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.

Or am I bullshitting? :)

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.)

Are those puzzles using the restricted rules, or am I allowed to invoke wacky operators?

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!

1 from 1115 I got reasonably quickly when it came up one evening. 24 from 3388 I'm still thinking on...