well, to jump to the ending, i got the chiral pentominoes wrong at the outset (replaced ../xx/x.//.x/.x/.. with the non-chiral x./../..//xx/x./x.). i suspect this makes the problem considerably easier, since the pieces are a bit more regular.
i was able to solve this version!
one note: you gotta put a warning before a snipe so accurate :-)
overall, i am nervous about the tendency of these tales to create a myth of uniqueness. knowing that it’s solvable should make it easier, not harder! i feel similarly about the von Neumann fly train story: the correct lesson is “this is how good you should be at geometric series,” not—as often seems to be the implication—“give up now, mortal!”
i know, i know. bold words from someone who didn’t even solve the puzzle...
I read an anecdote about a nobel prize winner (maybe Nils Bohr?) who went on walks with his two sons and they played battleship against each other in their head, while he was the arbiter keeping both setups in his head. That always sounded impressive to me because it seems so off the cuff.
When I went on walks with my girlfriend and my roommate we used to play chess against each other. Also just in our heads each against each, so each playing two games at once. Despite this being much more complex than the battleship example, it doesn’t impress me much, because I know that this ability comes from playing lot’s of chess and is the norm in strong chess players.
My roommate could also remember long random strings within seconds, very impressive, but based on memo-techniques, i.e. learnable.
When I had dinner with a famous scientist, he mentioned something growing at x%. I said, ok, so it doubles every y years. He gave me a surprised look, but it’s just a trick (dividing log(2) by the growthrate gives the approximation of the doubling time).
Point is: It is hard to use anecdotes as evidence for unusual intelligence. People can learn many impressive seeming abilities. Everything loses luster once you know how the sausage is made.
inspired, i had a go at this.
well, to jump to the ending, i got the chiral pentominoes wrong at the outset (replaced ../xx/x.//.x/.x/.. with the non-chiral x./../..//xx/x./x.). i suspect this makes the problem considerably easier, since the pieces are a bit more regular.
i was able to solve this version!
one note: you gotta put a warning before a snipe so accurate :-)
overall, i am nervous about the tendency of these tales to create a myth of uniqueness. knowing that it’s solvable should make it easier, not harder! i feel similarly about the von Neumann fly train story: the correct lesson is “this is how good you should be at geometric series,” not—as often seems to be the implication—“give up now, mortal!”
i know, i know. bold words from someone who didn’t even solve the puzzle...
I read an anecdote about a nobel prize winner (maybe Nils Bohr?) who went on walks with his two sons and they played battleship against each other in their head, while he was the arbiter keeping both setups in his head. That always sounded impressive to me because it seems so off the cuff.
When I went on walks with my girlfriend and my roommate we used to play chess against each other. Also just in our heads each against each, so each playing two games at once. Despite this being much more complex than the battleship example, it doesn’t impress me much, because I know that this ability comes from playing lot’s of chess and is the norm in strong chess players.
My roommate could also remember long random strings within seconds, very impressive, but based on memo-techniques, i.e. learnable.
When I had dinner with a famous scientist, he mentioned something growing at x%. I said, ok, so it doubles every y years. He gave me a surprised look, but it’s just a trick (dividing log(2) by the growthrate gives the approximation of the doubling time).
Point is: It is hard to use anecdotes as evidence for unusual intelligence. People can learn many impressive seeming abilities. Everything loses luster once you know how the sausage is made.