25 comments on “Inquisitor 1746: Calculations by Vismut”

1. kenmac

   Thanks for your detailed blog. I’m sure the mystery of 38a is solved by the fact that ‘Spread cut’ must be a misprint for ‘Spread out’, which defines TEDDED. Unfortunate, of course, as unintended misprints are so rare in these puzzles.

2. I generally find Vismut’s puzzles challenging, and this was no exception. The preamble is the longest (or one of the longest) I have seen, and some of it didn’t make much sense until I got halfway through the puzzle. Fortunately it made complete sense by the time I completed the grid.

   The nature of the message built up from both words and clue numbers made it imperative to identify all and only the correct letters, totalling 30 – or ‘some’, as given rather unhelpfully in the preamble. My only query with any clue was with 38a TEDDED, which I resolved as explained in my previous comment.

   Making the words of the two sums interact precisely with the right operands (clue numbers) was an astonishing feat on the part of the setter. How do you make fixed clue numbers work for you like that to produce the right results? Like you, kenmac, I went the wrong way at first, interpreting 1 ADD 14 SQUARED as ‘1 + (14 squared)’ instead of ‘(1 + 14) squared’ as intended. I was amazed that this way also produced an integer result (2 instead of 6), but fortunately I was aware of the possible ambiguity, and only 6 made sense with reference to what was in the grid. SIX itself appears in the grid, and at clue no. 14 (8 + 6) FIGHTER would potentially appear if RE were to be removed, making two new words going Down.

   I remember reading the story recently of the schoolgirl Hazel Hill who worked with her father Frederick on that mathematical analysis for the RAF. I read it again, mainly to confirm the ‘correct’ result for the number of guns from their calculations, but also out of interest as it is such a good story.

   The clues were excellent. I particularly liked the mathematical bits in two of them – ‘3!’ to indicate SIX and ‘cube’ to indicate EIGHT – also the well-hidden ‘Lied’ in 3d, releasing a V.

   Congratulations to Vismut on an outstanding puzzle.

3. Yes, challenging but enjoyable. Thanks all round.

   I had the same minor worry about SIX rather than the Wikipedian FOUR being the false answer, and also couldn’t find a FOUR in the grid though I saw such lurking red herrings as NOUGHT, ONE, NINE and TEN.

4. Crikey … what a rubric! … a little bit daunting on first reading, but given time to consider, it actually turned out to be a lot less demanding than initially imagined. Thankfully the clues were set at the easier end of the difficulty spectrum – answers went in thick and fast, a rapid grid fill. Endgame took a little bit of patience, an internet search for a possible name HAZEL HILL (using the A and both L’s) which also allowed for GUNS ON (using the U and O) told me all that I needed to know and led me home nicely. A pleasing end to a fun Inquisitor, with a seriously heavyweight rubric.

   SIX is described as “the incorrect answer” as, mathematically, the correct answer to that sum is TWO, as described by kenmac in the blog (mathematically it should follow ‘BODMAS’).

   The “removal” of two letters from FREIGHTER leads rather nicely, I thought, to the FIGHTERs (as a opposed to BOMBERs) in the theme. I also liked 3! as 1x2x3 … (I’m secretly awaiting the ellipsis … to be used as the letter S).

   OK then, to 38A : Here’s how it worked for me : TEDDED is a ‘variety’ (anagram) of dehydrated with a pie (i.e. a mess) of hay and right (the letter R) out (missing). Definition seems to work both as spread cut (and also as the whole clue).

   Many thanks to Vismut for a fun puzzle, to kenmac for the blog and to fellow commenters for sharing their thoughts.

5. Great puzzle Vismut, but I was thrown initially by the lack of BODMAS compliance. This was rather naughty, though HolyGhost pointed out the the word “consecutively” in the rubric might override the BODMAS order. However if that is its purpose then the ALL in ALL OVER 7 is redundant. A+ for puzzle, B for rubric! Good fun though.

6. P.S I don’t see why the word cut is a misprint Alan B @1. Me-sat-here-at-home @4 has the parsing of 38A right but the word cut in his explanation works just as well as out!

