The Sphinx's Lair

@LiefdeWen You can always try new puzzles. Don't leave just because one puzzle wasn't appreciated. We all have our bad days. Don't worry. You will love this site.

I'd argue some people don't have bad days

A bad day for Gareth is only 2 solved puzzles which is an impossible day for me :P

On a good day.

There are plenty of days on which I solve no puzzles at all.

3:24 PM

... don't make me go day by day ...

@GarethMcCaughan those are terrible days. Not bad days. :P

@LiefdeWen Welcome!

... while mixing three-way junctions: "A granular cell was present at the acinar-intercalated duct junction in submandibular gland of adult rats of several different strains. It occurred more frequently in females thanin males. It was a small pyramidalshaped cell, usually forming the most proximal part of the intralobular duct system. The cell contained a relatively large, basally located nucleus."

... "Numerous heterogeneous granules, usually exhibiting both electron-dense and electron-lucent regions, were present in the apical cytoplasm. Exocytosis of the granules at the apical cell surface was occasionally seen. Dilated cisternae of endoplasmic reticulum were frequently observed between the apical granules and in the basal and lateral cytoplasm."

How I love scientific encyclopaedia!

And rats.

LiefdeWen

@Sid, I will spend some time researching and looking at other well received puzzles and see if I get inspiration for another puzzle. @GarethMcCaughan thanks.

electron-lucent. I love the way that trips off the tongue.

3:30 PM

Burp!

@LiefdeWen , @Gareth McCaughan does it freely.

It seems so easy in the afterglow of a virtuoso.

("virtuoso" also = "virtuosa." One of these days linguists will discover a path beyond gender.)

M Oehm

@humn Virtuos@. In Spanish, I've seen @ used for a gender-neutral suffix instead of -o/-a.

Live and learn. Thank you!

@ = arrival.

Isn't -o also neutral sometimes?

"He" has been, in my wildest fantasies, used as neutral.

3:46 PM

Maybe I'm mistaken with words that end in o but are just ungendered words

If that is even a word

(I don't know whether to quip of philosophsze or pedant. My strings are plucked.)

Ever since someone told me the difference between "bravo" and "brava" I've been confused.

@Rubio The odd thing there, to my mind, is that initially I want to read "electron-dense" as "containing lots of electrons" but as soon as you see "electron-lucent" it becomes clear that it actually means "liable to scatter electron beams in an electron microscope" which may or may not be the same thing.

Lucid is your middle name, Gareth. Lurid is mine.

and clueless is mine

huh?

Mithrandir

3:54 PM

Oh, I just spotted a wild GPR on SFF.

link? I'm reaching for a net.

Mithrandir

scifi.stackexchange.com/suggested-edits/23530

But, @Gentle, this may just be me but I don't think the italics are necessary. Bold is good, yes, but IMO italics shouldn't be there.

GentlePurpleRain

@Mithrandir Feel free to edit. I won't be offended.

From a wilting editor, any change in typeface is a call for attention.

GentlePurpleRain

@Mithrandir It was super-effective! :P

Mithrandir

3:59 PM

Heh :P

I was adding a tag anyway, so I just edited it

@humn Looky here!

Lucky to have eyes!

Do they shoot lasers?

Sometimes darts.

darting glances?

4:02 PM

!

Darting glances of lasers!

jump out of sight while you have the chance.

But, free publishing lesson: It doesn't matter how you change the font, the way you do so is like a piece of music. The only thing we don't notice is no change.

As soon as anything stirs we wake up.

Copyright, platitudes'R'us.

hmm humn are you starring everything I say today?

I stirred my coffee with a pixie stick just a few moments ago

@n_palum , so you're the one with moderator powers!

4:08 PM

Haha not at all, just an observant person

@Rubio Magically delicious!

Trix are for kids. Of all ages.

Charming aren't they?

Lucky at that.

We've got our oats in a twist now haven't we! Who's got the spoon?

Lapping.

(Not lap dancing!)

Sphinx

4:11 PM

0

Q: Ant-Man in chains

"Ant-Man" is a superhero that can change his size. Usually he can get very small, but sometimes he can get large as well. In the movie 'Ant-Man' (minor spoiler here) there is a scene where he is handcuffed. He manages to get small and thus slip out of his cuffs. My question is: Is there a wa...

topology

... Though, n_palum, if you're underage half of what I've typed to you is chargeable. If you're underage but feel overage, welcome to the club! If you're overage welcome to that club too!

I used to be underage in an overage skin.

