Lonelygirl15

Acid, you asked for it:

Find a 3-digit number (all different digits) such that it's a multiple of each of its 3 digits.
Rearrange the same digits to make a different number, this time a multiple of only 2 of its digits.
Rearrange it once again to make a multiple of only 1 of its digits.
Rearrange it one last time to make multiple of none of its digits.

Now convert this last one into letters such that 0=a, 1=b, 2=c, etc. Translate. Interpret personally, or subjectively (sorry for being redundant). The solution should answer to the question, "what/who is ___?" Now, don't answer here, as there's another thread that was created precisely for that purpose (your answer is probably there already), so just post a link here to prove that you've solved it.

deagol wrote:Now, don't answer here, as there's another thread that was created precisely for that purpose (your answer is probably there already), so just post a link here to prove that you've solved it.

OK, I got a solution but I failed the hunt-down-the-answer-thread part of the exercise. Any hints?

ignatzmouse wrote:

deagol wrote:Now, don't answer here, as there's another thread that was created precisely for that purpose (your answer is probably there already), so just post a link here to prove that you've solved it.

OK, I got a solution but I failed the hunt-down-the-answer-thread part of the exercise. Any hints?

Did you translate the 3-letter word?

deagol wrote:

ignatzmouse wrote:

deagol wrote:Now, don't answer here, as there's another thread that was created precisely for that purpose (your answer is probably there already), so just post a link here to prove that you've solved it.

OK, I got a solution but I failed the hunt-down-the-answer-thread part of the exercise. Any hints?

Did you translate the 3-letter word?

The translation I got is the 15th word in this post: http://lonelygirl15.com/forum/viewtopic ... 517#258517

ignatzmouse wrote: The translation I got is the 15th word in this post: http://lonelygirl15.com/forum/viewtopic ... 517#258517

Ok, the thread you're looking for had been inactive for about a month until someone posted to it today, presumably to claim they solved this, I think.

deagol wrote:Ok, the thread you're looking for had been inactive for about a month until someone posted to it today, presumably to claim they solved this, I think.

correct because i won.
duh.

horcruxes wrote:

deagol wrote:Ok, the thread you're looking for had been inactive for about a month until someone posted to it today, presumably to claim they solved this, I think.

correct because i won.
duh.

No, you took a shortcut. That thread isn't the solution, but just a way to show you worked out the logic. It's almost as bad as what acid did. But at least you used some deductive reasoning. You get a star.

i still won.

not my fault your writing gave the answer away.

horcruxes wrote:i still won.

not my fault your writing gave the answer away.

It did not! See ignatzmouse above. And you still didn't answer what/who is __? ...thankfully! andway esyay, iway inkthay ouyay idday anagemay otay avehay ethay ongestlay oneway, ouyay egomaniacway!

deagol wrote:

horcruxes wrote:i still won.

not my fault your writing gave the answer away.

It did not! See ignatzmouse above. And you still didn't answer what/who is __? ...thankfully! andway esyay, iway inkthay ouyay idday anagemay otay avehay ethay ongestlay oneway, ouyay egomaniacway!

OK, I found the thread now, by cheating and looking at horcruxes' recent postings!

ignatzmouse wrote:OK, I found the thread now, by cheating and looking at horcruxes' recent postings!

Don't worry, cheating seems to be the norm around here.

Given your professional background, it's possible that you followed a similar methodology as acidfingers (computer-assisted exhaustive search). Although it's a valid solution, this is a puzzle and thus I'm giving points for elegance and insightful approaches (horcruxes gets some points there, eventhough she didn't get the number or even the word).

So, if you can show some logic process through which you narrowed down to a few possible 3-digit numbers, I'll declare you the official winner (that should make them so angry... awesome! ). If you also ran a script, you get second place after horcruxes/watchBot tied in first.

deagol wrote:

ignatzmouse wrote:OK, I found the thread now, by cheating and looking at horcruxes' recent postings!

Don't worry, cheating seems to be the norm around here.

Given your professional background, it's possible that you followed a similar methodology as acidfingers (computer-assisted exhaustive search). Although it's a valid solution, this is a puzzle and thus I'm giving points for elegance and insightful approaches (horcruxes gets some points there, eventhough she didn't get the number or even the word).

So, if you can show some logic process through which you narrowed down to a few possible 3-digit numbers, I'll declare you the official winner (that should make them so angry... awesome! ). If you also ran a script, you get second place after horcruxes/watchBot tied in first.

In white-on-white-no-spoiler-ovision:

Notation: SN = 3-digit number where N of the three digits are divisors of SN.

Some heuristics to cut down the search space:

0: not a divisor of anything, so can't be a digit in S3. #
1: a divisor of everything, so can't be a digit in S0. #
2: S3 must be even, S0 must be odd, so S0 must contain an odd digit.
3: S3 is a multiple of 3, so its digits sum to 3, so S0 is a multiple of 3 also. #
5: S3 is multiple of 5, so must end with 5, so can't contain any even digits. Since 1,3,9 are knocked out, 5 is knocked out also. #
6: digits must sum to 3. S0 will be a multiple of 3, so must end in an odd digit.
9: same argument as for 3. #

The sets of digits we're left with are:

{2,4,7} {2,6,7} {2,7,8} {4,7,8} {6,7,8}

And so the possible S3s are:

672 728 784

which gives:

S3=672 S2=762 S1=???
S3=728 S2=872 S1=782 S0=827=ich
S3=784 S2=???

and so "___" is "that devilishly handsome guy in the mirror."

I can imagine anger coming up...

ignatzmouse wrote: In white-on-white-no-spoiler-ovision:

Notation: SN = 3-digit number where N of the three digits are divisors of SN.

Some heuristics to cut down the search space:

0: not a divisor of anything, so can't be a digit in S3. #
1: a divisor of everything, so can't be a digit in S0. #
2: S3 must be even, S0 must be odd, so S0 must contain an odd digit.
3: S3 is a multiple of 3, so its digits sum to 3, so S0 is a multiple of 3 also. #
5: S3 is multiple of 5, so must end with 5, so can't contain any even digits. Since 1,3,9 are knocked out, 5 is knocked out also. #
6: digits must sum to 3. S0 will be a multiple of 3, so must end in an odd digit.
9: same argument as for 3. #

The sets of digits we're left with are:
...

I can imagine anger coming up...

That's just... perfect! You totally get the "Martin" award.

I seriously hate this thread. I keep checking back in the hopes that something will click in my brain, but it just doesn't.