| Solving the potion puzzle (was Re: Dumbledore's trust into Snape) [message #281771] |
So, 11 Juni 2006 13:02 |
|
In <128l4hedgv8gs19 [at] corp.supernews.com> dicconf [at] radix.net (Richard Eney) writes:
>In article <97Ahg.3517$mF2.2443 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>kasis_100 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
><snip>
>>> Why are you so sure?
>>
>>Because JKR has said that we now have ALL of the clues needed to solve
>>the story.
>OTOH JKR isn't known for how perfectly all the details work together.
>That "logic puzzle" with the potions in book one is not solvable
>without one more piece of evidence; Hermione has that part because
>she can see the bottles, but she is missing a piece of evidence that
>we are given. Logically she shouldn't be able to solve it either.
Why not? She only has to be able to solve the particular
arrangement she's presented with, not every arrangement
compatible with clues one, two and four.
(In the following I number the bottles form left to right as one to
seven and use P=Poison, N=Nettle wine, R=Return, F=Forward, L=Largest,
S=Smallest, ?=nothing known)
Say she's presented with:
1234567
?LS????
From clue four 2 & 6 must either be both Poison or both Nettle wine
since those are the only types there's more than one of. But from
clue three 2 can't be poison so they must both be Nettle wine,
giving:
?NS??N?
Clue one then gives us:
PNS?PN?
7 Can't be Nettle wine as we've found both bottles, or Poison
because of the first part of clue two, or forward because of the
second part. So we now have:
PNS?PNB
That leaves only one Poison and Forward to find. The Poison can't
be 3 (clue three again) so we must have:
PNFPPNB
Essentially the same line of reasoning would also solve ?L?S???,
??S??L? and ???S?L?.
So there are some arrangements that she could solve, and since
she did solve the one she was given we can reasonably assume
she was given one that was solveable.
>I have no expectation that the solution to the Riddle will be all
>that ironclad either.
>=Tamar
--
Remove any bits of tatt after the at in my address to reply
|
|
|
| Re: Solving the potion puzzle (was Re: Dumbledore's trust into Snape) [message #291674 ] |
Di, 27 Juni 2006 22:15 |
|
In article <9LSig.84175$wl.45812 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Phil Turner <phil.turner [at] bltuaeyontdetr.co.uk> wrote:
> dicconf [at] radix.net (Richard Eney) writes:
>>Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>> JKR has said that we now have ALL of the clues needed to solve
>>>the story.
>
>>OTOH JKR isn't known for how perfectly all the details work together.
>
>>That "logic puzzle" with the potions in book one is not solvable
>>without one more piece of evidence; Hermione has that part because
>>she can see the bottles, but she is missing a piece of evidence that
>>we are given. Logically she shouldn't be able to solve it either.
>
>Why not? She only has to be able to solve the particular
>arrangement she's presented with, not every arrangement
>compatible with clues one, two and four.
You are right. In fact, she can solve it completely with just the
written clues on the paper and the visual hint from being able to
see the bottles.
But my original point still stands: _we_ don't necessarily have
all the clues. All we know for sure is that if there's a number
or any math involved, we can't use it as evidence for anything.
=Tamar
|
|
|
