A Quick Puzzle to Test Your Problem Solving • Hacker News Board

Re: A Quick Puzzle to Test Your Problem Solving

#161

Post by perlgeek » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 6:59 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #82

diminishedprime wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what I was thinking. I (sometimes) follow TDD, and I applied it to this problem. I made sure to include negatives, 0, positives, and include primes here or there to help avoid issues with multiplication/exponentiation. After a few of these, I felt pretty confident that the rule was simple.

My process was: [3 5 7] [7 5 3] [8 4 2] [5 7 3] [1 2 3] [1 1 1] [0 1 2] At that point I could've done some more to be really certain, but felt confident enough and guessed (correctly).

So you limited yourself to non-negative integers, and had no idea what negative numbers or fractions would do.

Re: A Quick Puzzle to Test Your Problem Solving

#162

Post by 16bytes » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 6:59 PM UTC

graycat wrote: post #90

Typical NYT psycho-babble: I got the right answer but with several Yes answers and also several No answers and without their confirmation bias and other nonsense. And, I do know about "problem solving", thank you, with some of my solutions responsible for my peer-reviewed published papers and Ph.D. in some STEM work at a world class research university. Sorry, NYT: I don't regard your organization as able to "test" "…

Have you considered that you missed the point entirely?

It's hard to see how you consider this an insult and not an interesting "live" experimental result.

"Test your problem solving skills" is merely the experimental set-up and the purpose isn't to actually measure problem solving skill, but rather to demonstrate confirmation bias on a population.

Your alligator tears and perceived insult add nothing to the conversation.

Re: A Quick Puzzle to Test Your Problem Solving

#163

Post by JFoss117 » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:00 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #95

pitchups wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intersting that the split of correct/wrong answers from the HN crowd is 78%/22% - the exact opposite of the general population : 22% / 78%! The HN community does think different :)

Or at least, the portion of the HN community who reported their results, reported that they think different. :-)

Yep, I'd guess this is a massive bias. The people who get it right are much more apt to report and show how smart they are

Re: A Quick Puzzle to Test Your Problem Solving

#164

Post by jws » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:02 PM UTC

jonkiddy wrote: post #124

ubernostrum wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My process was: [3 5 7] [7 5 3] [8 4 2] [5 7 3] [1 2 3] [1 1 1] [0 1 2] At that point I could've done some more to be really certain, but felt confident enough and guessed (correctly).

[16 32 64] [0 0 0] [1 2 3] [3 2 1] [-1 0 1] [3 5 7] [-2 -1 0] [111 54231 9999999999999999999999] At that point, I correctly answered the question.

Similar to mine, but we both actually failed. Real numbers are accepted and we did not test that.

Re: A Quick Puzzle to Test Your Problem Solving

#165

Post by perlgeek » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:03 PM UTC

yequalsx wrote: post #136

Math person here. I'm curious to know if anyone used decimal numbers in their tests and if negative numbers were used. The rule is increasing real numbers and one can guess that the rule is increasing numbers without realizing this includes all real numbers and not just integers. In addition to getting it right did you use an exhaustive set of tests?

Yes and yes. It wouldn't activate the "check" button with complex numbers.

Re: A Quick Puzzle to Test Your Problem Solving

#166

Post by DougBTX » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:11 PM UTC

Kenji wrote: post #26

"We’ve chosen a rule that some sequences of three numbers obey — and some do not. Your job is to guess what the rule is." My mistake was to assume that choosing the first number uniquely defines the next ones in the sequence. Since, you know, like all the sequence puzzles I've seen before worked like that, and I didn't read it rigorously enough. Oh, by the way, the doubling thing is wrong if you use negative numbers…

> It's trivially easy to fool the user into finding a wrong rule.

While that's true, the real thing being tested is the user's readiness to prove themselves wrong.

Re: A Quick Puzzle to Test Your Problem Solving

#167

Post by Retra » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:13 PM UTC

crgt wrote: post #148

Retra wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it should be "a puzzle many people already know the answer to" in which case the conclusion and results are already obviously biased. I was able to solve the puzzle without testing any numbers at all. Which really skews the relevance of "only nine percent of people saw three 'no's before answering."

You mean you correctly guessed without testing at all - and got lucky. I'm not sure this is the same thing as 'solving' it.

I "got lucky" in the sense that my experiences have primed me to recognize that particular kind of question. If the article had actually modified the question framing at all, rather than just copying the existing one, it maybe wouldn't have worked that way.

It's the same reaction I have to the Monte Hall problem: I don't have to think or be clever to get the right answer. So naturally you couldn't effectively teach me anything by simply posing the question, and any information you collect by doing so won't accurately reflect what I learn or how well I think. You'd just be testing topical familiarity.

Re: A Quick Puzzle to Test Your Problem Solving

#168

Post by tptacek » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:23 PM UTC

joezydeco wrote: post #120

diminishedprime wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what I was thinking. I (sometimes) follow TDD, and I applied it to this problem. I made sure to include negatives, 0, positives, and include primes here or there to help avoid issues with multiplication/exponentiation. After a few of these, I felt pretty confident that the rule was simple.

Did you try floating point numbers? I didn't see anything in the text that said integers only.

I tried floating point numbers. Also, at 28 decimal places, the test breaks; it's not arbitrary precision. So, technically, the answer isn't simply "any ascending sequence of numbers".

Re: A Quick Puzzle to Test Your Problem Solving

#169

Post by nsxwolf » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:24 PM UTC

So, am I supposed to feel bad if I assumed it was some tricky, hard to figure out function? It just reminded me of those questions on the ACT or whatever and I froze up and got frustrated.

Am I a dim bulb?

Re: A Quick Puzzle to Test Your Problem Solving

#170

Post by profinger » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 7:26 PM UTC

jonkiddy wrote: post #124

ubernostrum wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My process was: [3 5 7] [7 5 3] [8 4 2] [5 7 3] [1 2 3] [1 1 1] [0 1 2] At that point I could've done some more to be really certain, but felt confident enough and guessed (correctly).

[16 32 64] [0 0 0] [1 2 3] [3 2 1] [-1 0 1] [3 5 7] [-2 -1 0] [111 54231 9999999999999999999999] At that point, I correctly answered the question.

I did this plus also testing [1 1.5 2]