Hehe I'll be 22 in 15 days (my age is mostly known)

Happy semimonthbirthday!

2000 Year Old Man

"we didn't know anything"

"hundreds or years later i still blush"

(Disclaimer: I find objectionable aspects of all art, but it artists hadn't dared I wouldn't have anything to object to.)

"A pinhead is a person with a point but without a purpose."

Signed, pointless typist.

4:43 PM

For Harry Potter fans... twitter.com/shelzhang/status/884496110454288384 (Not NSFW, but not a particularly appropriate read)

dcfyj

5:11 PM

Lol, this is a pretty funny read

The Lovin Spoonful - Daydream (HQ)

6:28 PM

... one of the stills shows a Tower of Hanoi ...

... that's circling the lookup ... in the meanwhile and ready to be lurched ...

Wet Dream - Kip Addotta

... stream of consciousness, while having half ...

half a beer and you're already streaming your consciousness?

... beers away from abalone ...

"I was kelpless until I landed a marlin."

"We had a whale of a time."

I'm kelpless right now and I don't mind

I regret looking up "landed a marlin"

6:40 PM

Easy to fall for that. Unintentional.

When I want to nasty you I'll ask for a safe word ahead of time.

waffles

No, wait, banan... aaah!

I'm starting to think that safewords are actually a great idea for internet discussions

regardless of topic

All words welcome, regardless of topic.

After everyone sheds our armr we'll all be safe.

I used to go out armed to the teeth with nothing by my extremities.

Now I just loll.

(... weird. I've become a walking thesaurus. It could happen to anyone with legs, or fingers, or any other means ...)

Rawr

Call to arms: Sid is defending in Contact

I'm armless

6:54 PM

My arms are glad to hear

... I was rounding aimlessly until someone found my bearings ...

(that was for you secret Poetierre!)

(See how it goes on my playground? I shallow the water so that everyone feels safe. Then, soon as anyone steps in, the level raises. Or so I think.)

(Wherever i'm allowed is "my playground." Please take it that way.)

Splish splash

M Oehm

^ ?

Bobby Darin: Splish Splash W/Lyrics

Was just about to link!

7:08 PM

sometimes these fingers type quicker than yours

Well I got caught up reading about Bobby first :P

Giant rubber duck splashes into Toronto's harbour

Distractions! They go dis way and den another before we even know it.

I'd be stuck on my rubber duckie had I one.

\o/ Whoosh

Least suspected sidenote. Is this for real? Was it ever?:

Buzzy Boop

Only way that makes sense is that after the Code caught the Fleischers by the tail they went around the bend.

But it also seems like a tribute to that.

@ffao When I made Kuro and had them go ask/answer questions on Movies SE I ended up asking a very conflicting question that got closed and reopened ^.^

7:22 PM

Nothing sweeter nor sourer than having a question reopened.

It was interesting.. It was weird answering and asking questions as a "new user"

Looking for more help. Who said "an ugly carpet lasts forever"?

She's my most secret muse. Had a column forever while it lasted.

...oh wow, in the process of looking that up i found "offthw.zz" from back in the days when file names were restricted to a certain number of letters and when public places had graffiti ...

"offthw" means "off the wall"

Perhaps it's time for Graffiti SE, but until then, shield your eyes.

"Please don't throw cigarettes into toilets. They get soggy and hard to light."

7:43 PM

I would say don't use cigarettes at all(unless it's real cold)

Among my other failings, ciggies are not. But I grew up in an era where each gasp was filled with smoke.

Some places still remain that way

That's just one way for stars to burn out.

Sadly

I Wanna Be Sedated - The Ramones

Like sparklers.

Another I knew needed caffeine to fuel the flame.

I need sedation.

Each has less than we need and more than we want. (Repeat:)

Hosea

7:57 PM

Have you guys seen this post? Looks like something Puzzling community would like to read about. english.stackexchange.com/questions/395382/…

Answer: A yaxe.

lol

Is that even a valid word?

No.

/shrug

Well... apparently it is some Swedish word. And It is on ENGLISH.Stack Exchange...

Hosea

7:59 PM

It sounds like a pretty nice real-world puzzle though. Thoroughly enjoyed reading the answer there

This problem of mine still hasn't been solved, by the way. puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/53193/…

I've been staring at it, and I have no idea.

Holy answer... 770 upvotes!

Maybe it's just me not being experienced with Yin-Yang puzzles.

I took a guess and was wrong so I stopped looking at it.

