Spyke
dull_mens_club·Dull Men's Clubbygigastasio

I've had this puzzle on my phone for years. Every few months I'd glance at it and try and solve it. Last night, as I was eating dinner, I finally figured out the answer!

I’d like to ask the good people of this community that, if you do know the solution or figure it out, that you not share the answer here. Feel free to announce your success, but there’s something to be said for discovering the answer completely unaided, even if it takes years.

It’s embarrassingly obvious once you see it though.

View original on sh.itjust.works
lemmy.today

Ever play the game Myst? As a kid that's exactly how it was. Days of banging my head and then a rush of finally figuring something out. Really miss that

78

Every once in a while I definitely needed the walkthrough too. I hear blue price hits the same feeling. My wife and I just need to find time to dive into it together

12
Blackmistreply
feddit.uk

I recommend Outer Wilds then.

Go in as blind as possible. They recommend a controller over mouse and keyboard and they mean it. The DLC is just as good as the base game, but I'd tackle it after doing the main objective.

8
lemmy.today

Outer Wilds or Outer Worlds because I've heard good things about both but know nothing about either.

I have played Chants of Zenaar some which also hits the feeling.

4

Outer Wilds.

I think The Outer Worlds was just an RPG.

Wilds is a mystery game of aha moments.

5

I have, I picked up the Myst Reader which collects all three from a used book sale a while back. I remember them being a fun read. Nothing mind blowing but a fun jaunt through more Myst

7
flyhunterreply
lemmy.world

Take a look on tunic, but it comes with some combat action, which may not be what you are looking for.

6

You can turn that down and I highly recommend doing so.

I found the combat to be quite obnoxious.

6
lemmy.today

I've looked at Tunic before but it always looked more like Zelda to me. I dunno why but I've always bounced off Zelda.

5

I don't like Zelda games myself but loved tunic. The puzzles are completely different than Zelda, much more interesting. The other commenter mentioned you can tone the combat down. Maybe worth a try if it is on sale.

5
lemmy.world

I was more of a Return to Zork kid. I'd work my way up to each character, and then kill that character to see their death scene. Then I'd start over and work my way to the next. I got all the way to the vulture at the cave, and stopped playing because I was told there were no more people to murder after that.

4

For everyone saying it's the difference between the two numbers, it's not it. Because the last one should be 8 to follow the rule

71
lemmy.world

Figured it out. Weirdly, knowing you solved it made me confident I could too, and I don't even know you 🤔

::: spoiler spoiler I focused on the anomaly ignoring the rest, tried to see what possible rules could lead to it, then went back to see which rule also applied to the "non-anomalous" numbers.


:::

56

Once I saw a video about Mario Kart speedrunning history and there was a record on Rainbow Road that lasted for years. Than someone broke it but just told the community without showing how it was done. In a couple of days someone else figured it out and did it too. Sometimes we just need to know it is possible

5

Yes, the hint that the answer was obvious once you knew it was extremely helpful.

I'm not that quick with math, so knowing that the answer was going to be simple helped a lot. Every time I had an idea that was too complicated, I shelved it and kept looking for something that might be simpler.

It also helped that I was a camp counselor, and one of our survival techniques was to have riddles with simple rules that the counselors were able to operate very easily, but which the kids used lots of brain power to try to figure out.

2

I wish I saw this first. I'm very prone to off-by-one errors.

I opened the comments thinking that I solved it, then some comments with broken spoiler tags essentially spoiled the actual answer for me, despite my best efforts to ignore them.

With these types of puzzles, I normally start looking for solutions that don't just involve the obvious operations. Had I seen your comment first, I would've continued playing with the first thing I noticed (and later abandoned for the wrong solution) and I think I would've got there by myself eventually.

Either others need to be more mindful of their spoiler tags, or I need to stop using Sync for Lemmy. It's probably the latter; I've seen such weird formatting that only makes sense if I assume Sync's Markdown renderer is broken.

2
feddit.org

Hah, took me nearly a minute.

::: spoiler Tap for spoiler Add the digits on both sides.

? = 12 :::

But I only got it so quickly because I enjoyed a similar puzzle once.

1
11
21
1211
111221
312211
...

continue the series.

28
Enkrodreply
feddit.org

Is this an honest question for information or a sarcastic slap on the wrist because my puzzle is basically a hint for OPs?

1

No I’m dumb but eventually figured it out after reading literally every comment in the thread. This one genuinely made me feel stupid.

2
MrShanklesreply
reddthat.com

312211

13112221
1113213211
31131211131221

Wonder if/when a 4 would ever show up... and what the formula for that would look like

2
alsimoneaureply
lemmy.ca

Think about it.

