Test Your Problem-Solving Ability

[CaptUSA]

Go here and try to figure out the rule: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/03/upshot/a-quick-puzzle-to-test-your-problem-solving.html?WT.mc_id=2015-KWP-AUD_DEV&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=AUDDEVREMARK&kwp_0=22769&kwp_4=168396&kwp_1=167199&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

Don't give it away, but tell us if you figured out the rule or not.

Could be very interesting...

[Suzanimal]

Figured it out in a few seconds.:)

Never mind, I was wrong.:o I thought because I got YES! I had figured out the rule but after I filled out my explanation, I learned differently.

[timosman]

This is in U.S. Political News ? :confused:

[phill4paul]

First try.

[staerker]

First try as well.

[EBounding]

yay i won


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhrfhjLd9e4

[CaptUSA]

This is in U.S. Political News ? :confused:

Yes. There is a purpose to this. Maybe you should read the subsequent article.

[CaptUSA]

First try.

How many times did you test your answer before submitting it?

[timosman]

Yes. There is a purpose to this. Maybe you should read the subsequent article.

What subsequent article ? The test ? Are you trying to make money off of people's clicks by including a whole bunch of ad tracking info in the url ?

[Suzanimal]

What subsequent article ? The test ? Are you trying to make money off of people's clicks by including a whole bunch of ad tracking info in the url ?

After you fill in what your think the rule is or click just show me the answer, there's a very interesting article. :)

[CaptUSA]

What subsequent article ? The test ? Are you trying to make money off of people's clicks by including a whole bunch of ad tracking info in the url ?What the hell are you talking about?! Try reading a little...


Government Policy

In this exercise, the overwhelming majority of readers gravitated toward confirming their theory rather than trying to disprove it. A version of this same problem compromised the Obama administration’s and Federal Reserve’s (mostly successful) response to the financial crisis. They were too eager to find “green shoots” of economic recovery that would suggest that the answer to the big question in their minds was, just as they hoped and believed: “Yes, the crisis response is aggressive enough, and it’s working.” More damaging was the approach that President George W. Bush’s administration, and others, took toward trying to determine whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction a decade ago — and how the Iraqi people would react to an invasion. Vice President Dick Cheney predicted in 2003, “We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.”

It's about confirmation bias. I was checking to see if the people in this forum beat the averages. I suspect that we would. But perhaps not you.

[CaptUSA]

Figured it out in a few seconds.:)

Never mind, I was wrong.:o I thought because I got YES! I had figured out the rule but after I filled out my explanation, I learned differently.This is exactly the point. And it's why it's so hard to convince someone that they're wrong - everything they're seeing is telling them they're right.

[EBounding]

How many times did you test your answer before submitting it?

I did seven or eight tests.

[Suzanimal]

This is exactly the point. And it's why it's so hard to convince someone that they're wrong - everything they're seeing is telling them they're right.

Yep, from now on I'll try harder to prove myself wrong. I kept getting yeses and figured I knew the rule but, obviously, I was wrong. I learned something there, I hope people take the time to find out if they are really right or just taking the yeses and assuming they are - like I did.:o

[Zippyjuan]

Not really sure it shows confirmation bias. It really shows that in this case, the simplest solution was the one they wanted. If you come it as a math problem you look for a more complex solution. I first went with the more difficult alternatives but quickly went with simple.

Most real- world problems do not have simple solution. Confirmation bias is a way to try to simplify complex things.

[Suzanimal]

Not really sure it shows confirmation bias. It really shows that in this case, the simplest solution was the one they wanted. If you come it as a math problem you look for a more complex solution. I first went with the more difficult alternatives but quickly went with simple.

I think it did in my case. I quit thinking about other alternatives as soon as I saw a yes. I did it a few more times but I didn't test what I had decided the rule already was.

[EBounding]

Not really sure it shows confirmation bias. It really shows that in this case, the simplest solution was the one they wanted. If you come it as a math problem you look for a more complex solution. I first went with the more difficult alternatives but quickly went with simple.

