Straight Dope Message Board > Main Stickeler - Help With A Puzzle, Please!
 Register FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

#1
02-05-2008, 08:07 AM
 thwartme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: The T Dot. Posts: 801
Stickeler - Help With A Puzzle, Please!

I do the "Stickeler" in the local paper most days. Great puzzles, usually. But yesterday's doesn't make any sense to me. I'm not sure I completely understand the question, and the answer provided doesn't seem to relate at all.

You can check it out here .

Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks,
thwartme
#2
02-05-2008, 08:24 AM
 The Controvert Guest Join Date: Sep 2001
Probably a misprint. It's easy to solve by overlaying the squares such that one of the small squares is split into 4 panes.
#3
02-05-2008, 08:25 AM
 jali Guest Join Date: Oct 2005
The puzzle is designed to thwart you.

I don't understand at all, especially after looking at the answer.
#4
02-05-2008, 08:34 AM
 thwartme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: The T Dot. Posts: 801
Quote:
 Originally Posted by The Controvert Probably a misprint. It's easy to solve by overlaying the squares such that one of the small squares is split into 4 panes.
I asked Terry Stickels himself, and his respose is:

The question and answer are correct. Just take those squares in the
questiona (sic) and arrange them in such a way as to come up with 6 squares of any
size. Of course, the large square made up of the outside lines, counts as a
square, too.

Best,
Terry Stickels

So it's not a misprint.

I do have some ideas about overlaying the squares, and I'm pretty sure I could come up with a solution, but that answer is really confusing me.

thwartme
#5
02-05-2008, 10:17 AM
 ShadowFacts Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,673
Quote:
 Originally Posted by thwartme I asked Terry Stickels himself, and his respose is: The question and answer are correct. Just take those squares in the questiona (sic) and arrange them in such a way as to come up with 6 squares of any size. Of course, the large square made up of the outside lines, counts as a square, too. Best, Terry Stickels So it's not a misprint. I do have some ideas about overlaying the squares, and I'm pretty sure I could come up with a solution, but that answer is really confusing me. thwartme

I think I figured it out. I made a 4x4" square and two 3x3" squares in Microsoft Word and moved them around a bit until I got it, but I have no idea how to post the answer here. (BTW, I paid not attention to the "answer" provided at all).

I'll try to describe it:

The big square is the "base" square. One of the smaller squares is lined up so its top side is the same "height" as the big square, but it is offset to the left. The other smaller square shares the righthand side of the larger square, but it offset to the bottom. If you line it up right, this arrangement creates 3 new square inside the big square, plus you have the three original squares, so that makes 6.

I doubt that makes any sense, but I did my best
#6
02-05-2008, 10:27 AM
 brewha Guest Join Date: Apr 2001
I can count 6 squares in THIS picture.
#7
02-05-2008, 10:34 AM
 Mangetout Charter Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Kingdom of Butter Posts: 47,491
Quote:
 Originally Posted by brewha I can count 6 squares in THIS picture.
It also works if you just nestle the smaller squares into opposite corners of the big one
#8
02-05-2008, 10:54 AM
 ITR champion Guest Join Date: Jan 2001
Any arrangement where the centers of the two small squares are along the same diagonal as the large square will work, as long as neither small square is entirely inside the large square.
#9
02-05-2008, 11:04 AM
 ShadowFacts Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,673
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mangetout It also works if you just nestle the smaller squares into opposite corners of the big one
Yep, and that's much simpler than what I described above.
#10
02-05-2008, 11:07 AM
 photopat Member Join Date: Nov 1999 Location: chicago illinois, usa Posts: 4,692
Without looking further into the thread:

SPOILER:
Place the two smaller squares inside the larger one so they meet it at opposite corners.
#11
02-05-2008, 11:09 AM
 Gangster Octopus Guest Join Date: Dec 2002
I don't get though where it says Answer at the bottom? Is that for the same puzzle?
#12
02-05-2008, 11:12 AM
 thwartme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: The T Dot. Posts: 801
You see, ANY of those would have been perfectly acceptable answers. Thanks very much for all of them. Thanks especially to brewha for the great image, makes things very clear.

So I guess the only puzzle left is... what do those three rectangles mean?

thwartme
#13
02-05-2008, 11:21 AM
 Ximenean Guest Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
 Originally Posted by brewha I can count 6 squares in THIS picture.
Hmm, I see 8. Or 5 if the original squares don't count. Either way, not 6.
#14
02-05-2008, 11:22 AM
 Dolores Reborn Charter Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Houston Posts: 13,732
Is that maybe the answer for yesterday's puzzle?