To get a 4, you need either 1111, which can't happen because thats just 21, or you have 211112, which would again just be 31.

2

Seems you can't have a series that ends in anything but 1, if it starts from 1?

2
12
1112
3112
132112
1113122112
311311222112
13211321322112
1113122113121113222112

I wonder if this type of series would eventually become repeating... or is it irrational?

Still curious what the mathematical proof would look like. Not that I'd be able to understand it regardless, but curious nonetheless

2

20 minutes. 2 minutes of elation. This is unethical to post without content warnings.

5

I think I figured it out, but it's so easy that I don't think that could possibly be it. But it is, apparently.

20

Wow so easy, I got this in negative 4 second, literally 4 seconds before I even saw the puzzle. Of course I'm not going to share the solution here because I don't want to ruin It, but I definitely got it.

17

There is one obvious rule that almost works but doesn't fit one number. This distraction draws your attention, making you more likely to miss the actual rule. It's a kind of misdirection.

5

You solve for it.

If the answer you get is right, you'll be able to apply it to every trio and get the number on the "line". It's kinda like how you can plug in your answer into a quadratic equation to double check you got it right.

7

I have to admit that I believe I have successfully found the solution.

It took me about 2 minutes lol.

12

The number of comments in this thread where people confidently declare they solved it with the wrong answer is absolutely baffling. Especially since it literally calls out the exception to that 'solution' in the post itself. Did those people not even look at the 7? That's the real strength of this puzzle, making idiots who think they're geniuses loudly prove their stupidity.

12
Avicennareply
programming.dev

Yeah it takes a different type of self confidence to think someone else can consider "adding two numbers" as their master piece puzzle lol.

5

I think I've been addled by years of seeing versions of "99% of MIT students get this WRONG! can you do better?" proceeded by 2 + 8 ÷ 4 = ?. I didn't comment but there was some time where I thought I had it and completely missed that the 7 contradicts the pattern, even though it's specifically called out. I'm glad someone did comment so someone else could correct them, otherwise I would have left the puzzle behind never knowing I had gotten it wrong.

4
feddit.nu

Ah, typo is short for typographical error. I’v never realized that before.

12

Took me about 20 minutes. There's a rule you find first that would work if the 7 was an 8. But it isn't. So there's another rule.

12
skisnowreply
lemmy.ca

until I read your comment I was puzzled as to why anyone would consider something so straightforward a "masterpiece", but yeah, it's quite a clever piece of misleading on the puzzle-setter's part.

2

It took me several minutes but I finally got it. The comment saying to focus on the "anomaly" and how it could be 7 helped me to get there.

Yeah, feels pretty silly that I didn't see it sooner. I overcomplicated it haha.

11

I figured it out took about 10 minutes, thought i was onto it immediately until I had 8 at the end haha

10
pawb.social

Figured it out! That was cool, thanks!

::: spoiler Tap for spoiler Once I saw it and heard "the solution isn't obvious", I got focused on the idea of digital roots cuz I thought back to the game series 999. But that didn't work, so I focused on the shape of the pizzle and thought it looked like a thermometer, so I tried conversions of F to C, which also didn't work. But when I heard other people say that it made then think about the "obvious" solution and work around the 7, I thought back to my digital root idea and realized I was applying it in a different way in 999 versus what's happening here.

This was a fun adventure~ :::

9

Man, I just finished the 2nd game in that series. I still have the third one to get through.

3

I admit this one extended my toilet time more than I intended, but I got it!

9

Got it in my first try! Thanks for making me feel extra smart today, though I think I'm just lucky. I recently watched a horror game with a similar one xD

7
lemmy.world

Oh i see,

Its

::: spoiler solution 12

You add up the digits.

(7+2)+(9+9)=9+18=27

9+(4+5)=9+9=18

(1+8)+(3+9)=9+12=21

(2+1)+(3+6)=3+9=12

3+(2+8)=3+10=13

(1+3)+(2+1)=4+3=7

Yay :::

7
Sunkblakereply
lemmy.world

Looks like this for me?

Moved it down a line is it better?

1
tamal3reply
lemmy.world

It didn't help but I appreciate you trying. I think this is the moment I realize Sync is so wildly unsupported that it can't read spoiler tags. Sigh. That's on me.

2

That was a mean one. Adding another row at the top would expose it, though.

6
lemmy.world

Wow, I just woke up and saved this to have a nice puzzle to work on for a while but I figured it out in like a minute... Kinda disappointed that happened to be honest.

6

Same thing happened to me lol. I was thinking about primes, how numbers might add up, multiply, etc, and then I noticed the actual pattern. Womp womp lol.

1

Same... My brain was hungry for a puzzle to dig into and now its already over. Big sad.