7. Another first-class puzzle from the better half of humanity. The preamble was complicated to say the least so the best thing was to get on with it. I was encouraged by solving a third of the clues very quickly but then slowed with the SE corner giving me the most grief. I guessed TEDDED but it took me a long time to justify it. (Alan B and Kenmac: tedding is spreading the cut grass, or simply the cut).
   The instructions were to apply operations consecutively, giving 6 for the first calculation, but this contravenes the BODMAS rule which would give 2 (good on you, Kenmac for initially remembering your school maths, instead of following the precise instructions). Since the latter is not one or the six candidates in the grid, I concluded that this was the “incorrect” answer.
   I could not find a mathematician to fit H-Z… but did see a possible HAZEL HILL fairly easily. Checking this online, I did see the right person but she was described as a medic and, idiotically, I dismissed her. Searching on, I found nothing helpful. Then Linda (Mrs W) looked on her phone and triumphantly put me out of my misery. So a lady was not only the setter and the subject but, for me, the lifeline to the solution.
   I gather 6 guns was an option which had been rejected as insufficient, giving another reason for 8 being the correct answer.
   Thanks Vismut for a very fitting theme and a cleverly designed puzzle with lots of neatly interlocking features. Also to Kenmac for the blog – although initially intimidating, I thought the preamble was totally sound when viewed retrospectively.

8. I really liked this one, really weird and wonderful. It’s probably my favourite of the year so far. It also introduced me to an intriguing bit of history. I liked the fact that the rubric seemed completely bananas but all made sense in the end. Using the word “mathematician” was maybe the one thing that was a bit of a giveaway but I guess we had enough on our plates.

   The only slightly negative thought I had was that it’s been a while since I did one of these without using Google. I’m not sure if that’s anything to worry about but it does make me wonder what puzzles like this (Listener etc.) were like in pre-internet days. Have setters’ approaches changed radically now that research is so easy? And is that good or bad?

9. I understand the BODMAS rule – if only the setter had the option of releasing ‘(‘ or ‘)’ from a clue instead of a letter! Also, the word ADD was used – perhaps that binds the 1 to the 14 (but perhaps not).

   I concluded that the ambiguity was deliberate (by which I mean noticed by the setter but left as such), so that we had to choose the sum that worked. (TWO does not appear in the grid.)

10. Having looked up TEDDED again, I can see how the clue works as printed and as explained by Me_Sat… I think ‘my’ way reads better, but the clue is sound as printed and as no doubt intended by the setter, making a misprint unlikely.

11. I gave up maths years ago but a friend advised that the horizontal was two words so instead of looking for some Germanic 9 letter word I eventually happed on dear Hazel and of course googled and saw EIGHT and GUNS ON and tried changing HAZEL HILL into A SPITFIRE
    Sod the maths
    Great story-unsung heroes
    Thanks Vismut and kenmac

12. I did and thought the same as copmus.

13. Herb @8
    I think The Listener still requires themes to be available in a good library.

14. Physics followed by maths was my idea of a nightmare at school; that has been the last two Inquisitors (though merely a Fred Hoyle quote last week). Happily, as copmus@11 noted, once you’ve looked up Hazel Hill, the maths seems surplus to requirement. All the same, an enjoyable trip through history. Thanks to Vismut and kenmac.

15. Overall I really enjoyed this one, despite the overcomplicated rubric.

    I thought the maths setup was very ingenious (and ‘something new’ for me in the Inquisitor, which doesn’t happen very often). Unlike others, I had quickly concluded that Six would be the required outcome so spent my time back-solving to get to that number – even though I also thought Four was more appropriate given the history.

    The only thing that bothered me was the reference to the calculations being ones that “the across entry might have made” – as far as I can see, they are just random calculations rather than anything to do with the fighter planes, so Hazel Hill is rather unlikely to have actually made them ?

    And then no-one’s mentioned A SELL OUT yet – it must have been inserted to help, but it seemed superfluous. I assume everyone realised A SELL OUT can be made from the “unchecked” letters in GUNSON HAZELHILL and ASPITFIRE (in order U O A L L S T E) ?

    Thanks for a very enjoyable puzzle – a brilliant idea with good (but not outstanding) execution. Even though I do feel rather harsh for saying it.

16. arnold @15

    I agree that the calculations here can only whimsically be thought of as being what the young mathematician might have made – just because they are arithmetical.

    Also, I have read up a bit more on the subject of this theme, but I too cannot see any real (historical) meaning in the ‘incorrect’ result, whether it be 2 or 6. As has been fully explained here, 6 became the perfect ‘incorrect’ thematic number to use because 8 – 6 = 2 and 8 + 6 = 14, both of which were used in the solution. The original design of the aircraft specified four guns, and that number was increased to eight according to the true story.

