We've already removed the magic from a 3x3 magic square. Recently, one of our 4x4 magic squares was scrambled in an earthquake and I need your help to reactivate it's magic:
Objective
Your objective is simple, rearrange the square so that it becomes a valid 4x4 magic square once more:
How to Pl...
@Avi not to everyone; solving it with a computer is fun for those passionate about development. I that particular case, I see no reason for a computer based answer to any less satisfactory than an answer providing a mathematical explanation. So long as the answer provides an explanation as to how they solved the problem, I think it's acceptable either way.
I completely understand how others wouldn't feel satisfaction with such an answer though.
With that in mind, I still believe that it's the responsibility of the question's author to point out that a computer solution will be considered invalid in cases like that one.
As pointed out in earlier discussions, there are specific tags where computer solutions should be avoided, but I don't think optimization, number theory, and mathematics (in general) tags fall under that umbrella without the no computers tag.
I could be wrong, but that's just my mindset on it
@Tacoタコス Maybe we could look at this from another angle. There is generally a reason that professors and teachers will ask you to "show work" when solving math problems - because anybody can plug math into a computer, and anybody can copy-paste a problem into Wolfram Alpha, but not everybody can write a detailed and logical solve path to explain to other people how they did it. The latter teaching and explanation factor is what is valued on Puzzling SE.
Because we can't really have "definitive answers" on Puzzling SE like other Stack Exchange sites, we substitute that idea by having explanations and solve paths, even in cases where you could just plug it into Wolfram and post the answer in 10 seconds.
@Sciborg I understand that, and inferred that from your prior statements. I think what I'm trying to say is that if I write code to solve a problem, and explain what I did, then does that not meet that same requirement? Even if it's not a rigorous mathematical explanation? I simply explained a different way to accomplish the same goal at that point.
@Sciborg likely an extreme example there, but wouldn't something so simple be considered as off-topic here anyways?
I'm not going to post a bunch of code and say "this code solved your Nurikabe" if I expect future readers to learn how to solve the puzzle from that explanation. They won't be able to learn if they are not proficient in code.
Maybe if you explained it in a detailed enough way, but even then it's in poor taste.
@Sciborg well I'm not saying to simply post a snippet with your answer though; take this answer for one example.
It's not an accepted answer, but instead compliments a mathematical answer with brute force, and explains the thinking behind building it.
I'm trying to find my more recent one
1 sec
This one is a bad example, but is more recent. In that one I didn't explain the code behind it due to lack of time on my part; however, it's now on my to-do list tomorrow to come back and explain what I did to get there.
Generally it's more acceptable if the computer is doing a limited amount of grindwork
where that doesn't invalidate the core part of the puzzle
i.e., enumerating all numbers between 1 and 81 could be done with a computer
but reasoning about those numbers
should be done by the human
moreover, it should be the case that a computer program taking the same approach would be (at least mildly) unsuccessful or unperformant without the logical steps given
And I want to reiterate that the teaching and knowledge is what is valued on Puzzling, the ability to make an answer future-safe and accessible for readers who want to learn. It shouldn't require a programming degree to understand how someone arrived at an answer on Puzzling. I know as tech-savvy people we tend to take it for granted that everyone understands how we think, but that's not always the case and we have to keep in mind that not everybody "gets" code, or wants to.
Teaching others is very highly valued here, I guess that's the point I'm trying to push when I show concern about people making their answers not accessible to everyone (i.e. by making them full of code).
Again, I'm a code person so I totally get how it's easy to forget not everyone thinks like we do. But it's important to have that little self-correcting voice saying "could I expect somebody else to fully understand this given what I've written?"
I do appreciate the idea of having a tag specifically for "problems you can solve with computers," although I worry that might edge into Code Golf territory.
Their whole thing is sort of "solving problems with computers."
Might be something to run by as a Meta post. I guess I'm on the fence about whether that's in-scope, or whether it steps on Code Golf territory, but Deus and other longer-term users can weigh in on that better than me.
That's fair, I can see what you're going for. I guess you'd have to see if it's something other users cotton on with - tag creation is not usually my rodeo.
i was too excited this morning when i saw 936 rep... so close to 1000 now... i stilll remember 2 weeks ago when i talked to bobble about 2000rep, and now im halfway there.
when you open puzzlink to see deusovi has puzzles there
I had no idea how much information to give for this puzzle, so I decided to start with none! I'll add hints if enough time passes / people are looking for direction.
@Avi i give up on the magic square, and i am now actively thinking about your candy conundrum. However, the pointer you gave me is a bit obvious... don't you think?
hunger is my stock in trade - Stevo, 7pm with no dinner
following 4 by 4 magic square and candy conundrum :)
and after dinner= laptop closing time... so... i think i should get showering first
bye! (for 25mins)
good luck Stiv!
when you are so excited that you refresh the sudoku page that you were doing accidentally instead of the puzzle. You get frustrated and refresh the nurikabe. Then you get angry
We've already removed the magic from a 3x3 magic square. Recently, one of our 4x4 magic squares was scrambled in an earthquake and I need your help to reactivate it's magic:
Objective
Your objective is simple, rearrange the square so that it becomes a valid 4x4 magic square once more:
How to Pl...
The answer is:
Here's the intuition:
Finally, here's
I had no idea how much information to give for this puzzle, so I decided to start with none! I'll add hints if enough time passes / people are looking for direction.
