This makes me sad. I hope he still sticks around.

I too am saddened by the leaving of a contributor. It is most unfortunate that a compromise as to rules/ettiquette appears to be not an option.
Two issues appear to be combined - the use of computers to solve problems by "brute force" and those with "early knowledge" due to the voting procedures having an unfair advantage.
My thoughts: Computer solutions can be helpful in determining a final destination - BUT - If the author/submitter of a problem asks for non-computer solutions those requests should be respected. In my limited Perplexus experience most postings of computer solutions indicate this in the subject heading.
I am yet to reach the stage where "early knowledge" becomes an issue. I have already decided that when (and if) this happens I will delay posting any solutions; part-solutions or hints until the problem has been fully available for an equal amount of time that it takes me to solve. eg If it takes me 3 hours to solve a problem I will not post until at least 3 hours after general publication.
This is just my personal approach and not meant as a criticism/suggestion for others.

I too am saddened by the loss of one of our strongest contributors. If he is gone, he will be sorely missed as evidenced by the huge drop in the queue.

Personally, I don't have a problem with computer solutions in general. I don't think that it stops people from solving problems their own way. It may stop them from posting their solution, since it then becomes redundant, but it doesn't mean that people don't enjoy solving the problems by hand. It's a difficult thing to measure.

Computers can provide an answer, and in the process occasionally, some of the insights needed to find it without a computer. We generally see three types of postings (not counting humorous banter): thoughts/insights/ideas, solutions, and solutions with explanation. Just posting a solution, whether found by computer or hand, can sometimes lead others to find the insights. This is a good thing.

I know there is some satisfaction in being the first to post a solution, but once one gets to the JM level, they're hopefully beyond that because it's a bit too easy, don't ya think?

I don't have a problem with computer solutions, especially when the solver puts "computer solution" in the Subject block. I appreciate it even more when they take the time to share their code with us. Programming isn't easy except for the most experienced and talented of us ("us" is actually fairly inaccurate, because I'm a lousy programmer, but I didn't want to say "them"). I don't see the need for any waiting period before a computer solution is posted, as long as it is advertised as a "computer solution". If other solvers don't want to see the computer solution until they have solved the problem in some other manner, we have the option not to view the comment. I second Percy's philosophy: "...people should do what they want and enjoy themselves, but try not to detract from other peoples' enjoyment."

goFish! I think that there are some in that forum who have their own perception of what they would to see Perplexus be.

Somewhat aside from methodology, those of us 'sit in judgement' really need to try to realise just why this site exists.

Levik has certainly provided a great forum for something of which he has a personal interest. In the FAQ he notes that if you object to annoying 'pop-ups' on your machine he can give you an annual subscription.

Levik's gift to us is not philanthropic, it is a business venture. Stifle all newcomers by whatever means we can devise may create our 'piece of heaven' but may mean that Levik does not see this as a lucrative means to provide a forum for his advertisers.

Let us all beware lest we kill "The Golden Goose".

What is a "truly great puzzle" Tristan - as you think of it? I have started a new thread and would be interested in yours (and others) opinions

Looking more carefully at the last few days, it seems that there was in fact some sort of goodbye. He said in pid 3914, "All I have to do is to lament hear this from you." after Charlie had posted one of his famous computer solutions. And I thought brianjn was just jumping to conclusions.

Looking at the situation, I think both PCB and Charlie were sort of pushing it. Surely, Charlie shouldn't mind waiting a day to post his solution (but going the other way, people shouldn't mind being second to Charlie's solution). At the very least, Charlie would have a bit of evidence to show that it wasn't the computer solution that had displaced analytical solutions.

On the flip side, PCB's problem is exactly the type of problem that is hundreds of times easier to do with a computer. PCB should have enough experience to recognize this. He should also realize and expect that some practical-minded people would go the easier way (not just Charlie). It may seem like cheating, but it should be respected as a very different method of solving things.