8:01 PM

D:

@n_palum Well, guessing and getting a contradiction just means your guess was wrong, not that there's no solution.

I know, that's why I deleted it silly

Doesn't mean I'm gonna try again though.

@edderiofer You could always give a hint. Not sure others want though...

And I am also not sure what hint you could possibly give

I'm not quite sure what sort of hint I could give that doesn't spoil the answer either.

Aren't you looking for someone to prove there are many solutions to the one, and none to the other

Or was it you want to see that they both have many solutions

I remember you showed us a possible one

8:07 PM

I'm looking for someone to prove whether or not either puzzle has a unique solution.

Didn't you prove it doesn't?

The first one's already been proven to have multiple solutions. But nobody's given a satisfactory proof of the second one yet.

You did though when you showed us that example

What, the "all sorts of crazy stuff you can do in the middle of the grid"?

Well, there was one answer on your puzzle. And they probably abandoned it. You could comment on their answer to possibly have them continue trying.

8:09 PM

Yeah that

I did.

They haven't responded since.

I mean the first has been proven, you proved the second, and I hate writing proofs so I have no inclination to write up an answer :/

Where did I prove the second?!

When you said you can do all those things in the middle that would be different but correct

chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/38684705#38684705 isn't a proof that the second one definitely has multiple solutions. It's merely a refutation to the supposed proof that it has none.

8:11 PM

Side note - Calibri is bad engadget.com/2017/07/12/microsoft-calibri-pakistan-fontgate

Agreed.

Okay so you showed us that's the unique solution

Again, I did no such thing.

Or you showed that there's multiple

It's one or the other

yep. Use Times Now Roman. Pretty safe. :P

8:12 PM

No, I didn't.

All I did was show that the logic in Emma's supposed proof was incorrect.

@n_palum Pretty sure they didn't. They showed just a refutation on how the supposed proof was wrong

Okay so if I take the one they showed us, and shift the dots to the right you can make another solution

So, many solutions.

Incorrect. If you shifted all the black dots to the right, you'd need to put black dots on the first column, which wouldn't be connected to the rest.

(And it also wouldn't satisfy the givens either. If you meant "to the left", it disconnects the white dots.)

Devo - It Takes A Worried Man

A song my mom used to sing me in the face of too many problems and solutions:

Not literally you'd wrap a bit not just exactly shift right

8:18 PM

Give me an image of the solution you propose then, because your description doesn't seem to be a solution.

Well I'm on my phone now so I can't

I still think you've given up the solution either way it falls

And I still think I haven't given up the solution, because you can't give me a proof.

I hate proofs so I have a bad attitude towards them

My logic would be to post your solution and say okay there is only 1 solution for this version

What solution are you referring to?

And if you said no that's wrong I'd say then by default there's many. There's your proof

The same I've been referring to

8:23 PM

I'd say that you never proved that there's only one solution, and so I couldn't accept your answer.

And when you say "the same I've been referring to", that still tells me nothing about what solution you think is mine.

The one you linked a minute ago

What, this? chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/38684705#38684705

I say it's the only one I found and that's my proof.

Yes still that one

That's not a solution to the question. I merely raised that as a refutation to the logic in the supposed proof by Emma.

It's fine if you hate proofs, but passing something as a proof when it's not, why?

8:25 PM

It's correct no? So a solution

Just ignore the question then

I said I was and I was just disputing

You're conflating two meanings of the word "correct", I think.

There are two meanings of the word "correct"?

When they said prove x = 5 I'd say you already told me x = 5 so it's correct. Done.

8:26 PM

It's "correct", only in the sense that "it could feasibly happen in the middle of a blank grid", not "it is a solution to the second puzzle I've given".

I could argue both

I'll go back to contact, I can't watch math being slaughtered like this. Maybe Gareth, Rand or one of our actual mathematicians can explain what proofs are and why they're necessary

Agreed.

Point being that most of the time you don't actually know if what you're trying to prove is correct or not

That's why i refuge in applied mathematics.

8:29 PM

I don't even understand what the point here is. "Something that can feasibly happen in Middle of the grid" is not equal to "the solution of the grid". Period.

@n_palum You're assuming your conclusion. The whole point of a proof is deducing something from other statements. And "teacher said so" is not a proof.

Why prove it though

Err... Because that's the question?

Because knowing things for certain is good?

Because the proof provides insight into how to do that kind of puzzle?

8:31 PM

Because proving things in general helps you understand why they're true?

But I was told it's true

Your point?

