The use of lice combs
 

[quote](But it is no longer a 'trick' question.)[/quote]

Those with lice combs should exit this forum.


Hey, folks. Let's be reasonable. The "trick" to the "not-twins" puzzle was that multiple births are not necessarily "twins", but could include a larger number of siblings.

Let's drop it at that and come up with a new teaser rather than arguing about nuances that are, at best, "stretching the point".

Similarly, the discussion about the forage area for the cow tethered to the silo diverged fron the original assumptions to a point that the discussion became meaningless.

Re: The use of lice combs
 

[quote="Wackerbarth"]Similarly, the discussion about the forage area for the cow tethered to the silo diverged fron the original assumptions to a point that the discussion became meaningless.[/quote]

I agree! When I post to other puzzle groups, I get tired of people constantly coming up with meaningless combacks on problems, such as not taking relativity into account or the curvature of the Earth. Back when I was in school, such responses would have been considered "smartalic" and would have resulted in an immediate "F" grade on a test.

Re: The use of lice combs
 

[quote="Gary Edstrom"]I agree! When I post to other puzzle groups, I get tired of people constantly coming up with meaningless combacks on problems, such as not taking relativity into account or the curvature of the Earth. Back when I was in school, such responses would have been considered "smartalic" and would have resulted in an immediate "F" grade on a test.[/quote]
I have to disagree. I don't think this is like most other puzzle groups. First off, we are a GIMPS forum and as such tend to attract a certain group of people due to our interest in primes. The Puzzle forum is for fun, but let's face it, a number of us don't mind being called geeks, if not geek, then mathematician, scientist, techie, hobbyist, curious, etc.

I like most of the details presented as it expands a part of that puzzle. The curvature of the earth didn't come across as "smartalic" to me (it may have been, but I took it as examining another aspect I would have otherwise not considered) and when I asked about the curve of the cow chain it gave me a better understanding of the simple things around us like the curve of cables stretched between telephone poles.

What I think of as a "smartalic" response is a) bad humor, or b) something that doesn't contribute to a more detailed explaination or point of view.

And if everything you mentioned is in fact a smartalic response, then maybe it is all a bunch of drivel and for whatever reason some/most of it appeals to me. :cool:

Your point is good to consider being as we are growing and getting more and more diverse. But overall, I'd have to say this forum's members are a cut above the average forums I see out there (I hope that didn't come acress as arrogant; it wasn't meant to).

I'd like to offer a suggestion: that the moderato(s) be PM'd and ask them to (re)move what seems to be non-relavant content.

I agree with Nomadicus. I usually find the diversions, tangents, and out-of-the-box thinking to be more interesting than the basic puzzles.

Just my $0.02.

[quote="dswanson"]I agree with Nomadicus. I usually find the diversions, tangents, and out-of-the-box thinking to be more interesting than the basic puzzles.

Just my $0.02.[/quote]

<aol>Me too</aol>

Most of the posted puzzles I've seen before and can answer them instantly. I try not to post the answers out of consideration to other readers, so I'm left with the alternatives of not responding or of exploring some twist of which, perhaps, the poster hadn't thought.

From the other point of view, that of reader rather than poster, I enjoy seeing the consequences of other contributors' thought processes. Some of the responses are quite novel and give [i]me[/i] something to think about.


Paul

Me too! :bounce:

But I trust Wackerbarth enough to go along with whatever he thinks is best...

I just want to learn as much as I can!

Just my .02 Euro:

I have to agree with Wackerbarth that some people seem to overdo it a little. Maybe the original author should edit the subject of the post and add a DONE when the original question is answered so that the people who just like the puzzle know that it is over and the people who like to "lice-comb" can do that without boring others.

Or we need one

"mathematics of quantum neutrino fields"-puzzles section

and one

"mathematics of wantin burrito meals"-puzzles section

(I hope the non-futurama-watching people get my point)

Matthes

My $0.02 worth,

I agree that most puzzles won't last very long under our combined attention. So if we are limited to no-spoiler posts strictly discussing the path from the question to the answer, then a well defined puzzle will have very few posts. Probably more PM's than posts. Then what is the point of putting them on a [b]forum[/b]? This [b]is [/b]a forum after all. Personally, I'm not interested in a dry numbered list of puzzles and answers. I'm interested in discussion, in debate.

