Darkdude got basic gist of it. It's mostly a case of analytical thinking vs. "abstract" thinking. So a mathematician would tend to take the title (ie. the major hint) literally (and totally get it wrong), an "abstract" thinker (ie. artist) would see it for what it was a lot sooner.
As seems to be the case. I googled around about this after finishing it and the results were pretty interesting. Those who took the analytical route took hours to get it, writing up page after page of possible solutions and getting nowhere. Just like Bill Gates.
Heh, its funny, I just came back from reading a thread about it in annother forum (full of both geeks and artsy folk). Interestingly enough there were quite a few people who managed to solve it mathimatically in a resonable timeframe (<10min), but couldn't for the life of them see why the title was significant until someone e-mailed them an explaination.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+May 28 2004, 12:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ May 28 2004, 12:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Heh, its funny, I just came back from reading a thread about it in annother forum (full of both geeks and artsy folk). Interestingly enough there were quite a few people who managed to solve it mathimatically in a resonable timeframe (<10min), but couldn't for the life of them see why the title was significant until someone e-mailed them an explaination. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sounds true. I got it matematically after about 3 minutes. And immidiately after realizing the solution, I figured out the reason for the name. But only after figuring out the solution.
Figured it out before I realized what the name was all about. I don't know how to explain this in an elegant manner but: that was stupid <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
Oh well, 3 minutes of my morning that I'd probably spend...I don't know...thinking with or something anyway.
well im managing to guess the right answer ever time now.... just not sure how math works into it <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I tried cracking it mathematically for about 3 minutes before I remembered it said 'only basic math skills' and 'creativity' so I switched to the frame of thought I use when doing riddles and sure enough it was easy to see =D
The best hint would be that you need to know what the rose is before you can count the petals around it =3
<!--QuoteBegin-Seph Kimara+May 28 2004, 07:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Seph Kimara @ May 28 2004, 07:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> God, I finally got it. So simple I'm kicking myself...I tried averages, using the number on opposite faces, some really weird addition-sutraction-division crap...Ugh...
I'll just say that another way to look at the problem is using the title "stars around the moon". Try to stay simple <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I tried to crack it for 15 minutes to no joy. Then I saw this hint and got it straight away. Damn it's so easy...
Push check before you push roll, then everyone is a winner <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-[WHO]Them+May 28 2004, 03:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([WHO]Them @ May 28 2004, 03:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Speed 2 Dave+May 28 2004, 12:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Speed 2 Dave @ May 28 2004, 12:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> so it basically tells you that "if you figure it out early on, you're not that smart" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wouldn't put any faith behind that.
It's coming from a guy that took a YEAR to figure it out.
What's the more likely scenario: 1. That the test has some intrinsic property that makes it confusing to smart people and easy for dumb people. 2. A college professor is covering up for the fact that he's retarded yet still teaching. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You got me feeling smart again <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Took me around ten tries to figure it out. I had guessed that it was similar to the actual answer some time before, but couldn't figure out what the rose was.
Yay got it, and 0,0 math used.... <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In order to solve this analytically, there are two important points to note:
1) You can have more than 6 petals. Obviously this means the result cannot be related to a single dice. 2) All answers are even.
Other helpful hints: The first roll (all 1 dots, answer 0) was helpful to me in figuring out what was going on. Also, you cannot have less than 0 petals or more than 20 petals.
<span style='color:black'>spoiler: the answer (mathematically speaking) is sigma from 1 to 5 of n (mod 2) * (n - 1) where n is the number showing on each die.</span>
Yeah, its all about figuring out the question before trying to answer it <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I tried every mathmatical method I knew first, then I switched mindsets completely and went about it in another way. I probably rolled 20 times and worked backwards with the answer instead of guessing first each time. It took me about 3 minutes, but I had to try a different mathmatical / spatial method each time, which was the real timekiller.
Anyway, it is much easier approached as something that is not a math problem; thus, your proffessor was wrong in saying that the smarter you are the longer it will take you. The best way to put it is, that people who think mathmatically will take longer than those who think spatially.
Comments
As seems to be the case. I googled around about this after finishing it and the results were pretty interesting. Those who took the analytical route took hours to get it, writing up page after page of possible solutions and getting nowhere. Just like Bill Gates.
Sounds true. I got it matematically after about 3 minutes. And immidiately after realizing the solution, I figured out the reason for the name. But only after figuring out the solution.
Oh well, 3 minutes of my morning that I'd probably spend...I don't know...thinking with or something anyway.
That means i'm not making much smarter. Oh, grammar my happen broked!
Heck Yeah!
God i must be damn dumb
Stupid Petals.
The best hint would be that you need to know what the rose is before you can count the petals around it =3
I'll just say that another way to look at the problem is using the title "stars around the moon". Try to stay simple <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I tried to crack it for 15 minutes to no joy. Then I saw this hint and got it straight away. Damn it's so easy...
I wouldn't put any faith behind that.
It's coming from a guy that took a YEAR to figure it out.
What's the more likely scenario:
1. That the test has some intrinsic property that makes it confusing to smart people and easy for dumb people.
2. A college professor is covering up for the fact that he's retarded yet still teaching. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You got me feeling smart again <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Took me one try
i must be way too smart ^^
man that was hard
I'm pretty sure that counting at least falls under group theory.
<DUMBAZZ
1) You can have more than 6 petals. Obviously this means the result cannot be related to a single dice.
2) All answers are even.
Other helpful hints:
The first roll (all 1 dots, answer 0) was helpful to me in figuring out what was going on.
Also, you cannot have less than 0 petals or more than 20 petals.
<span style='color:black'>spoiler: the answer (mathematically speaking) is sigma from 1 to 5 of n (mod 2) * (n - 1) where n is the number showing on each die.</span>
Anyway, it is much easier approached as something that is not a math problem; thus, your proffessor was wrong in saying that the smarter you are the longer it will take you. The best way to put it is, that people who think mathmatically will take longer than those who think spatially.
Hey whee, how did you come to find that formula?