is a puzzle at all, because you have violated the very point that Zed was trying to explain to Edge; that a puzzle need not have context, just pattern. As Zed explained in his #59, your "solution," given in your #81 applies mathematic functions within the consecutive series of numbers, but one has no idea what functions are to be applied in what order. You have, first, an exponent [really multiplication of the same number], then simple multiplication, then division, and then addition, thus using three pf the four simple functions [minus subtraction]. Even that subtraction would be the missing function is self-explanitory; it is "minus," that is, a missing function. Fine. But, the sequence applied is still a problematic issue due to it not being an obvious pattern without convoluted attempts, and this goes beyond the use of intelligence, requiring some guesswork to arrive at the solution.
That was the point: this was nothing more than a contrived and unnecessarily convoluted guessing game.
(By the way, subtraction was not a "missing" operation, and the order of operations dictates the order: parentheses, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction.)
no pattern at all because the sequence of application of math function does not follow a logical sequence. Logic is replaced by guess work. That is not puzzle-solving at all.
I agree. Thus making this statement of yours absurd:
Whereas, Zed's first puzzle, though also remote in its solution, uses, consistently, the same, most simple of math functions: addition, and the[pattern] of its use is consistent.
Zedvictor explicitly stated that it wasn't a sequence:
Post #4:
--> @FLRW
No incorrect. It's a puzzle not a sequence.
Hence, I didn't even attempt to solve. Once it was made clear that his arrangement wasn't sequential, I knew that, as you stated, "logic [would be] replaced by guesswork."
Therefore, presented as a patterned puzzle, I agree with Zed's solution: 6.
I already addressed this:
So your answer is "6"? There's no need to separate yourself from your answer by stating, "one initially doesn't need to come up with anything other than 6..." And no, the answer is not "6." (You were close, though.) You see, I can't expect you to figure it out just from its mere presentation--not even for a "keen" puzzler like yourself. Of course, you're going to state that it's "6" based on the only reasoning you can grasp from its presentation, and that is its order. But if I keep the rules to myself, how can the answer be determined by you or anyone other than guessing at the rules?
I didn't expect Zedvictor or anyone else for that matter to assume anything other than six. The point I was making was that as long as I was keeping the parameters to myself, my "puzzle" was nothing more than an exercise at guessing rather than deductive logic.
Zed, I'll have to admit I did not see this string until tonight, and trying the first puzzle, I''ll have to depend on your good graces that I solved it before reading your #68, in which you solved it, but I did not solve it until after your #59. I realized that it was additive, but at first fooled by trying to include the 20 cipher. I then realized it was a red herring, and just added the first three ciphers in each series, and backed into 18 as the solution. I take it that this is the end of the puzzle; that the pattern is not intended to continue.
Whereas, I have stopped reading as of your #68 to enter these comments.
But in post #74, FLRW made the same assumption. That 18 was derived from taking the sum of the series except for the 20's. And while 18 is the correct answer, that is merely coincidental as I explained in post #93. 18 isn't derived from any arithmetic. It's derived from its association to the English letter, "R." The series of numbers are coded letters, which 3RU7AL initially suggested. Once you substitute the numbers for letters, it becomes an anagram. When rearranged correctly, it spells out "DEBATEA?T." Realizing the missing letter is "R," you substitute it with its numerical counterpart, and it's 18. I explained all of this in post #93.
As I told RationalMadMan, it's simpler to assume that which could have and should have been done after the fact.
