Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

World's Oldest Puzzle Solved

Cliff posted more than 10 years ago | from the lasting-longer-than-rubik's-cube dept.

Science 78

An anonymous reader observes: "The Loculus of Archimedes, the world's oldest puzzle, has been solved. It has 536 solutions. You can find the details here."

cancel ×

78 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Eureka! (2, Funny)

shfted! (600189) | more than 10 years ago | (#7499539)

Is this the part where Ed Pegg gets to run through the streets naked?

Thank you, Bill Cutler... (2, Funny)

kommakazi (610098) | more than 10 years ago | (#7499549)

My life is complete. I may now die in peace.

I thought (1)

lordmoose (696738) | more than 10 years ago | (#7499558)

that the world's oldest puzzle was how they got that filling inside of Combo's.

I thought (1)

kommakazi (610098) | more than 10 years ago | (#7499575)

...it was the age old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Re:I thought (2, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 10 years ago | (#7501252)

The egg. Dinosaurs had eggs. They didn't have chickens back in those days.

Re:I thought (1)

Mr. Moose (124255) | more than 10 years ago | (#7510002)

What came first, the dinosaurs or the eggs?

Re:I thought (1)

mrdogi (82975) | more than 10 years ago | (#7511641)

All arguements about the existence of evolution aside, I agree completely. I've been saying that forever. After I say that, they look at me like "a chicken egg you dope!" To which I respond, "how do you define a chicken egg? An egg containing a chicken, or laid by a chicken?" Naturally, it is quite easy to determine which came first, once that is defined.

On a similar vein, it is either 1/2 full or 1/2 empty, depending on whether it in the process of being filled or emptied, although getting to the original reason for THAT question, I'm generally of the "1/2 full" croud.

mr dogi

is it just me ? (1)

kayen_telva (676872) | more than 10 years ago | (#7499583)

i dont even understand the goal, much less how to go about "solving it". this is some seriously arcane shit. any geniuses out there care to bring it down to sub-dumb level for me ?

it's pretty simple really (2, Informative)

kommakazi (610098) | more than 10 years ago | (#7499602)

Solving it = putting all the peices together to make a rectangle. The guy who did it simply wrote a computer program to try all possible solutions and record the correct ones (i.e ones that turned out a rectangle) Really it's like solving a puzzle.

Re:it's pretty simple really (2, Informative)

Uma Thurman (623807) | more than 10 years ago | (#7499642)

More precisely, when the article talks about solving the puzzle, they mean finding all the possible solutions, not just one.

Re:it's pretty simple really (1)

kayen_telva (676872) | more than 10 years ago | (#7499696)

then it would seem that it is a really simple puzzle to do once. there are 14 pieces of cardboard in front of me and I have to arrange them to form a rectangle. that seems too easy. (finding all combos would not be easy though). Is this what they spent their time doing back then ;)

Re:it's pretty simple really (2, Insightful)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 10 years ago | (#7499770)

You would be amazed how not-easy it is to find even one solution for most people. Try this with the loculus, or with a set of tangrams, or with a set of pentominoes (which can be fit into, and cover completely, any rectangle of area 60 with both sides at least 3 units long).

Re:it's pretty simple really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7501601)

You would be amazed how not-easy it is to find even one solution for most people.

I imagine it would be as not-easy as looking up some antonyms of "easy", like "hard" or "difficult".

Re:it's pretty simple really (1)

Deflagro (187160) | more than 10 years ago | (#7503608)

I don't know why you'd want an antonym...I'd try a synonym instead.

Nothing like the ignorant leading the blind.

Re:it's pretty simple really (1)

Lazyhound (542184) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506233)

...

You suck at the reading.

Re:it's pretty simple really (1)

Deflagro (187160) | more than 10 years ago | (#7521226)

I'd have to agree with you on that one. It's not-easy to do apparently.

DOH!

Re:it's pretty simple really (1)

henrygb (668225) | more than 10 years ago | (#7501820)

A square rather than a rectangle. There are a lot of 6*24 rectangles not in this list, and perhaps some other shapes.