Most real- world problems do not have simple solution. Confirmation bias is a way to try to simplify complex things.


So did you "pass"? :p

[Zippyjuan]

I made one "incorrect" series of numbers before knowing what it was.

[CaptUSA]

So did you "pass"? :p

Zippy doesn't like simple math. He's a Keynesian. Zippy's rule:

"Every time the fed multiplies the number, the aggregate wealth of the nation increases due to spurred economic demand. Therefore, the first number was bad since is wasn't moving in the direction I wanted it to go - so each step of the problem must be increased at an ever-increasing exponential rate. And that's the way I like it."

;)

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/AFc8L2w.png

[timosman]

What the hell are you talking about?!

You could have provided a simpler link - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/03/upshot/a-quick-puzzle-to-test-your-problem-solving.html - I hate when people do not clean urls and leave the tracking code in them.


It's about confirmation bias. I was checking to see if the people in this forum beat the averages. I suspect that we would. But perhaps not you.

Yeah, I saw the test a few weeks ago but I clicked give me the answer on the 3rd try as it was getting boring. Confirmation bias is simply naivety.

[fisharmor]

I found a rule that worked. It's the same rule most other math-literate people found, and it's true, some confirmation bias was in play there.
That doesn't make my rule invalid.
My rule was simply a subset of the actual rule.

You all can scream "confirmation bias" all you want, but the sad fact of the matter is I didn't go looking for yet another reason why the state is evil and should be abolished. Most of you know I'm into that, and a few of you will still scream "confirmation bias".

But the reality is this: in the absence of a state, I would be right in guessing the answer to that problem. I would start a business or share that knowledge freely, and many people would benefit from it.

When someone else came along and figured out that we were all operating under a false assumption and that there is actually a much less restrictive rule, then without fanfare, the world would reject the original assumption, pick up with the new data, and continue on - and many people would benefit from it even more.

It is only when you inject the state into this that problems arise. That's when you get men with guns paying midnight visits to the people who rightly claim that the assumptions are all wrong. It has nothing to do with being told "no" - it has everything to do with the fact that they have an option when they hear "no". They can take up billy clubs and crack your fucking skull until you finally admit that the tiny subset of the truth they erroneously cling to is the beginning and the end of truth.

[Lindsey]

I feel stupid right now, but I don't get it:

http://www.msrecycle.com/Uploads/NYtimes.png

When I click show me the answer, the button isn't working either. :confused:

[angelatc]

How many times did you test your answer before submitting it?

I got it straight away, I did 3 correct, then 2 incorrect to test the theory before moving onto the answer.

[TheGrinch]

It was an interesting article on how our perceptions create reality. Not really groundbreaking, but interesting to think about for sure.

But to tell me its because of my confirmation bias or "incorrect assumption" that I was led to believe that a "problem solving" exercise was going to be more relevant than a dumb problem only useful to little kids learning the order of numbers. Get the fuck out.

They didn't prove confirmation bias, they proved the gullibility of everyone who would have never thought that their problem exercise was going to be a useless red herring for a child's problem that can barely be considered a mathematical or a "problem".

Apparently the lesson here is to never trust quizzes.

[timosman]

I am not naive, I just have a confirmation bias.

http://www2.fairmontstate.edu/users/ffidura/cogpsy/wason.jpg

[Occam's Banana]

I started out with the "correct" rule. (I only tested it twice - first with 1-2-3 and then with 5-27-31.)

[Ronin Truth]

Got it.

"The best design is the simplest one that works." -- Albert Einstein

[Suzanimal]

Am I the only one who got it wrong?:(:o

[Ronin Truth]

Am I the only one who got it wrong?:(:o

No, you are the only that's posted that they got it wrong. ;) :D

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/xfNX3BP.jpg

[timosman]

Am I the only one who got it wrong?:(:o

Yes, you are. You were not supposed to tell us. Look how smart everybody else is :D

Btw, is anybody going to take a stab at the problem from post #26 ? Or should I start another thread ?