I think PCB might just be taking a break from perplexus.

There is still something to be learned from Sudoku though; if I had a fellow perplexus person, I would tell him to try it as well. Even if it's just a game of searching, isn't that what word searches are about?

You can certainly figure out how to solve things by knowing the answer first, but in some problems, part of finding out the solution is spoiled by the answer. This not only includes trick problems like Squares Probablility but other problems like A Most Unusual Evaluation.

Conan Doyle brought to us a level of problem solving which was not out there for the common people to address at his time.

Electronically, it is possible to confuse a computer reader, but ... like all DNA (physical and electronical) there is usually a 'paper trail' that those with knowledge can follow.

I suggest a simple caution here.

It is too easy, on this site at least, to determine who the person is behind a displayed username.

I need not take this much further, but I understand that my ISP must hold certain files for a period of time (Under Privacy Legisation I understand that it may be possible to resurrect, on a remote computer/server, certain files, not saved on my machine but sent from it, that may be used against me).

Enjoy the game, I know it works, but ... to where does it really lead?

brianjn,
The intent is not to confuse, but to entertain. When my old moniker was "borrowed" by another member (no doubt in response to my use of his user name in the puzzle just posted) I decided to "borrow" his name until he gave mine back. There's nothing malicious behind our actions. We are just having some fun. The fact that it is so easy to determine who is actually behind a displayed username is the only reason I felt comfortable doing this. But, just to make it clear no deception was intended, I added the "a-go-go" to the end.

However, some members are apparently uncomfortable with the game. Richard, for one, made this clear to me in a chatterbox post. Out of respect for him and other members, I have decided to return to my preferred username earlier than planned.

While some will accept computer generated solutions, in the field of logic, the programmer only has to make the associations that one would if using the ‘grey matter’. The programmer needs to do no more than set the computer to follow that train. The mind however needs to follow through those associations as well in the reasoning process. Paulo was asking for the puzzles he presented to be given the courtesy of reasoning from start to finish.

I agree that in the real world computers have a valid place to provide us with solutions, but here is a site that I thought was about logic and reasoning (sure you do that when create variables, loops etc for your program, but you are not personally getting into the essence of the problem).

Sorry about this. I've been experiencing "Timed Out" problems with Perplexus and been having to resubmit; seems like some of my posts have been queued which is frustrating.

In fact, the "solution" is how to solve the problem. Unless someone gives you a quiz with the exact questions of Self-Referential Aptituted Test, you won't get much out of just knowing the answers, but instead on how to solve the test.

Because so many of these tasks aren't unique in terms of their instructions (you would place the 20 pieces differently with a different piece layout) it is not important what the answer is, but rather how you figured it out.

Thanks Charlie, but I don't think that has really been the problem. I suspect that Much of it was to do with abnormal bandwidth loads being placed on my ISP; over the last 3 or 4 days we have been experiencing extreme temperatures (40+ C) in Victoria -south east state of Australia. Severe lightning storms resulted in wide spread bushfires.

I expect that much of the traffic via the ISP was due to people looking for fire and weather updates (at one stage there was a utility section of the site which temporarily unavailable because of wide spread demand).

Suffice to say too, I am not seeing that same problem today and I haven't done anything different with my logon procedure.

But thanks for the thought.

The two rules are exactly the same ones that are used to solve sudoku by hand: 1) Fill a box with a digit if no other digit can go there 2) Fill a box with a digit if the digit can go in no other box within the same row/column/3x3 square.

It is disappointing in the respect that advanced sudoku-solvers use so many more techniques to deduce solutions. The accomplishment of finding these techniques seems lessened by the fact that they were never necessary. It is interesting in the respect that it leads to more questions: Can all solvable sudoku puzzles be solved by this program? Can the program be made more efficient? But then, we are writing our own puzzle instead of solving the sudoku that was handed to us. The sudoku puzzles themselves become less interesting.