Wrong...this is older (5, Funny)

Spoing (152917) | more than 10 years ago | (#7499612)

  1. Billy Og:
  2. "So, Mr. Pterodactyl, how many licks does it take to get to the center of a -- " *CRUNCH*.

Computation (5, Interesting)

GrahamMastaFlash (724929) | more than 10 years ago | (#7499679)

Isn't it amazing that a computer could compute in minutes what has taken humans thousands of years to solve? We're in a time in which the sheer calculating power of computers can predict stress and failure in complex structures (FEA), lift and drag of fluid flows (CFD), and even the way a polypeptide will fold into a protein.

If computers can do all this and solve puzzles that have plagued our minds for centuries, where will the limit be? Perhaps one day the effect of a drug in a patient or the release of software into a market will be fully simulated through computation.

We will soon be replacing our market analysits and physicians with programmers!

Re:Computation (3, Interesting)

OneFix (18661) | more than 10 years ago | (#7499776)

While I want to belive what you say, I must point out that you are making a mistake. This puzzle is purely logical (mechanical)...the things you mention (market economics and human-drug interaction) are organic in nature...

Computers are good at doing mechanical computations, but we have yet to perfect computation of organic systems...as a matter of fact, some would say it's impossible.

Re:Computation (1)

GrahamMastaFlash (724929) | more than 10 years ago | (#7499840)

Years ago, people might have argued that the bewilderingly complex chemical reactions that occur in our bodies were impossible to understand because they are somehow out of our logical grasp.

Computational Biology [cornell.edu] now allows us to take our genetic code and develop 3-dimensional models of the enzymes that regulate 9 out of 10 reactions in our bodies.

Perhaps some systems are infinitely more complex than others, but none is organically impossibly to characterize.

After all, as Edward O. Wilson argues, Biology is just Chemistry, and Chemistry is just Physics. Today, our computational models can predict (sometimes with accuracy) physics and chemistry. What's next?

Re:Computation (1)

OneFix (18661) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500082)

There's a huge gap between modeling an enzyme and developing a drug inside of a computer...how do you know when a new pain medicine adversely effects the liver?

Re:Computation (2, Insightful)

Textbook Error (590676) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500586)

You build a simulation [heise.de] . Right now this is still in its infancy, and these systems obviously have to prove their worth by producing accurate results, but virtual organ simulation is where things are headed.

It's very likely we won't have the computing power available to simulate these accurately for another 20 years - but so far there doesn't seem to be anything that would prevent you from, in principle, modeling organs on a sub-cellular basis and obtaining a reasonable simulation of their macroscopic behaviour.

Re:Computation (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 10 years ago | (#7502005)

Yep. More to the point, the simulations we already have are a hell of a lot better than human intuition when it comes to predicting side effects. (Or primary effects, for that matter.) Drug discovery has undergone a quiet revolution in the last decade or so: it's largely switched over from the old "shotgun" approach -- "here's an interesting chemical from this fungus/herb/frog, let's see what it does inside a rat with cancer" -- to a tailored approach in which new drugs are built up molecule by molecule, sometimes atom by atom, to target a specific biological mechanism. We're not quite there yet, and there are probably lots of interesting pharmaceuticals left to find in the natural world, but the fact is that soon "drug discovery" itself will be an obsolete term.

All that being said, it will be a long time, if ever, before we get past the requirement for animal followed by human trials. Any simulation, no matter how good, can miss something. Trying the drug out on real live critters remains the gold standard. However, as the simulations improve, so will the quality of the drugs developed, and the trials stage will hopefully become dramatically cheaper and faster. Right now, the majority of candidate drugs never make it to market, and those that do take years. Changing that will be a major benefit.

Re:Computation (1)

Mr Foot (596500) | more than 10 years ago | (#7499862)

Can you elaborate on what you mean by organic? Do you mean complex systems that follow complex rules?

Re:Computation (1)

OneFix (18661) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500103)

When was the last time you knew of a group (people or otherwise) to follow a predetermined set of rules outside of the lab??? It's around us every day...then again, I guess the RIAA planed for CDs to lead to massive digital piracy...

And if you say that doesn't count, then I don't want you developing any drugs I'm going to be taking...

Re:Computation (1)

jarran (91204) | more than 10 years ago | (#7501035)

We DO follow a set of predetermined rules, they are just far more complex.

Unless you believe there is something inherently "magical" about human beings (i.e., we have a soul) then we are simply following the laws of physics which determine how the matter and energy in our bodies will behave.

