Puzzles , logic and lateral thinking .

[Faust]

I'm convinced that there is some sort of connection between the ability to solve these things quickly
and being able to write neat , efficient and compact code ...... [ discuss and debate - ]

I like how nobody is actually discussing and/or debating this.

Yes , I was hoping for a lively discussion there , just as much as someone quickly coming up with the answer ,
or posing other similar riddles .... Oh Well

....
Ok, so there's 73 letters in the question, if you remove the letter count for seventy three you get 61. But that's an ambiguous conclusion since any modification to the length of the question changes the answer,
........

You are on the right track ....
Minor hint :-
The question intentionally has distraction built into it .

[catweazel]

How many letters would this question contain if the answer wasn't already seventy three ?

[gm10]

Yes , I was hoping for a lively discussion there , just as much as someone quickly coming up with the answer ,
or posing other similar riddles .... Oh Well

Well, if your hypothesis proves true then all who answered so far are terrible coders.

I don't think it's true though. Lateral thinking helps you find creative ways to solve problems, not necessarily write neat code. Take a code example from Mint's Update Manager:

https://github.com/linuxmint/mintupdate ... els.py#L47

Code: Select all

            version_array = pkg_version.replace("-", ".").split(".")
            versions = []
            for element in version_array:
                if len(element) == 1:
                    element = "00%s" % element
                elif len(element) == 2:
                    element = "0%s" % element
                versions.append(element)

How I would write it:

Code: Select all

            versions = pkg_version.replace("-", ".").split(".")
            for i, element in enumerate(versions):
                versions[i] = (3 - len(element)) * "0" + element

Now I'd submit my approach would be much more neat, concise and efficient, but I don't think it's due to lateral thinking. There is nothing surprising about my approach, the original approach is just very step-by-step, lacking abstraction.

[catweazel]

How many letters would this question contain if the answer wasn't already seventy three ?

[Elided] by request.

[catweazel]

Well, if your hypothesis proves true then all who answered so far are terrible coders.

HURRUMPH!

Code: Select all

QSortFilterProxyModel* databaseManager::getPragmasModel()
{
    QSqlQueryModel* dataModelPragmas = new QSqlQueryModel(this);
    QSortFilterProxyModel* dataModelProxyPragmas = new QSortFilterProxyModel(this);
    QString sqlSelect = "SELECT * FROM %1 ORDER BY Property ASC;";

    sqlSelect = sqlSelect.arg(pragmasDbTableName);
    dataModelPragmas->setQuery(sqlSelect);
    dataModelProxyPragmas->setSourceModel(dataModelPragmas);

    return dataModelProxyPragmas;
}

//
// Gets the data for a specified table
//
QSqlTableModel* databaseManager::getTableData(QString tableName)
{
    tableModelCurrentTable = new QSqlTableModel(this);
    tableModelCurrentTable->setTable(tableName);
    tableModelCurrentTable->setEditStrategy(QSqlTableModel::OnFieldChange);
    tableModelCurrentTable->select();

    return tableModelCurrentTable;
}

void databaseManager::createEmptyDatabase(QString fullyQualifiedPathToFile)
{
    // Create the empty databse file
    closeDatabase();
    database = QSqlDatabase::addDatabase(sqlite3QtDriverType);
    database.setDatabaseName(fullyQualifiedPathToFile);
    database.open();
    // Create a dummy table then drop it. We do this to make sure
    // that we don't try to open an empty file:
    database.exec("CREATE TABLE x (y TEXT, z TEXT);");
    database.exec("DROP TABLE x;");
    // Close the new database then reopen using the standard method
    closeDatabase();
    openDatabase(fullyQualifiedPathToFile);
}

Oh, and I have the answer. @Faust asked me to hold it

[gm10]

Oh, and I have the answer. @Faust asked me to hold it

Yeah, we all know how to use Google. But takes the fun out of things, so I refused to follow your link to the BBC (which I assume you google'd or similar)

I don't have the answer though.

[AndyMH]

Thanks for all the fish.

What about the mice?

[catweazel]

Oh, and I have the answer. @Faust asked me to hold it

Yeah, we all know how to use Google. But takes the fun out of things, so I refused to follow your link to the BBC (which I assume you google'd or similar)

<WEIL> <-- Wide-eyed innocent look.

[lsemmens]

30

[Faust]

.....
I don't have the answer though.

I'll give another hint ....
.... in a while

[lsemmens]

I apologise, I miscounted 37,.

[MrEen]

12?

[gm10]

I'll give another hint ....
.... in a while

So your hint is ".... in a while" or you will give another hint in a while? I am a simple minded person, this ambiguity is killing me.

[philotux]

38

[Faust]

12 No
30 No

.... a distant memory from exams at school ?
" Show your workings in the margin "

So your hint is ".... in a while" or you will give another hint in a while? I am a simple minded person, this ambiguity is killing me.

No , "in a while" is NOT the hint .....
This is the hint :-

The letter count is a number , "seventy three " is the text for a number , proceed accordingly

[gm10]

The letter count is a number , "seventy three " is the text for a number , proceed accordingly

Heh, I had considered that when you said misdirection in the previous hint, but I cannot say it made sense to me so I'll only reluctantly say 71 but if it's correct then I say "I don't get it" at the same time.

[MrEen]

Ahh, 2.

EDIT: Nah, that can't be correct.

[mediclaser]

... But that's an ambiguous conclusion since any modification to the length of the question changes the answer, ...

I have personally ran into similar problem when I was learning to code. I was trying to make an executable file that validates its own checksum.

[MrEen]

Zero. Goose egg. Big fat NADA. The question wouldn't exist!

[HaveaMint]

Zero. Goose egg. Big fat NADA. The question wouldn't exist!

Already been guessed.