[Ronin Truth]

Yes, you are. You were not supposed to tell us. Look how smart everybody else is :D

Btw, is anybody going to take a stab at the problem from post #26 ? Or should I start another thread ?

New thread. (Did I get that one right too?:D)

[CPUd]

I would turn over all those mofos and still not be sure the rule is true. (ETA) in the general case, like if they were part of a larger set. But for just those 4 cards, I could confirm true or false by turning them all over.

[timosman]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?479273-Test-your-naivet%E9-aka-confirmation-bias

[brandon]

Pretty simple process. Experiment, Develop a theory and then try to disprove it.

I assumed it was a doubling, then disproved it. Next theory was "there is no pattern". Tried a couple sequences and saw decreasing ones were not valid.

Next theory, it had to be increasing. Granted I couldn't test infinite patterns which is what you'd need to do to actually prove it, but I tested a few and decided I has enough evidence to go with it being an increasing pattern.

[Ronin Truth]

http://i.imgur.com/xfNX3BP.jpg

Perhaps the piece of ham is merely a covering treatment for a rare skin condition underneath. ;)

[Occam's Banana]

Btw, is anybody going to take a stab at the problem from post #26 ? Or should I start another thread ?

The answer to that one is "E" and "7."
(The "E" card must have an even number on the other side, and the "7" card must not have a vowel on the other side.)

There was another thread a while back that presented the very same problem (in terms colors and numbers):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?475327-From-Tom-Wood-s-FB-page-The-Simple-Logic-Puzzle-That-Shows-How-Illogical-People-Are

[CPUd]

How do you know there will not be an 'A' on the other side of the '7' ?

[helmuth_hubener]

Timosman: 2.

And it is not the two that Occam's Banana mentioned.

On the other puzzle: Those of you who thought you were right, were wrong.

If you were right, then this sequence would follow the rule:
121234323432343434343234324234
121234323432343434343234324235
121234323432343434343234324236

[helmuth_hubener]

Here's a particularly interesting pair:

1234567890123456.123
1234567890123456.223
1234567890123456.323

and

1234567890123456.123
1234567890123456.223
1234567890123456.423

[CPUd]

LOLOverflow

[Occam's Banana]

How do you know there will not be an 'A' on the other side of the '7' ? You don't. That's why you have to check it. If there's an "A" on the other side of it, then the rule is not true.

[helmuth_hubener]

And it is not the two that Occam's Banana mentioned.

But, now it is. ;)

[Occam's Banana]

But, now it is. ;)

:D I mistyped it. :o

I wouldn't have noticed if I hadn't gone back to add the parenthetical explanation.

[helmuth_hubener]

"When you think you know the rule, describe it in words below":

Something related to the number incrementing by a minimum amount vs. the previous number AND also the total set incrementing by a certain minimum amount, that is, from the 1st all the way to the 3rd. The minimum is in terms of a fraction of the total number size whatever that number is, not an absolute value.

The minimum is:

Number 2 / Number 1 must be greater than or equal to: 1.0000000000000001 (16 digits, of course)

No, scratch that, it works for 1234567890123456.1255 / 1234567890123456.123, which is less.
Also notably odd, it does not work for 12345678901234561255 / 12345678901234561230 (same thing but without a decimal point).

Well, I can't even figure out the Number 2-to-Number 1 rule, so forget the Number 3-to-Number 1 rule.

But I'm pretty sure there's a rule. That is, there is a hard and fast rule which can in fact be described, and has been described, to the computers involved. The alternative (or at least one alternative) is that there's a human on the other side manually answering yes or no based on a process that may or may not be perfectly based on an unchanging rule. I base this (being pretty sure there's a rule) simply on an empirical knowledge of the practicalities involved. In theory, there could be a human, or any number of other possibilities that would mean there is actually no rule.