Does that mean we could simulate human society? Maybe. The effects of the uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics, random radioactive decay etc. mean that you can't do it perfectly, but how well you can do it depends on how fast the errors scale up to a human level. But still. it seems likely to me you could (in theory at least) predict the behaviour of society as a whole, if not the actions of an individual human being. The problem is, using this method (physical simulation of a complete society) you would need a computer far larger than the planet.

Still, it's entirely possible that there is a far simpler model than would predict the behaviour of people in large groups accurately, we just haven't found it yet. People really aren't as unique as they like to think - although individuals can be difficult to predict, large numbers of people follow easily studyable distributions.

We are getting there, slowly. Economics is essentially the science of modelling a particular aspect of human behaviour. It's not perfect, but it does work to some extent.

Re:Computation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7501320)

Dude. Put down the Asimov and back away slowly.

Re:Computation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7501805)

I thought his point was pretty obvious. If you can't tell the difference between organic and mechanical systems, you need serious help. You don't need metaphysics to understand it.

Re:Computation (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 10 years ago | (#7504473)

Unless you believe there is something inherently "magical" about human beings (i.e., we have a soul) then we are simply following the laws of physics which determine how the matter and energy in our bodies will behave.

To say that we "follow" the laws of physics gives a misleding connotation. Physical "law" decribes how things act, it doesn't determine how things act.

If there were something about human beings such that the matter that makes up our bodies behaved differently than matter ourside of bodies (which I'm not asserting, BTW), it wouldn't be a violation of physical law, but an indication that our physical laws are an inaccurate description of the Universe. The Universe knows not of Maxwell's equations (or even of particles, energy, mass, and other human ideas); it just does its thing. Which happens to include bits of it forming into patterns (us) that make other patterns (words), some of which encode information about patterns in the thing (ideas like Maxwell's equations)...

For futher clarification, I recommend Raymond Smullyan's Is God A Taoist? [mit.edu] (Stumbling upon this essay in Hofstadter and Dennett's The Mind's I [wikipedia.org] changed my life.)

Re:Computation (1)

GrahamMastaFlash (724929) | more than 10 years ago | (#7502386)

Sure. I was quoting OneFix when he spoke of organic systems. I took the word "organic" to mean very complex systems.

You see, people have a misconception that the world can be divided into natural and manmade. It's an easy mistake to make that is ingrained in our way of thinking. Look at foods and cosmetics being touted as "organic" or "natural" when they really just mean that humans haven't screwed around with what was already there. If something is 'organic' or 'manmade', it's still a physical system governed by the laws of physics and chemistry. The system doesn't care if it developed as a result of millions of years of evolution or if it was created last week in a lab. It will behave the same way regardless.

The difference between these organic and manmade systems is only in their history, not in their function. We tend to think of very simple systems like a car or an airplane as different from very complex systems like an animal. All three, however, convert chemical energy to motion. Chemical reactions create mechanical interactions. The animal is a system which is very stable and is able to provide for its own continuance, while the car and airplane require outside input.

Re:Computation (2, Funny)

Noah Adler (627206) | more than 10 years ago | (#7499912)

We will soon be replacing our market analysits and physicians with programmers!

No, we'll be replacing them with programs.

Re:Computation (1)

warpSpeed (67927) | more than 10 years ago | (#7501528)

No, we'll be replacing them with programs.

This reminds me of the "Doctor" on Voyager.

But seriously, I think that this will be the case. There is no compensation required by a diagnostic program. How long until there is enough computing power for your initail health screening to be performed by a computer program? Productivity-wise and cost-wise, this is most likley where we are headed. I see some form of this happening in my lifetime.

Re:Computation (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 10 years ago | (#7505233)

There is no compensation required by a diagnostic program.

That's easily remedied by a suitable license agreement.

Re:Computation (3, Insightful)

kommakazi (610098) | more than 10 years ago | (#7499916)

The only catch is that we humans have to have a pretty good understanding of a problem/puzzle/whatever in the first place in order to program a computer to solve it. The limit still really is us humans, that is unless we develop true AI, which I really think is impossible because of what I just said.

Re:Computation (1)

jnik (1733) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500262)

Isn't it amazing that a computer could compute in minutes what has taken humans thousands of years to solve? We're in a time in which the sheer calculating power of computers can predict stress and failure in complex structures (FEA), lift and drag of fluid flows (CFD), and even the way a polypeptide will fold into a protein.