    As for A SELL OUT, I thought it was a useful check on one’s workings in the shaded cells – of the sort that setters often give where there are unclued elements.

    The one thing missing that I would like to have seen was the total number of clues from which a letter is to be extracted – as I remarked @2. That would have been useful information (even if not essential) for checking one’s answers. Saying ‘some’ is not informative – it just means ‘greater than 1’ and ‘not all’. (I once saw ‘just over half’ used when 21 out of 41 clues were special ones. Why on earth not say 21?)

17. Similar issues here to others with the arithmetic, but knowing what we were looking for helped no end. Not sure if anybody else has mentioned that the finished shape, with shading, is presumably supposed to be an aircraft. Fun I thought, and not too difficult. Loved some of the images conjured up courtesy of the extra letters, such as “Hat(E)s chickens” and “Maurist (M)other”.

18. Alan B @16

    With regard to specifying the number of affected clues, I had assumed that was a decision for the setter to make depending on the perceived (or intended) difficulty of the puzzle, much like removing clue numbering in favour of a jigsaw, or giving more or less detailed instructions regarding highlighting.

    Meaning that it makes it easier to have a specified number of clues, which may or may not be what the setter wishes to achieve.

19. I enjoyed this, but have to agree with kenmac that the theme was a bit of a dog’s dinner. And I was a bit underwhelmed by the story of the young girl whose bravery and skill at simple arithmetic rescued Britain from certain defeat at the hand of the enemy. A charming idea perhaps, but the reality seemed more like “dad does stuff with his kids”, what most parents do every day.

    Thanks to both setter and blogger.

20. Arnold @18
    Thanks for your response.
    I think it is a rare puzzle indeed where the use of a specific number instead of ‘some’, ‘several’ or ‘most’ would have made any significant difference to the level of difficulty. There was a point in this puzzle where I would have liked to have that figure. I carried on without that information, leaving me with the thought (yet again) that nothing would have been given away by stating it, and from this solver’s point of view it would have been a small mark of quality if it was given.

21. I want to thank everyone for their comments and kenmac for the blog. It has given me inspiration for some puzzles with very, very short preambles.

    Vismut xx

22. Vismut @21.
    1. I see no reason why you should go for a shorter preamble if a long one is needed. The important thing is that it it should be perfectly sound when solved, even if it is daunting and confusing at the start and this puzzle satisfied both of these criteria.
    2. Looking again through the above responses, I am surprised that no-one (apart from me) picked up the fact that 6 guns was initially proposed but deemed inadequate, which is why it is the incorrect answer, as confirmed in the published solution last Saturday.
    3. I am sorry you had Kenmac doing the blog. I am sure Hihoba would have been a lot more positive. If K had read the preamble more carefully, he would would have seen that the operations had to be done sequentially (as in the i’s Number Square and the BBC’s Countdown) instead of applying the mathematically correct BODMAS).
    Thanks again for a great puzzle.

23. Dave W @22

    Thanks for reminding me of the ‘consecutive operations’ that the setter clearly indicated at the start of the preamble. I was one solver who overlooked this and arrived at TWO first before concluding that the ‘incorrect’ number had to be SIX instead. (But that wasn’t a problem for me anyway.)

    When I read the true story (in three Wikipedia articles) I remember reading (1) that the aircraft design (before any recalculations by Frederick and Hazel Hill) specified four Browning guns, (2) that the number 6 came up not in an incorrect calculation but in a supposition (by someone) that six or eight guns, rather than four, might be necessary in order to be effective against the enemy and (3) the real calculations proved that eight guns would be necessary and could be feasibly carried on a Spitfire.

    I wondered again if 6 was indeed the result of an incorrect calculation, but I did not find anything. But that number was ingeniously and economically exploited by the setter in the calculations needed to complete the puzzle.

    This was indeed a great puzzle. I too noted the numbers NOUGHT, ONE, NINE and TEN lurking in the grid – but not TWO.

24. Dave W @22, regarding your third point: given that I was involved in the 3-way conversation (kenmac, Hihoba, me) about the preamble, I can assure you that Hi was as disapproving of the non-adherence to BODMAS as was kenmac; I was fine with “consecutive”.

25. HolyGhost @24: thanks for that info – it seems that you really are one of a “holy trinity”! As you observe, “consecutive” was the crucial word.

Comments are closed.