1

Took me a bit more and I'm not autistic. But: see below.

::: spoiler Hint that helped me Reading op claiming he figured it by just looking at it and not making complicated calculations on a piece of paper probably helped a lot. :::

1

I think I figured it out but I always second guess myself lol. I feel like getting it on the first try means I am way off.

5

If the pattern fits for all cases, you've found the pattern (or one of multiple if there's more than one solution). I figured it out and I'm certain of it.

1

Nice puzzle, at first you go "wtf last should be 8" but then I read the last sentence "not a typo" and took some minutes to crack it. If it wasn't for having seen a similar solution in a different puzzle I would have been completely lost and once you know the solution it's impossible to not see it. I can see how the author of the puzzle really liked it.

4

Being real, if this post hadn't made it clear that the solution was non obvious, I likely would have given up before getting it, just because my chicken is being more interesting than usual.

But, knowing that there was a "trick" to it, meaning that it takes some lateral thinking, I didn't take my usual approach to number puzzles, which means it only took one look at the upper left for the likely solution to be visible. Then it was just running down and testing with the rest, then plugging in for the solution.

No way in hell I would have had the patience for it when my baby bird is being a silly dinosaur without that front loading assumption the solution wouldn't be evident with a systematic approach. Oh, I'd have given it maybe fifteen minutes, but with a fuzzy butt in play, that would have been it

4
sh.itjust.works

No, I who. dehumanization no good

What? You've never been distracted by a chicken before?

3
lemmy.world

Thank you for the share. I will be back in three years time

4

Got it! Really cool puzzle. I used to enjoy solving puzzles like this, but nowadays I don't spend time in that.

3

I love puzzles like this—the rule always seems obvious after you see it. It’s satisfying when something that sits in the back of your mind for years finally clicks.

3

I remember doing decision trees at Uni, and saw it immediately. Glad you got there OP.

3

Got it. Nice puzzle.

First I figured out what was meant by the number 7 isn't a typo, by jumping to the wrong solution. Next I figured out the next idea was and it worked. No spoilers ༼⁠ᕗ⁠ຈ⁠ل͜⁠ຈ⁠༽⁠ᕗ

3

Solved it. Wonderful. I got really hung up on dividing things by nine and seven, trying to use the remainder and stuff. But the answer, as always, is far more obvious. That which we are so used to interpreting, we simply ignore it.

2

Took me a few tries until I figured it out. It's cunningly misleading but it's not a trick puzzle (as I had suspected from some people's comments). There is a simple pattern.

2

I prime factored everything and was looking at ways to manipulate the factors together in a sensible rule. Seemed like a good approach, with the prime numbers at the end.

Now I'm a bit disappointed that ::: spoiler spoiler it was just the digits and not the factors... :::

2

This felt like a word puzzle where you have to make an analogous leap beyond surface meaning of words.

1

I can give one hint if you want.

The solution reminded me of "Numerology". Which I am familiar with and probably why I was able to solve it in about a minute.

2

Thank you for posting this, it was exactly what I needed today and I didn't know it!!

2

Well, I got it correct with a guess based on a casual glance at what was there, not how the numbers actually relate or calculations based on rules or patterns.

Then I had to figure out how it actually worked.

Which was harder -- I wish I had kept scrolling.

2

I still keep thinking it's 15, which I know is wrong, and then I math in 14,but I can't figure out a function. Does someone want to dm me or spoiler me the function how it works? My brain is too full of more important stuff and I cannot make room for this. But I must know!

2
glibg10breply
lemmy.zip

Someone else commented the pattern. The answer is not 14 or 15.

::: spoiler Hint There is no function. You won't find the answer by trying different combinations math operations on the values. You need to think more outside the box. :::

::: spoiler Hint #2 Ignore the values. :::

::: spoiler Hint #3 Focus on just three numbers. How can 13 and 21 produce 7? :::

7

I’m afraid that this post has ruined my evening. I can’t figure it out and can’t let it go. I hate this.

Edit: I would not have survived if my life depended on my answer. I had to read through four to five people talking about methods until I noticed it. I’m really a stupid person.

1

Don't search for creator of the puzzle, you will be instantly spoilered. At least some search engines return pictures with spoilers.

1

Figured it out. Not sure what everyone means by a second obvious solution that doesn't work on the last one. My first solution that works on more than one works on all of them.

1
sh.itjust.works

IMHO, although it is hard to solve, it is neither brilliant nor profound - rather, it is misleading. It relies on a simple and common trickery involving multiple of 3, which is easy to see through for those with mathematical intuition. Of course many do not practice math, so it is seemingly interesting for them, but it's not much.