And still can't do a 3D model of a supernova explosion. Heck, TWO dimensions is still really pushing it. There are a lot of problems that Moore's law won't catch up with for quite some time.

Re:Computation (1)

ckaminski (82854) | more than 10 years ago | (#7510630)

True. I mean, who really wants to render Jurassic Park on a bunch of 4004s, right? Nope, we had to wait for SGI Irixes and the like. Time will come my friend, with all these teraflop processors I keep hearing about when such a model is more than possible.

Re:Computation (5, Insightful)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500274)

Isn't it amazing that a computer could compute in minutes what has taken humans thousands of years to solve?

And yet humans can solve in minutes some things which a computer couldn't solve in a thousand years.

Re:Computation (1)

slagdogg (549983) | more than 10 years ago | (#7505702)

And yet humans can solve in minutes some things which a computer couldn't solve in a thousand years.

And I have proof [hotornot.com] !

Re:Computation (2, Insightful)

rune.w (720113) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500757)

Isn't it amazing that a computer could compute in minutes what has taken humans thousands of years to solve? We're in a time in which the sheer calculating power of computers can predict stress and failure in complex structures (FEA), lift and drag of fluid flows (CFD), and even the way a polypeptide will fold into a protein.

I will be more amazed when a computer actually comes up with its own algorithms to solve those problems. As it stands now, a computer only crunchs numbers once it's given a very specific set of rules. Without an actual person to define the scope of the problem, design the algorith, and sometimes derive the maths needed for it, a computer is pretty much useless.

Computers are helpful, yes. Computers are panacea, no... at least not yet.

R.

They already are (2, Interesting)

Froze (398171) | more than 10 years ago | (#7501222)

There has been a lot of developement into finding self solving systems. Here is an article to get you started, then just follow google.
readme [newscientist.com]

Re:They already are (1)

Froze (398171) | more than 10 years ago | (#7501277)

OH yah, and here [slashdot.org] also.

Re:Computation (1)

pueywei (658832) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500780)

RTFA.

"The world's oldest puzzle finally has a complete answer. Bizarrely, it really wasn't that hard. None of these solutions would be particularly hard to find. Most of them are easily derived from other solutions, by swapping, reflecting, and rotating various sections. With a systematic approach, I'm sure that Archimedes, or anyone following him, could have listed all the distinct solutions within a few weeks of work."

Re:Computation (1)

inerte (452992) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500921)

We will soon be replacing our market analysits and physicians with programmers!

Just like market analysts replaced 'pure luck' and 'guessing' and just like physicians replanced 'religious belief' and 'priests'.

Without computer, we might _never_ been able to solve these problems? Isn't that cool? We finally can move on to tougher stuff.

Or IHBT?

Re:Computation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7501709)

Replace managers with computers that have an off switch...

Re:Computation (1)

Spoing (152917) | more than 10 years ago | (#7501040)

Isn't it amazing that a computer could compute in minutes what has taken humans thousands of years to solve?

Humans did solve the puzzle...we just used a better tool.

We will soon be replacing our market analysits and physicians with programmers!

Maybe market anaylists and physicians will learn more programming?

Re:Computation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7501875)

This reminds me of a puzzle I once "solved". You had to fit a number of brick into a box. No one in our office could solve it. So I figured out how to simplify that state space and wrote a search. It turned up the answer in a few minutes of runtime and I put all the brick in the box.

There was a debate about whether that counted as "solving the puzzle." Neither side could convince the other. I was the only one to fit them all in.

Re:Computation (1)

netfool (623800) | more than 10 years ago | (#7501651)

It can beat the game, but it can't create it.

Re:Computation (2, Interesting)

Dorival (569772) | more than 10 years ago | (#7501878)

"Perhaps one day the effect of a drug in a patient or the release of software into a market will be fully simulated through computation."

In the 60's I was a programmer/statistician with no medical background for a large group of physicians engaged in clinical trials of cancer chemotherapy. I created a simulation model of the human blood system that was able to predict the future toxic effects of the chemotherapy after only a few doses.

The doctors rejected it because I was not a doctor. My theory was confirmed 15 years later by others. My boss (the chief of surgery) had suggested I should go to Med School. The chief of Hematology liked my work, but only because it explained the findings in his own paper published in the Annals of Hematology 15 years before. At that time a physics student who had been blasted with cobalt 60 pellets had been brought to the hospital and as a young intern he had the good sense to run every test possible for 90 days straight. My model predicted exactly what he had seen. Even when the radiation source was removed the blood values continued to oscillate up and down on their own as the body responded according to my model.