Am I weird that when confronted with a problem or puzzle I entertain as one logical possibility that the entire question and its premise may be a lie?

[CPUd]

"When you think you know the rule, describe it in words below":

Something related to the number incrementing by a minimum amount vs. the previous number AND also the total set incrementing by a certain minimum amount, that is, from the 1st all the way to the 3rd. The minimum is in terms of a fraction of the total number size whatever that number is, not an absolute value.

The minimum is:

Number 2 / Number 1 must be greater than or equal to: 1.0000000000000001 (16 digits, of course)

No, scratch that, it works for 1234567890123456.1255 / 1234567890123456.123, which is less.
Also notably odd, it does not work for 12345678901234561255 / 12345678901234561230 (same thing but without a decimal point).

Well, I can't even figure out the Number 2-to-Number 1 rule, so forget the Number 3-to-Number 1 rule.

But I'm pretty sure there's a rule. That is, there is a hard and fast rule which can in fact be described, and has been described, to the computers involved. The alternative (or at least one alternative) is that there's a human on the other side manually answering yes or no based on a process that may or may not be perfectly based on an unchanging rule. I base this (being pretty sure there's a rule) simply on an empirical knowledge of the practicalities involved. In theory, there could be a human, or any number of other possibilities that would mean there is actually no rule.

Am I weird that when confronted with a problem or puzzle I entertain as one logical possibility that the entire question and its premise may be a lie?

Didn't look at their code, but to test the numbers, they could be using 8-byte ints. For floats, they may not actually be testing floats, but splitting into 2 ints on each side of the decimal point. They would only need to test the right sides if the left sides were equal. If this is the case, the highest int on either side would be 2^64 (unsigned) before overflow occurs.

[helmuth_hubener]

2^64 (unsigned) before overflow occurs.

That would be 18446744000000000000.

But actually, there appears to be no limit whatsoever to the length of the numbers. I did ones with 101 digits and they came up as "Yes!" if I changed the first digit, "No" if I changed the last. It is something with the proportional change in the numbers, not the size of the numbers themselves.

[CPUd]

Well, for whatever reason, I went and found the code for it (see near the bottom):
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2015/06/16/puzzle/3c265b64cd66937d132444db8e9f7edb6a231f29/build.js

They use Number (http://www.w3schools.com/js/js_numbers.asp), which is 64-bit floats. I don't believe it is possible to overflow those until somewhere over 300 digits.



var rightWrong = (inputData[0] < inputData[1]) & (inputData[1] < inputData[2]) ? right : wrong;


This part checks to see if the input is numeric:


function checkNumbers() {
$("#g-input input").each(function(i) {
var val = $(this).val();
inputData[i] = $.isNumeric(val) ? Number(val) : NaN;
});

var tot = inputData[0] + inputData[1] + inputData[2];

var broken = isNaN(tot);
$('.g-check').prop('disabled', broken);

return broken;
}

[cajuncocoa]

Figured it out in a few seconds.:)

Never mind, I was wrong.:o I thought because I got YES! I had figured out the rule but after I filled out my explanation, I learned differently.
Me, too. :(

[helmuth_hubener]

Well, for whatever reason Yes, this is an awfully strange way to waste time, eh?

Yes, this does seem to be the code, as you say:

var rightWrong = (inputData[0] < inputData[1]) & (inputData[1] < inputData[2]) ? right : wrong;

var rightWrongClass = (inputData[0] < inputData[1]) & (inputData[1] < inputData[2]) ? "g-yes-num-group" : "g-wrong-num-group";

And that seems pretty straightforward. Which leaves us with the question: why are numbers which do follow that rule, namely Number1<Number2<Number3, coming back as "No"? They are not following the actual, underlying rule. They are well within the overflow limits (assuming you're right about the 300 digits). There must be some other more fundamental bug or problem or limitation in the javascript implementation itself, right?

