Ben Braun

understood. I misunderstood that comment, then.

Puzzle noob here, I saw a comment in the riddle sandbox to the degree of "a hint should not be encrypted." Can anyone elaborate on this? I thought hints that are riddles themselves is tradition in puzzling.

yes that was posted, something about red having very consistent measurement intervals

I think it's one of the better answers floating around but the question asker didn't like it

yeah QA gave this as an answer

I like the concept of this puzzle and I think there's a lot of cool ways to do it

this puzzle makes me want to do another look alike

these new clarifications are weird

er no nevermind that won't do it

I suppose I should leave, f"" should leave and rejoin

I have to go, take care

These are for fun

Lighten up

You're requirements are needlessly strict

Fs answer can also not be verified exactly

This puzzle doesn't need to be uniquely solvable by a machine it's intended to be explored creatively

No the information is there a pattern of roughly multiples of 2.5. If you can observe a patten and its roughly a fit to your observation you can propose the answer

It's possible the actual pattern is multiples of 2.5 plus epsilon

The professor is observing a pattern and acting on that pattern. He's probably not wrong about the pattern.

Fair enough about the cat

Because?

I mean that's like a rebus puzzle someone posts a picture of a cat and you are saying 'we can't be sure that's a cat!"

Looks like F has an even better one

Occasms razor, and also again my answer was why the professor calls the student in, which is the values are multiples of 2.5, the processor determines this since it looks that way. I could have my answer have three sections, answer, why, and why that why, but that feels too pedantic

The professor is alleging that the values are exactly multiples of 2.5, his observation is based on them looking approximately to be multiples of 2.5. The meaning of the allegation changes if I put the word approximately in the answer.

I am alleging that in the place of the professor, and no the other two lines don't appear to have this property at all

Remember that the professor only needs probable cause to call in the student not smoking gun evidence so some approximation is fine

Because it is unnecessary

@question Looks like 2.5 to me.

No I just double checked. You may be falling for an optional illusion where the line dips down for a value and then spikes up and the line due to rendering issues doesnt ever actually touch the data point. Also fine there are enough points where the condition holds that the student is probably fabricating numbers.