The chemotherapists were erring in not accounting for the body's built-in response mechanisms, and they didn't want to hear it from me.

"solve" it? (1)

ph43thon (619990) | more than 10 years ago | (#7499935)

I couldn't be less interested in the notion that a computer barfed out all possible solutions. Somehow I imagine we are being denied the real interesting part of this. What seems interesting is the parts mentioned about how certain pieces were always found in a pair. I'd also be interested in how one solution maps into another solution. What clumps and individual parts can be interchanged. Also, someone should do one that fits on the surface of a sphere. (though, probably already been done)

WRONG (5, Funny)

Izanagi (466436) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500102)

Every one knows the world's oldest unsolved puzzle involves women!!

Re:WRONG (2, Funny)

CCIEwannabe (538547) | more than 10 years ago | (#7501021)

Everyone knows the world's oldest unsolved puzzle involves women!!

Replace the word involves with is

Re:WRONG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7514295)

it's a hook and a loop. sometimes 2.

Thanks for nothing! (4, Funny)

breon.halling (235909) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500124)

Thanks for ruining it for me! I'd only made it to the 535th solution! =p

so this is basically... (1)

ansleybean (618941) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500137)

like the three-color problem. we replace patience and time with a computer. nifty, perhaps even useful, but not very interesting, from a mathematical or even an artificial intelligence perspective.

Re:so this is basically... (1)

NonSequor (230139) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500171)

Dude, it's four colors not three.

Re:so this is basically... (1)

ansleybean (618941) | more than 10 years ago | (#7504629)

my bad. i had a brain fart.

Same "kind" of idea, but different problem. (2, Insightful)

Ayanami Rei (621112) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500286)

The four color problem is a lot different than this puzzle because you have to define your shapes (topological relationships) in addition to checking properties of "joining them up"

Re:so this is basically... (1)

zhenlin (722930) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500819)

FYI, it was the _four_ colour problem.

Quick summary:

What is the minimum number of colours one can use to colour a map, with no two adjacent sections sharing the same colour?

It was (supposedly) proven by a computer algorithm going through all possible configurations. (In the ~1800 range, I'm told)

Of course, some mathematicians summarily rejected this as proof. (It is experimental proof.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four%20color%20theo re m

Where the hell did all the geeks go? (0, Offtopic)

extrasolar (28341) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500277)

The actually interesting articles like this one and the other science/engineering ones get like a dozen comments with most of them by drunk slashdot addicts who post for the sake of posting, while MicroGates-"look, I'm Neo" and fucking software pseudo-politics seems to catch all the interest on this site with two, three, even five hundred comments a piece (not to mention all of the "OMG! I just saw Gates/RIAA/Darth Vades smiling at me in my monitor" fucking panic-attack YRO claptrap). Where did all the geeks go and who let the FoxNews fans in?

Do as I say, not as I do. (3, Insightful)

Syncdata (596941) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500350)

It would probably help your cause if you commented on the article, and posted your take on it, rather then engaging in an offtopic rant against the people you're so pissed off about. You could actually be engaging in thoughtful discourse, rather than furthering the problem that so vexes you.
This is just as offtopic as the parent, and I was going to post anon, but fsck it. Put it in your journal pally.

Re:Where the hell did all the geeks go? (1)

unixbob (523657) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500508)

As someone who has been reading /. for years and years, I completely agree with you. And I'd love to know the answer. /. used to be proper geek fun. It seems to have lost something as it's grown up from the dotCom boom. Unfortunately all the geeks have gone without so much as a "so long, and thanks for all the fish!" so they can't tell us where they went.

Does anyone else know where they are?

P.S. - whilst I'm on a rant, when are we going to bring back segfault?????

Why did this remain unsolved for so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7500536)

looks to me like this "puzzle" was forgotten and someone came upon it from some old book. It's not like we've (and I mean mathematicians) been banging our head over this for a long time. From looking at it, this looks like a simple combinatorial optimization problem. Nothing to it... just throw come raw CPU cycles at it and anyone can solve it.