And a very strange one, wherein ...1 ...2 ...3 does not work, but ...1 ...2 ...4 and ...1 ...3 ...4 both do.

[timosman]

And a very strange one, wherein ...1 ...2 ...3 does not work, but ...1 ...2 ...4 and ...1 ...3 ...4 both do.

...1 ...2 ...3 works :) Your brain needs a reboot.

[helmuth_hubener]

"..." means, in this case, at least 15 or 16 digits.

See my post #41. This set:

1234567890123456.123
1234567890123456.223
1234567890123456.323

returns "No."

The trailing 23s are basically irrelevant.

[ghengis86]

Guess 1: had a theory, tried it, no.
Guess 2: had a theory, tried it, yes.
Guess 3: stayed with theory, tried it, yes.

Guessed the rule, correct.


I started with a complicated theory, and tried to out think it. Then thought it was one of those things where its so simple it's hard, and figured it out.

Having a scientific training background helps. If you can find one example that blows up the hypothesis/theory, that's all you need.

[timosman]

"..." means, in this case, at least 15 or 16 digits.

See my post #41. This set:

1234567890123456.123
1234567890123456.223
1234567890123456.323

returns "No."

The trailing 23s are basically irrelevant.

This is because 1234567890123456.223 and 1234567890123456.323 are both stored as 1234567890123456.2 - http://www.w3schools.com/js/js_numbers.asp

[timosman]

They use Number (http://www.w3schools.com/js/js_numbers.asp), which is 64-bit floats. I don't believe it is possible to overflow those until somewhere over 300 digits.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-precision_floating-point_format.


This gives 15–17 significant decimal digits precision.

[CPUd]

Yeah, I was referring more to the values you can give to Number in the constructor without overflowing, but since it's JS, it protects against that to some extent. Giving it a value with somewhere over 308 digits, it will be "Infinity", which is interesting in this problem because they will pass the isNumeric test, though you could give 3 of these numbers in any order and it will fail the right/wrong test because it sees them as equal.

ETA another interesting item:

var y = new Number(100000000000000000000000000000000000000000) ;
var z = new Number(100000000000000000000000000000000000000001) ;
they will both be represented as "1e+41", and
y < z is false
y == z is false
y <= z is true

[timosman]

Yeah, I was referring more to the values you can give to Number in the constructor without overflowing, but since it's JS, it protects against that to some extent. Giving it a value with somewhere over 308 digits, it will be "Infinity", which is interesting in this problem because they will pass the isNumeric test, though you could give 3 of these numbers in any order and it will fail the right/wrong test because it sees them as equal.

ETA another interesting item:

var y = new Number(100000000000000000000000000000000000000000) ;
var z = new Number(100000000000000000000000000000000000000001) ;
they will both be represented as "1e+41", and
y < z is false
y == z is false
y <= z is true

http://rlv.zcache.co.uk/geek_glasses_your_geek_is_weak_tshirt-r9857b98a72a94241b638cafdbf0a7e65_8natd_1024.jpg

[helmuth_hubener]

This is because 1234567890123456.223 and 1234567890123456.323 are both stored as 1234567890123456.2 - http://www.w3schools.com/js/js_numbers.asp

Yes, I believe that you are right. Each pair is, indeed, independently determined to follow the rule or not; the set as a whole doesn't matter, it just seemed like that was a possibility due to some of the trials I ran. Even very small increments like 1000000000000000191 to 1000000000000000192 (difference of only 1 in the 19th digit) would show up as following the rule but only if the other increment was significantly larger, e.g. jumping up to 1000000000000000400. In this example, even going up to 1000000000000000300 is not enough. Such behavior could be caused by a complex rule (or a complex glitch) such as I was envisioning. Something like: N2 must be greater than N1 by x, and N3 than N2 by x, and also N3 than N1 by y.