Proving things true that aren't necessarily true I get. Proving things true that are true I don't

And what, exactly, have I told you?

Um.. if something is proved to be true, it is true, right?

Am I missing something here?

8:35 PM

@n_palum If you're trolling, please stop. If not, please note that edderiofer really truly hasn't told you that the second puzzle has a unique solution, and if you think they have then you've misunderstood.

@Sid I think he means "Proving things true that are already known to be true ...".

I'm not intending to troll

I live in a house of cards. A friend built an actual house and told me it was all a matter of hidden misconstructions.

Mathematical proof is an ideal.

@n_palum "This method of disproof doesn't work" is not the same thing as "the statement is true".

Similarly, "this method of solving doesn't work" is not the same thing as "there is no solution".

I apologize if I'm somehow offending mathematics

@n_palum , keep at it! The way I've learned (almost) everything is by brushing against one grain or another.

When hairs bristle, flesh reveals.

8:40 PM

Those are different Deus

The only difference is that I've replaced "the statement is true" with "the solution does not exist". Other than that, they're identical (up to rephrasing).

Help me understand how my logic is wrong. (That sounds sarcastic or rude it's not intended) - We've deduced that there is in fact 1 solution at a minimum. If my answer is then, yes there's only one solution, and I'm told no, that's wrong. I now know there's multiple solutions. How's that different than just finding a second solution. I'm merely deducing what I think it is.

> We've deduced that there is in fact 1 solution at a minimum.

No, you've not even deduced that.

@humn You're more of a math guy than me 😅

You provided a solution! What am I missing?

Right, you haven't deduced there is 1 solution. You've deduced that one method of showing there are zero solutions does not work.

8:44 PM

No, I didn't provide a solution.

All I did was provide an arrangement of black and white dots that could happen in the middle of an unconstrained grid.

You filled out the grid meeting your criteria

No. If you actually check the arrangement I gave, it's NOT a 10 by 10 grid.

AND it doesn't meet with the initial givens of the second puzzle, either.

Right, that was the middle portion of a potential solution.

You started the dots from the same location as the second grid no?

No, I didn't.

And even if I had, it still wouldn't be a solution because what I provided wasn't a 10 by 10 grid.

Perhaps, before you embarrass yourself further, you should actually compare the supposed "solution" I gave and the actual question.

8:48 PM

also @n_palum when you say "I'm told no, that's wrong. I now know there's multiple solutions" that is probably incorrect, depending on exactly what you were told. If e.g. you were told only "your claim that there is at least one solution is inadequately justified" you can't deduce anything about whether there are any solutions or whether there are multiple solutions.

Yes, that's the other point, and more or less what I'd tell him if he posted a solution and claimed it was unique. I'd tell him to prove that there weren't any other solutions.

9:04 PM

Well I claim there's no solution for grid 2 then.

You can fill out the left 1-3 columns however you like, but at the end of the day to make anything work on 4-10 you need black/red on the top row, and the opposite on the bottom but you can't have that and still all be connected

> You can fill out the left 1-3 columns however you like

Obviously this isn't true. I can't fill it out in a checkerboard.

> but at the end of the day to make anything work on 4-10 you need black/red on the top row

Why?

Okay fill it out how you like so that it works

Because of how the 10x10 works with avoiding 2x2s

How does "Because of how the 10x10 works with avoiding 2x2s" imply what you've said?

You've just gone from A to Z without going through B, C, D, or anything else there.

Accepting that as a proof would be like accepting "P is not equal to NP because of the way algorithms work".

Or maybe accepting "1+1 = 20483.482 - 4^10^10 i because of the way numbers work". "Because of the way this works" doesn't make your argument correct; it's a meaningless statement.

I can't articulate it but because of where the starting positions are you can't properly alternate the white black white black

But why do you need to alternate black and white?

9:14 PM

You can't make black be on the far left because then you'll block the white off

@n_palum , have you met a technical editor in person? Live so long.

That's what the thing I posted earlier (which you said was a solution) was supposed to show.

We're the badasses who take on anything with beads of sweat but not a drop of blood, just to spill ink.

@n_palum answerer also got SE swag. (it's in the comments)

So white has to be the far left, but if you do that you'll end up screwed on the right side

9:16 PM

Again, you haven't said why you need to alternate black and white.

I don't feel like drawing out every single scenario I've run now but it's always the same results of either one getting cut off or because of a 2x2

You have to alternate (mostly) otherwise you will get 2x2, because there's 2 colors, and it's a 10x10

it's even, if you don't alternate you get squares

You were saying about alternating?