I have a jpg I'll post as soon as Photobucket cooperates...

Last edited by Dolores Reborn; 02-05-2008 at 11:23 AM.
#15
02-05-2008, 11:30 AM
 thwartme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: The T Dot. Posts: 801
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Dolores Reborn Is that maybe the answer for yesterday's puzzle?
No, it's not. The answer for the Stickeler is always the same day. And, as you can see from his response (above), the author claims the answer is correct as it stands.

I just can't figure out how three rectangles equals six squares.

thwartme
#16
02-05-2008, 11:34 AM
 Paul The Younger Guest Join Date: Feb 2001
Quote:
 Originally Posted by thwartme I asked Terry Stickels himself, and his respose is: The question and answer are correct. Just take those squares in the questiona (sic) and arrange them in such a way as to come up with 6 squares of any size. Of course, the large square made up of the outside lines, counts as a square, too. Best, Terry Stickels So it's not a misprint. I do have some ideas about overlaying the squares, and I'm pretty sure I could come up with a solution, but that answer is really confusing me. thwartme
Okay, I have trouble believing that's not a misprint. Is Stickelers syndicated, and did you send him the actual image you posted here? What I'm getting at is that it may have been a mistake made by the local paper....I can't for the life of me see how those rectangles solve the problem.
#17
02-05-2008, 11:37 AM
 thwartme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: The T Dot. Posts: 801
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Paul The Younger Okay, I have trouble believing that's not a misprint. Is Stickelers syndicated, and did you send him the actual image you posted here? What I'm getting at is that it may have been a mistake made by the local paper....I can't for the life of me see how those rectangles solve the problem.
I have sent him the image, and asked him if he'd mind explaining a little further. No response as yet.

Anybody else get the Stickeler in their local paper? I got mine from the Toronto Star. Can anyone see if there's a different version printed elsewhere?

thwartme
#18
02-05-2008, 11:50 AM
 Paul The Younger Guest Join Date: Feb 2001
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Usram Hmm, I see 8. Or 5 if the original squares don't count. Either way, not 6.
Yeah, there's eight in that solution. Mangetout has it right -- nestle the smaller squares directly into opposite corners of the larger square. The result is six, and only six squares. As Delores said, photobucket is down right now, otherwise I would post an image showing what I mean.
#19
02-05-2008, 12:41 PM
 thwartme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: The T Dot. Posts: 801
And misprint it is!

That is not the answer we submitted to your paper. Apparently, they did something to change the answer. We are trying to find oout (sic) what. Thanks for letting me know.

Best,
Terry Stickels

Well I feel much better now. The idea that I just wasn't understanding the answer was really bugging me.

thwartme
#20
02-05-2008, 04:16 PM
 Paul The Younger Guest Join Date: Feb 2001
Quote:
 Originally Posted by thwartme And misprint it is! That is not the answer we submitted to your paper. Apparently, they did something to change the answer. We are trying to find oout (sic) what. Thanks for letting me know. Best, Terry Stickels Well I feel much better now. The idea that I just wasn't understanding the answer was really bugging me. thwartme

And today's "Fighting Ignorance Award" goes to..........thwartme! BRAVO!!!!
#21
02-05-2008, 04:20 PM
 Dolores Reborn Charter Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Houston Posts: 13,732
Here's a picture of the solution for anybody that cares anymore...
#22
02-05-2008, 04:23 PM
 Paul The Younger Guest Join Date: Feb 2001
#23
02-05-2008, 05:01 PM
 Paul The Younger Guest Join Date: Feb 2001
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Dolores Reborn Here's a picture of the solution for anybody that cares anymore...
Sorry, Delores, I didn't see your post on preview, wouldn't have bothered posting mine!
#24
02-05-2008, 09:48 PM
 Dolores Reborn Charter Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Houston Posts: 13,732
Your's is prettier!

 Bookmarks

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is Off HTML code is Off
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Main     About This Message Board     Comments on Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports     Straight Dope Chicago     General Questions     Great Debates     Elections     Cafe Society     The Game Room     In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)     Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share (MPSIMS)     Marketplace     The BBQ Pit Side Conversations     The Barn House

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:20 AM.