But in this case, it is simply caused by rounding. 1000000000000000191 and 1000000000000000192 happen to be both just barely on opposite sides of the rounding cutoff. So, 1000000000000000191 is rounded to, well, something, and 1000000000000000192 is rounded to something larger. And then the next rounding cutoff doesn't occur until sometime between 1000000000000000300 and 1000000000000000400. So up until then everything is rounded to the same number to which 1000000000000000192 is being rounded.

It can initially seem a strange problem, ...1 ...2 ...3 not working, but ...1 ...2 ...4 and ...1 ...3 ...4 both working. It certainly did to me! But you hit right on the simple answer: the problem is the 1234567890123456.2 to 1234567890123456.3 interval. No series of numbers containing 1234567890123456.2 followed by 1234567890123456.3 will work. I should have thought to test ...0 ...2 ...3 and ...2 ...3 ...9, and I would have come to the right answer much sooner.

Anyway, in the end decimals didn't fool it, negative numbers didn't fool it, and in and of themselves extremely large or extremely small numbers didn't fool it. Only very small differences in the numbers fooled it, due to rounding.

Even infinity does not fool it, as long as a positive infinity is the third number and a negative infinity is the first.

The checker will only allow you to submit numbers with up to a maximum of 309 digits to the left of the decimal place (or 309 digits if an integer) other than leading zeros, which are ignored. The checker probably allows for unlimited digits to the right of the decimal; I tested up to tens of thousands of digits.

Although an entire bit is used storing the sign, a negative number will not always be greater than a positive value. Negative very-small-number and positive very-small-number will count as equal, presumably because both are rounded to zero which has no sign. While infinity is a thing(in this code/rule), infinitesimal is not.

So, the rule is:

The value of each number as rounded by the javascript computation system must be greater than the value of the preceding number as rounded by the javascript computation system.

The rule could be stated more precisely by someone with a better knowledge of precisely how javascript's floating point arithmetic functions.

[Christopher A. Brown]

This is in U.S. Political News ? :confused:

No, but understanding that WHEN forum users answer these questions unconditionally, YES, they are definitely NOT covert manipulators infiltrating the forum, IS POLITICAL NEWS.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?445586-Only-Sincere-Americans-Accept-The-Root-Purpose-Of-Free-Speech)

[Ronin Truth]

No, but understanding that WHEN forum users answer these questions unconditionally, YES, they are definitely NOT covert manipulators infiltrating the forum, IS POLITICAL NEWS.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?445586-Only-Sincere-Americans-Accept-The-Root-Purpose-Of-Free-Speech)


:rolleyes:

[Occam's Banana]

No, but understanding that WHEN forum users answer these questions unconditionally, YES, they are definitely NOT covert manipulators infiltrating the forum, IS POLITICAL NEWS.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?445586-Only-Sincere-Americans-Accept-The-Root-Purpose-Of-Free-Speech)

2, 4, 8
1, 3, 5
6, 9, 7

[timosman]

Yes, I believe that you are right. Each pair is, indeed, independently determined to follow the rule or not; the set as a whole doesn't matter, it just seemed like that was a possibility due to some of the trials I ran. Even very small increments like 1000000000000000191 to 1000000000000000192 (difference of only 1 in the 19th digit) would show up as following the rule but only if the other increment was significantly larger, e.g. jumping up to 1000000000000000400. In this example, even going up to 1000000000000000300 is not enough. Such behavior could be caused by a complex rule (or a complex glitch) such as I was envisioning. Something like: N2 must be greater than N1 by x, and N3 than N2 by x, and also N3 than N1 by y.

But in this case, it is simply caused by rounding. 1000000000000000191 and 1000000000000000192 happen to be both just barely on opposite sides of the rounding cutoff. So, 1000000000000000191 is rounded to, well, something, and 1000000000000000192 is rounded to something larger. And then the next rounding cutoff doesn't occur until sometime between 1000000000000000300 and 1000000000000000400. So up until then everything is rounded to the same number to which 1000000000000000192 is being rounded.