The life of a puzzle should be:
1. The posting of the problem.
2. An exchange of posts with the author clarifying the conditions of the puzzle.
3. A debate by the readers about the validity of various approaches, moderated by the author.
4. A posting of the answer when the author feels the readers have reached consensus or been stumped.
5. A continued debate until readers are no longer interested.

If you look back at previous puzzles, you'll see how much overlap there is between these stages - this is a good thing, I'm not suggesting they are distinct, or should be.

If phase 5 irritates enough people, then perhaps when the official answer is posted, as Matthes suggests, if the Title of the puzzle can be edited by the author or the moderator, then the word "Done" or "Solved" could be appended to it.

Or, if the Puzzles forum can be split with a divider, like the main index page, then finished puzzles could be moved to the Solved section.

What we don't want is to force the discussion to move to one of the other forums. Fragmented topics are much worse than long wandering ones.

Okay, so this is more like $0.04. :redface:

OK, I'll jump back in with some personal ideas.

I created the original comment in this thread only because I felt that some particular "puzzle" threads had gottten far afield from the original puzzle.

I like the suggestion of two parts to the puzzle forum, and if xyzzy can set it up, I'm sure that Mattes and I can move "completed" puzzles to the alternate subforum. However, I'm not really sure that that is necessary. I know that I, personally, have a mental picture of the status of each puzzle. I base my viewing order on my perception of the relevance of the discussion. Those which have "gone astray" are the last that I review.

Fortunately, we have never had any instance, in the Puzzle forum, where a moderator needed to stop a discussion because of inappropriate language or personal attacks. I trust that we are all "adult" enough (and I recognize that some of the readers, although they are not yet that old, are behaving in an adult manner) to make such censorship unnecessary.

As to staying "on topic", I was clearly "voted down". As a result, I have quit attempting to intervene in any discussions directly. However, I have noticed that my actions have led to a voluntary action on the part of the presenters in providing a clearer declaration of the status of their topic.

I also appreciate that there appears to be a greater consideration on the part of the participants to avoid "spoiling" a puzzle too soon. Being a part of this community will take some adjustment. I know that I, and probably others, were solving these puzzles long before some of you were born. I have seen a number of these puzzles before. That does not mean that they are inappropriate. Some of the tangential discussions can even cause me to learn something new.

However, I consider that this forum needs to be a learning experience, both for the readers and for the presenters. Reasonable critique of the presentation of the problem is appropriate. It both clarifies the problem for the reader attempting to solve the puzzle and helps the presenter improve his statement of the problem.

But when the discussion gets off into areas that the presenter has clearly excluded, I feel that it distracts from the original thread. Perhaps it would be better to start a separate thread for those new discussions. I see nothing wrong with the idea of spinning off multiple threads as the focus changes.

And I will continue to insist that the discussions remain related to (preferably) mathematics or physical sciences.

Oh great! I just took another tangent [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/viewtopic.php?p=10805#10805]here[/url].
These things really peak my curiosity so I don't appologive for that. But for the sake of clarity, I could start another thread. I rather not, because the history of a thread can be fascinating in and of itself (well, if a bunch of drivel doesn't get entered into it -- and I guess that's what we are discussing).

[quote="Maybeso"]My $0.02 worth,
<snip>
What we don't want is to force the discussion to move to one of the other forums. Fragmented topics are much worse than long wandering ones.

Okay, so this is more like $0.04. :redface:[/quote]

Very good suggestions. I don't happen to agree about fragmentation vs wandering. I happen to think that the Title should reflect the content.

I don't think it is of any value to have a discussion of Aunt Lizzie's illness under a headline "Sox Beat the Cardinals" just because Joe went to the game and has a girfriend, Sally, who is best friends with Sue, whose mother, Amy, had to spend the night watching the kids because her brother, Tom, was at the hospital with his sick wife.