I'm unconvinced that I wouldn't have been just as able to write a solver in 1992 as I am now. It might have taken me a bit more time, but I don't think my skills would have been inadequate to the task. The only difference is that now I have much faster machines available to run it on (so that, for example, I can determine in under thirty seconds that 1,2,7,8 is the set of four starting digits which renders the longest initial subsequence of ℕ reachable), but that isn't a change in me either :-)
True, but you *didn't*. If you're similar to me, at one point, your first thought was "Ooh, this is fun" and at a later point your first thought is "This is a solved problem. How do I find the general answer with a formula or computer again?"
Both are equally interesting reactions, because the first leads to the second, whilest often *doing* the first leads to more understanding (eg. suggestions for similar games/theorems), but it shows a change in view.
Actually, my primary purpose in writing a solver is to turn it round and use it for generation: my hope is that I'll be able to invent puzzles of this type with vaguely consistent difficulty.
(There are two particularly good ones I know of: try making 24 using 3,3,8,8, and then try making 1 using 1,1,1,5. In both these cases you aren't allowed digit concatenation, and you must use all the numbers.)
The two I just mentioned? No wacky operators needed there. Addition, subtraction, multiplication and division only. Evaluation order is unrestricted (i.e. use as many parentheses as you like). No digit concatenation: the four inputs must be used as separate numbers and combined only by arithmetic operations.
Gaaah! I thought "I won't download any excecutables or source, that should keep be safe from simon's insiduous puzzles..." but no, apparently *talking* to you is enough to ruin my productivity :)
I know I've solved the 1115 thing *before*, but totally mind-blanked, and wrote a perl script to try all combinations. Doh!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Both are equally interesting reactions, because the first leads to the second, whilest often *doing* the first leads to more understanding (eg. suggestions for similar games/theorems), but it shows a change in view.
Or am I bullshitting? :)
(There are two particularly good ones I know of: try making 24 using 3,3,8,8, and then try making 1 using 1,1,1,5. In both these cases you aren't allowed digit concatenation, and you must use all the numbers.)
I know I've solved the 1115 thing *before*, but totally mind-blanked, and wrote a perl script to try all combinations. Doh!