It can initially seem a strange problem, ...1 ...2 ...3 not working, but ...1 ...2 ...4 and ...1 ...3 ...4 both working. It certainly did to me! But you hit right on the simple answer: the problem is the 1234567890123456.2 to 1234567890123456.3 interval. No series of numbers containing 1234567890123456.2 followed by 1234567890123456.3 will work. I should have thought to test ...0 ...2 ...3 and ...2 ...3 ...9, and I would have come to the right answer much sooner.

Anyway, in the end decimals didn't fool it, negative numbers didn't fool it, and in and of themselves extremely large or extremely small numbers didn't fool it. Only very small differences in the numbers fooled it, due to rounding.

Even infinity does not fool it, as long as a positive infinity is the third number and a negative infinity is the first.

The checker will only allow you to submit numbers with up to a maximum of 309 digits to the left of the decimal place (or 309 digits if an integer) other than leading zeros, which are ignored. The checker probably allows for unlimited digits to the right of the decimal; I tested up to tens of thousands of digits.

Although an entire bit is used storing the sign, a negative number will not always be greater than a positive value. Negative very-small-number and positive very-small-number will count as equal, presumably because both are rounded to zero which has no sign. While infinity is a thing(in this code/rule), infinitesimal is not.

So, the rule is:

The value of each number as rounded by the javascript computation system must be greater than the value of the preceding number as rounded by the javascript computation system.

The rule could be stated more precisely by someone with a better knowledge of precisely how javascript's floating point arithmetic functions.

[Rant mode on]
Dude, you are discussing internal details of a flawed implementation (only 15 digits !). Yeah, they could have chosen a better representation for the numbers - e.g. https://github.com/MikeMcl/big.js - but nobody wants to listen to this shit here. If you ever wonder why you are not getting laid, this is probably the reason. Unimportant minutiae discussed by a neophyte. :) No wonder even CBrown jumps in with his ramblings.

[Ronin Truth]

Someone PULEEEEZE, put them all on track, and OUT of their misery.

Thanks! :)

[helmuth_hubener]

So, if this was a test of our problem-solving abilities, what does this say about our problem-solving ability here on RPF?

Yes, the exceptions that I found to the "rule" are technical, and the whole exercise is over-the-top ridiculous for a dumb puzzle that didn't matter and wasn't interesting in the first place. But the NYT drew a "moral" from the aggregate test results, one that was strained and stretched and pretty lame (IMO). Plus, they somewhat rigged the results by putting (in bold) "Make sure you’re right; you won’t get a second chance." Yes, that's for the final guess, but, while I'm no psychologist, it could be that having big bold text reading "Make sure you're right" might contribute (subliminally?) to people not wanting to get "No" results.

So can we draw a moral? Yes, and probably one more interesting than the Times'.

Probably that I am able to make problems where none exist, or at least that no one cares about. :p Or, to find loop-holes in systems and rules. And that there are then people smart enough on RPF to solve those problems.

Libertarians are systematic thinkers to a greater degree than other people. We know that. And often we are also skeptical. Maybe this demonstrates some of that?

Maybe it mostly just demonstrates I had lots of time to waste yesterday.

[helmuth_hubener]

Unimportant minutiae discussed by a neophyte. :) No wonder even CBrown jumps in with his ramblings. Oh, I agree, everyone agrees, *OBVIOUSLY* it is unimportant minutia. And I am certainly an ignorant neophyte.

That is unrelated to why Brown jumped in, though. Brown always jumps in. I think there's a rule for that.

[loveshiscountry]

I read it. 2,4, and 8 Obeys the rule.
That's as far as I needed to go. I never filled in any other numbers. I play by my own rules. Stupid game.

[Slave Mentality]

We are all the centers of our own universes. Confirmation bias, or am I just too lazy to take the quiz? My problem solving skills are about average with modern day savages I suppose.