(In reply to re: computer solution by ed bottemiller)

ed,
you noticed well re the construct of the diagram, however there was no misprint (unfortunately). Please read on.

Unfortunately our peer to peer reviews do not catch all of the hiccups in problems, and sometimes they can be quite probing.

While on vacation I responded to a message from Charlie.  I made adjustments which justified my solution, and similarly adjusted the HTML from an Excel spreadsheet which I had to recreate.  

As I look at my original HTML (and the spreadsheet which I sent to Charlie) I do see some gross errors.  Below 65 we 8 square numbers and 18 primes, 26 numbers in total (I note that in tidying this response you have also addressed the number 26).  The body text indicates a repetition of 2 squares which means that TWO primes (not one) must be removed.

If I could edit (and I can't) the left grid in the graphic with:

  19    1    7   16  49
  43    3    4    5   41
  61  64    2   17  49
  37  11  53   36  23
  31  25  29   59    9

it would still duplicate 49 but eliminate two primes, 13 and 47.  

That arrangement would still not invalidate my proposed solution.  


If the above array in no way invalidates Charlie's proposal I am quite comfortable with asking levik to adjust the body text and the cell data of the left grid.

I'll be advised but thanks for you alertness.

Posted by brianjn on 2010-09-29 06:51:39