Re:Why did this remain unsolved for so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506811)

Actually, they sell it at the Cracker Barrel. I played with it for years, and only found like three ways to solve it.

hmmm (1)

frink_exp (647091) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500660)

I think a more interesting tangram/tessellation problem would be the following. How should one divide a square into N pieces to maximize the number of unique solutions in which to arrange the pieces to reform the square? You could restrict the problem in various ways, like prohibiting annulus-like pieces. Anyone know if this has been done?

On to the next challenge (1)

ksdd (634242) | more than 10 years ago | (#7500890)

It will apparently take close to 400 more years before someone solves the Loculus of Borg.

Wait -- I've just been informed that it's actually Locutus (with a t) and definitely not a puzzle. Never mind then. We'll not even concern ourselves with that.

chicken or egg? (0)

seelet (585767) | more than 10 years ago | (#7501037)

you mean they solved which one comes first. im overjoyed.

This is not the world's oldest puzzle. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7501038)

The oldest puzzel is:
The Zoog of Ogg.

Can we guess the original cuts? (2, Insightful)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 10 years ago | (#7501216)

There may be 536 solutions, but the original creator started with a single solution in the form of the original pattern and order of cuts. We may never know the exact order and pattern of cuts that created the puzzle, but I'd bet we can guess how most people would attempt to create such a puzzle.

For example the fact that the vast majority of 536 solutions are bilaterally symmetric suggests that the first cut in the creation of the puzzle was right down the middle. I'd also wager that cuts that bisect fragments are more likely than cuts that nick a fragment. Such straight-line, bisecting cutting behaviors are more likely than cutting polygons out of the middle of the whole square.

It may be a math puzzle solved by a computer, but I wonder if we can learn something about how people think from it.

Re:Can we guess the original cuts? (2, Insightful)

Tom7 (102298) | more than 10 years ago | (#7503456)

For example the fact that the vast majority of 536 solutions are bilaterally symmetric suggests

But the bilateral symmetry also explains its own frequency: each solution for the left half forms a complete solution when paired with any solution for the right half (assuming they use disjoint sets of pieces, if I understand the rules of the game properly).

Re:Can we guess the original cuts? (1)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 10 years ago | (#7505163)

But the bilateral symmetry also explains its own frequency: each solution for the left half forms a complete solution when paired with any solution for the right half (assuming they use disjoint sets of pieces, if I understand the rules of the game properly)

Very good point. Assuming the pairing that you describe, bilateral symmetry would multiply the number of seemingly unique solutions by a factor of 8.

Even so, only 48 of the solutions lack the bilaterally symmetric 2-rectangle construction. 488 solutions have this symmetry (or 61 unique solutions after factoring out reflections and rotations of the component rectangles.). Thus, even after removing the solution-multiplying effects of symmetry, we still have a majority of solutions (61 out of 109) that have the square cut in half into two rectangles. Its less compelling than 488-out-of-536, but still interesting.

Puzzle list/book (1)

Hard_Code (49548) | more than 10 years ago | (#7501292)

Ok, so does anybody have a suggestion for a book or list of "classic" puzzles like this that might be fun to solve with computers/programming (doesn't matter if they have already been solved), that don't require more than basic high school math. I'm basically looking for something fun to do when I'm bored, but that will also keep my programming and problem solving skills up.

The other day I wrote a complete (and I think optimal) word-search puzzle solver (final solution relied on standard iteration interface with different iteration strategies for each 45 degree rotation of the grid), and that was quite a fun few days as I rotated matrices and thought about things in different dimensions. In all, not a gigantic accomplishment, but enough to amuse, and better than playing mind-numbing shootemups.

Oh... (1)

asdrtyjkl (720368) | more than 10 years ago | (#7501556)

I thought it was the one about the man going to saint Ives. Man I still cant figure that one out. Any idea when it will be solved?

Re:Oh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7501680)

How about now? The answer is one.

Serious Question: (1)

mr.nobody (113509) | more than 10 years ago | (#7502682)

What, exactly, am I supposed to learn from solving a puzzle like this?

Re:Serious Question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7504080)

You learn that someone was able to program a computer to solve a puzzle. Happy?

Actually... (1)

inertia@yahoo.com (156602) | more than 10 years ago | (#7504050)

536 distinct solutions

Including mirror and rotation, there are 666 distinct solutions. I think we've found or anti-christ.

There are older puzzles (1)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524994)

Has anyone solved the Stonehenge puzzle? I bet most people don't even realise it's a puzzle.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>