0

I do agree that there is no objective metric as to what constitutes as "brilliant" or "profound".

I suppose that the lack of clarity in your comments intention and (what I assume) your thought process being laid out for the audience to check for fallacy, was interpreted as unkind behaviour: specifically implying that those who weren't following your thinking process were not smart.

I doubt that you had such an intention when you wrote this comment, so I write this reply to highlight that "truth", "fact", and "opinion" in an inaccessible format may lead to misinterpretation and unwarranted conclusions.

TLDR: Yes, and please consider rephrasing to communicate intention.

1

Like stack overflow you only need post the wrong answer

1
overat8reply
sh.itjust.works

I saw that number but was frustrated for not understanding the process of getting to that answer.

2
stolyreply
lemmy.world

I still don’t get how you derive the answer

1
lemmy.dbzer0.com

You add the two digits in the left bubble together. You separate the digits in the right bubble. You now have three separate numbers that when added together created the bubble for the next layer down

-2
zoutreply
fedia.io

Yes

edit:

::: spoiler spoiler Leading numbers are 21 and 36, 2+1+3+6=12 :::

-2
zoutreply
fedia.io

Wierd, it was for me. I tried to edit it.

4

Your spoiler is broken (at least on the Lemmy website), it's missing 2 newlines and a display text. Format is like this:

::: spoiler Displayed text here
Hidden text here
:::

Turns to this:

::: spoiler Displayed text here Hidden text here :::

Without the newlines its just plain text. Note that the "spoiler" behind the opening colons is also needed and not part of the displayed text. I.e. if you want the displayed text to be "spoiler" your first line needs to be ::: spoiler spoiler.

8
Zannsoloreply
lemmy.world

Nope it's way easier subtract the left number from the right number to get the 99-72 = 27 ... 36-21= 15-> 28 -15 = 13 and this is where I realized the 7 didn't work and I was confidently incorrect.

3

Nobody will explain how to find the solution. Annoying

-1

Made me remember the extremely simple logic suite, a child could do it, but I had to sleep on it:

O T T F _

What's the letter after F ?

0

"A child could do it" is a pretty big hint.

::: spoiler I got it in under a minute.

F(ive)

:::

0

::: spoiler Okay, I've got it. I suggest you take your time before revealing because it's quite satisfying if you figure it out yourself.

Each circle has something different inside it. You need to make sure the circle at the end of the arrow is different to the circle at the start of the arrow. This can be tricky because some circles have TWO arrows pointing at them, so it needs to be different to both things.

Interestingly this puzzle has multiple solutions. Here they are:

5, grape, Montreal, 97

Let me know if you find any others! :::

-1
programming.dev

This kind of puzzle is very lazy for creators: just make the function more complicated and/or increase the amount of parameters and this makes the puzzle drastically more difficult.

The method of solving is just brute force. Boring. Uninspiring.

-1

The function is not complicated, and the solution does not require brute force. In fact, it's quite elegant in its simplicity.

And when you get it, you then get to take a step back and admire how the creator was able to set up the numbers given to almost point to the red herring answer. Not a lazy puzzle at all.

28

That’s what makes me think it’s not a math puzzle. If it turns out to be like “divide by 3, add 2, multiply by 2, add 4,….” it wouldn’t be very interesting.

8
zoutreply

It's not that lazy, the answer seems to be 15, but then the final 7 would be wrong. Turns out you have to use a totally different function. Both functions are very simple.

4
feddit.uk

Figured it out in about 30 seconds. I’m no genius, guess I got lucky.

-6
lemmy.world

I let AI solve it for me now I feel confident that I'm much dumber than an AI.

-7

The LLMs most probably already have this puzzle in their dataset or can look it up on the internet. That's like asking you if you know how to solve it only after you have seen the solution

3

In all fairness, this seems like an ideal problem for a model to solve.

0
ladiciusreply
lemmy.world

That's a thing to boast about, for sure. We are proud of you, buddy! cough

-4
lemmy.ml

15, right? You just add the left and bottom to get the right part

Edit: it was not 15 ;-;

Edit: sorry

-10
tamal3reply
lemmy.world

You are a jerk and your spoiler did not work.

3

I wonder if my Lemmy app sucks. About half the posts with spoiler tags successfully show blank spoiler lines, but the other half, like yours, don't work for me and just reveal the text. Weird that some work and others don't, but I can't assume that half these people suck at tags so much... Must be my app. Sorry for calling you a jerk.

2
starikreply
lemmy.zip

::: spoiler Nope Try again. What is 21 minus 13? :::

7

That's what I thought too, but it doesn't work for the 7 at the end, and the caption explicitly says that the seven is not an error.

6

I'm not sure that strategy works for the last numbers.

5