That's a solution to the first puzzle.

I'm not talking about the first puzzle

This only applies for the second

It's because of the starting positions

Right, but why doesn't your own solution apply to the first?

You can't have black in the far left

9:19 PM

You claim that the black and white HAVE to alternate.

But why doesn't it HAVE to alternate in the first puzzle?

because of the starting positions

But why does the starting position FORCE the black and white to alternate?

because otherwise you'll cut off one, or end up with squares

But it's not immediately obvious that that MUST happen.

but granted it's got no solution

9:22 PM

You haven't proven that.

Okay well after multiple attempts at anything other than that fails

Yeah, but you haven't checked every single possibility of 2^98 squares.

Unless you do that, saying "I tried many things and none of them worked" is not a proof that there are no solutions. Only that you've not stumbled upon any.

At this point, I'm very doubtful that you've ever even done a Sudoku.

Or at least the first bit so white can get out must be done

That is beautiful!

@humn but probably still wrong and mock worthy

riddle word english word-problem science

9:25 PM

That's not the only way that white could get out.

Sphinx

0

Q: Please help Solve!

Retrospectively, Professor Siwel did Quite well with his follow-up representation, Currently utilized by generation X. The first clue given was: "A clue, the only uppercase letters that you need to take note of is Professor Siwel. He is a real person." Second Clue: Professor lewis invented a di...

yes at least the first bit

that's the minimal first bit

What do you mean by "the first bit"?

Stop using nebulous phrases that could refer to absolutely anything, and start using specific language.

the first 3 as to avoid a white square in upper left

What are "the first 3"?

There's no ordering on these cells.

9:26 PM

the first 3 squares in the first column.

If you meant "row 1 column 1", then say "row 1 column 1". Don't say "that cell".

(... never mind, time for a walk ...)

It's quite implied but okay.

And why not this?

Or something similar?

because one of the two will get cut off

9:28 PM

"It's quite implied"

TO YOU that is! I can't read your mind, so stop assuming that I can!

And what's your justification for making the statement "because one of the two will get cut off"?

You keep making all these wild leaps in your proof that simply aren't justified.

you can't get both of those top two lines back to their respective circles without cutting one off or creating a square

Yes, this case might not work, but that doesn't mean that the top left circle HAS to be white.

Look, go work on the full proof, and make sure that every step is fully justified. THEN present it as an answer.

I'm still not writing up a full proof for it

Then don't come to me with these half-baked "proofs" that rest on assumptions that simply don't have to be true. Because that's just wasting both of our time.

I never said they were "proofs"

9:34 PM

Then what the hell are you trying to do?!

Go around

Q: Reach an antonym through a list of synonyms

What, eke out an answer without a proof? I won't be talking to you any more then.

Sphinx

0

Start with a word of your choosing and build a list of synonyms recursively, in which the last added word is a synonym of the previous one, so that we can progressively deviate from the initial word's meaning until we reach an antonym. A somewhat related example: $Good \rightarrow Benevolent \ri...

language word-property

Answered. Too easy.

30 mins ago, by humn

We're the badasses who take on anything with beads of sweat but not a drop of blood, just to spill ink.

^ That was for you, Cinders, wherever you are by now and whatever you name really is.

GentlePurpleRain

9:46 PM

Anyone made any progress on the CCCC?

I'm just sayin' the top left has to be white because each color must be able to get to each end of the grid to help fulfill the entire grid, cutting it off before hand makes it impossible.

We've been hinted it's a noun

Morgan G

@GentlePurpleRain Also that it is definitely &lit

@n_palum And I'm just saying that your conclusion isn't justified by your reasons.

Once again, your proof is equivalent to "P isn't equal to NP because of the way algorithms work".

But, P almost definitely isn't equal to NP

9:48 PM

Yes, but the statement "P isn't equal to NP because of the way algorithms work" isn't exactly a proof, is it?

"Because of the way algorithms work" is hardly justification for the statement "P isn't equal to NP".

If one of the colors cannot get from end to end, it will never work. The only way to accomplish that for white is to go top left to bottom left.

I'd call it a solid argument

> The only way to accomplish that for white is to go top left to bottom left.

That statement isn't justified. Please justify it or stop making such wild claims.

I don't see how it's all that wild

It's logical

No it's not. You haven't justified it.

But anyway, you're not even trying to prove things, so why am I even talking to you in the first place?

9:51 PM

I'm not drawing all the possibilities

And I'm not talking to you then.