Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about using a computer program to solve a non-algorithm problem. I think it is better if the person can explain the basic thought process they used when making their program. For example, if there were some relationships that they noticed that simplified their program, that would be interesting to hear about.

I think in general, I am not anti-computer programs, anti-spreadsheet solutions, I am simply Pro-Explanation. Some things I do find disappointing are when people go online to find the complete answer, or if they give the answer without the solution which is their thought process (ex: Whodunit). Again, this falls inline with not explaining a thought process.

It doesn't bother me if someone goes online to find a known geometric relationship, or a known equation for a partial sum, because they are just using that information as tools in their own original thought process.

Those are my thoughts =)

I always think of the definition of Brute Force as being "I will blindly try every scenario until I find one that solves the problem."

But if a person goes "Well, I can narrow it down to one of these possibilities (that is much less than all the possibilities) using the explained logic, and then I can go through each of them to see which works," is that Brute Force? I don't think so, but others might.

If someone used logic to narrow down the possibilities (and explained it) and then used a computer to check each of the remaining possibilities, is that Brute Force? Is that an acceptable use of a computer program.

I probably sound like I'm trying to keep computer programs in =) I actually haven't used one to solve any Flooble problems myself (though I've used Excel), so I am not defending computer solutions out of personal habits =)

I would agree with Gamer's description... but it is imprecise in that the definition is a matter of degree. How many possibilities do you have to have... or how much time must one spend before it is "brute force"?

And if someone is faster than another "by hand", then is there a different cut-off before it becomes "brute force".

Allow me to offer another description:
Brute force: strictly defining the "solution domain" (perhaps after narrowing it down somewhat) and iterating through all the points therein, evaluating each as a possible solution.

As for that being "good" or "bad" well... that's an opinion, a value judgement.
_______________________________________________________

To address Bryan's initial point:

Sometimes the best problems are those that don't lend themselves to brute force. Maybe that's why some geometry and probability problems seem to be well received on Perplexus. Of course, I've seen a few algorithm/computer only problems that were well received as well.

If someone used logic to narrow down the possibilities (and explained it) and then used a computer to check each of the remaining possibilities, is that Brute Force? Is that an acceptable use of a computer program.

Actually this scenario happens in professional mathematics. For example, the proof for the Four Color Theorem used a computer algorithm to check a few hundred discreet cases.

Without checking the validity of the solution, the method seems logical, rather than brute force-ical. In this question, a brute force solution would have checked hundreds of possibilities, your method reduced the set of possibilities substantially before any outcome had to be tested.

Brian Smith said:
Actually this scenario happens in professional mathematics. For example, the proof for the Four Color Theorem used a computer algorithm to check a few hundred discreet cases.

I'd be shocked if topologists ever got away with that... a ew hundred cases does not show anything valuable in theoretical math. "It's intuitive, it works a few hundred times, and no one has provided a counterexample" is not a proof.

(Perhaps I should have used "homophone" rather than "homonym". ;-)