physical) copies of the BRB and ODQ etc.
I'm with Oyler and thought this an excellent numerical. I do hope that Hedgdehog is not deterred from future offerings by 'boring' 'yawn' and similar terms. As has been mentioned this puzzle may encourage those who normally don't attempt the numericals, but more importantly I'll wager there's a near record entry this week which can only be good for the Listener and all of us.
I am looking forward to last year's statistics to see just how numerous was the entry for 'Boxes' by the recently deceased Radix. I did ask at the time whether the editors used programming and/or spreadsheets in solving that Listener. I reckoned that using just a calculator it couldn't have been solved within the time allowed. I take it from remarks above that a numerical which can be solved without such modern aids is too easy.
I am looking forward to last year's statistics to see just how numerous was the entry for 'Boxes' by the recently deceased Radix. I did ask at the time whether the editors used programming and/or spreadsheets in solving that Listener. I reckoned that using just a calculator it couldn't have been solved within the time allowed. I take it from remarks above that a numerical which can be solved without such modern aids is too easy.
A number puzzle does not have to be algebraic. A logic numerical like this can be a break from the norm. OK it might not be everyone's cup of tea so be critical not patronising (or in some cases downright rude). Let's go back to the forum where we discuss the merits and drawbacks of puzzles in a rational manner.
Congratulations to Hedgehog for coming up with such a beautifully simple idea, which I found entertaining. A puzzle for composers to admire, and hence, no doubt, Oyler's complimentary comments. As for solving it, there was some interest in seeing how potential ambiguities were resolved, but even that didn't make up for the fact that for the solver it was a grind, with nothing much to show at the end, rather like Sudoku, as IainGrace points out. After all, there weren't any numbers here that we hadn't seen before :>). An endgame might have made it a bit more interesting.
Please don't get me wrong: I truly admired the elegant simplicity and originality of the clue structure. But it rather ended there: the solving process proved banal and overall I felt that it lacked that necessary Listener oomph/wow factor/call-it-what-you-want with the lack of any sort of endgame. So, still sorry, Hedgehog, not my cup of tea - but thanks for a reprieve from the occasional numerical nightmare of the past.
What appalling negativity from some on this thread. If you have nothing positive at all to say about a puzzle it would be far better to remain silent. To say no logic is required is patently false. Logic allows one to enter numbers in some cells immediately, and one of the longer numbers can be entered immediately because it's uniqueness can be determined by logic, with the help of a list of primes.
I'm not a great fan of Listener numericals, but I found it interesting to trace a logical path from beginning to end, and for once I didn't end up with an impasse and have to start again.
As Ruthrobin says, some Listener numericals in recent years have required skills that are way beyond what was taught at '0-level' when I was at school fifty years ago, so I appreciated Hedgehog's puzzle for the fact that it didn't require advanced skills.
No end game? So what. Numerical Listeners with an endgame or verbal element are the exception, not the norm. It may be a nice bonus when we get them, but to criticise one that doesn't have one is unfair.
I'm not a great fan of Listener numericals, but I found it interesting to trace a logical path from beginning to end, and for once I didn't end up with an impasse and have to start again.
As Ruthrobin says, some Listener numericals in recent years have required skills that are way beyond what was taught at '0-level' when I was at school fifty years ago, so I appreciated Hedgehog's puzzle for the fact that it didn't require advanced skills.
No end game? So what. Numerical Listeners with an endgame or verbal element are the exception, not the norm. It may be a nice bonus when we get them, but to criticise one that doesn't have one is unfair.
