Comments on: Hunt #2 – Answers

By: Roy Penrose

Roy Penrose — Wed, 06 May 2009 03:36:26 +0000

Jaymen,
You have a strong point as to why scientific and mathematical “insights” should be “brought to the table”.
My opinion as to why we consider them obscure is merely based on the fact that not too many such clues have been seen in cryptic crosswords.
There could be 2 reasons for this. Most setters have “literary ” background and are not too familiar with things “technical”.CP Snow was right about the breakdown in communication between the two “cultures” today : the humanities and the sciences.Other than a superficial understanding about each others power, there seems to be no common language that both sides can use to talk to each other.The situation is similar to what is now happening between quantum scientists and relativity scientists. Both use different mathematics that apparently have no connection to each other.Yet both are extremely useful in their respective domains!Snow was a scientist as well as novelist – a rare breed.
The second reason , I believe , is the difficulty within the crossword rules to accommodate scientific concepts. And this where you have the advantage to explore such possibilities within the more flexible format of your style.
Taking the case of the Boyle’s law question, it is remarkably elegant.The false picture of a firm whose vice president remains even when the son inherits the leadership mantle is tight.But you had “coleslaw” to start with.In a crossword, the second part of your clue would have to change and the answer would have to be a 6,3 . Mmmm. It could work since the first part is already the definition.
Talking about format. another example of why such a question cannot appear in a crossword is the “shorthand” question where you used a picture symbol of a right angle.Although one could just write “a right angle” , the impact of the clue is dissipated.The image and “shorthand” is a cunning connect.In most crosswords there is hardly any usage of symbols.I wonder why – when I see this compact clue.It can be done.
I can now appreciate and admire the “scientific” technique you brought to bear on two other questions.
The”blog” question is one I have never seen being used in cryptic crosswords. You “literally” go 1 letter down from BLOG to CMPH. That is a mathematical sleight of hand!
Another one is “daisy chain” concept – first time i’ve seen this kind of “coupling”. It’s been used in sexual imagery but with your background I think you got it from electronic circuitry
I see now that your passion for the sciences has taken you down a path not taken before.I am startled by the originality of your attempts.The door is open now to try out these concepts.
Roy.

By: Jaymen

Jaymen — Sat, 02 May 2009 06:08:10 +0000

Hello Roy.
Re your comments on “obscurity” of science and math questions , let me digress a bit.
English cryptic crosswords have a long history and have exploited the literary canon that stretches from Shakespeare to Kipling. The canon is classic , of course. Roman and Greek masters have been invoked.So too, have the European pantheon.

No argument from me on their inclusion. Some modern writers and their works have also come into the field. These may have connections to Booker Prizes and so forth and so can be argued to be “famous”. As long as no “obscure” works are brought in ,this tradition should continue as they make us aware of great works of literature.

In solving The Times crossword which we get syndicated in our local “Straits Times” I have almost never come across a work or author mentioned that was beyond the pale. On the other hand I constantly come across geographical references that are too “obscure” for my tastes!

Scottish , Welsh and Irish sites are mentioned very often and I mentally sigh whenever I see them. Inevitably I have to solve the interconnecting clues first before I narrow down the geographical site clue.

Now, far be it for me to criticize this range of references. After all The Times crossword is UK based and has the tradition of using such clues. The setters probably expect the solvers ( mostly UK based) to know the geography of their sceptred isle . And gradually, I have gotten used to its presence in some clues.

But the “deep science and mathematics” which I love is hardly given its rightful place at the table! How much more universal are they, even when placed next to English Literature which I love equally! The literate world should marvel at Boyle’s Law and be aware of the exclamation sign in factorials.

More than just invoking famous scientists and mathematicians
( equivalent of literary references in The Times crosswords), I endeavour to give hints of scientific laws and mathematical structures. I personally feel that these universal insights should not remain obscure and should be in the consciousness of every literate soul.

However, intention of purpose is not sufficient to judge elegance of execution. Any such clue should be judged on its internal merits and aesthetic sense. Feel free to criticize the clues individually but it’s not quite fair to say that they belong to the “obscure” category.

I am reminded of an incident after I had clued one of the most famous series/transforms in mathematics—The Fourier Transform in a local treasure hunt. A dear friend sent me a cutting of a Times Crossword Competition Rules where the writer had humorously mentioned that Fourier Transforms and Riemann Functions would NOT be part of the answers!(I am quoting from memory)

Well, its about time that we invoke these Universal Insights in a way that with time and effort will show cryptic enthusiasts the wonders of the scientific world!
Rgds, Jaymen.

By: Roy Penrose

Roy Penrose — Sat, 02 May 2009 03:56:05 +0000

Jaymen,
I can see from your train of thought for the deconstruction of the Simpsons question that it can be solved.For a crossword man it’s initially a bit of a leap.
The same thing happens in a crossword when I come across a particularly well disguised definition.Not knowing what it is , I am forced to work on the indicators and see where they go much like what you described in your deconstruction.Mmmm. Seems that is the best approach to take to solve clues without definition.
Most crosswords seldom venture into deep science or mathematics.
Yet I have noticed you have an affinity for them. Boyle’s Law question comes to mind as well as the factorial question!A bit obscure in my opinion but the questions were concise.
Roy.

By: Jaymen

Jaymen — Fri, 01 May 2009 07:46:58 +0000

Hello Roy. Sorry for late reply.Part of the challenge for the solver of the Simpsons question was to figure out the function of Marge and Maggie.If one confused them as the objects of BARTering , then it’s difficult to solve.

So, I’m sure those who solved the question did take a step back and figure out that they are not be bartered. Leaving them be, the solver would see that L ( of Lisa) and O & E ( of Homer) need to come into the picture. With a limited number of answers , moth orchid would be a good choice –then Marge and Maggie would fit in logically.
People did manage to solve this question.

Quite frankly , I cant remember at what point in setting the question that I dragged the Simpsons into it. But, once i did, they brought a smile to my face as they usually do!Though they are immortal and dont need more recognition, i’m happy to pay a homage to all of them cryptically!
Rgds, Jaymen.

By: Roy Penrose

Roy Penrose — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:56:32 +0000

Jaymen,
“No requirement of definition” is traded off with “answers being available from a select few”—mmmm , sounds fair.
Looking at 1 of your questions , where you had the TV family (The Simpsons) all in 1 clue (never seen that done before, i must say)- there is a definition of sorts ” Marge and Maggie”.However, the definition is apparent only after moth orchid is manipulated into mother child.
Doesn’t this give the solver a greater range of difficulty than the crossword bound rules?
I must confess i could not solve this (amongst others!)wonderfully restrictive question.I could not make heads or tails of this question, but seeing the explanation , smacked myself for it.
Roy.

By: Jaymen

Jaymen — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 09:26:25 +0000

Roy,
Online hunts have to be restricted to some categories of words within the site. Imagine if answers were in a sentence. It would be crazy to look for them.However, quiz questions can cover some interesting facts within the site.
I do believe that Webmazers are the first to configure online hunts in this systematic way.
The site owners put up the prizes ( and a suitable fee !) and what they get is a whole bunch of potential clients “examining” their product over a period of 2 weeks.

Re crosswords with clues that have no definitions–wouldn’t the crossword community look askance on such heresy?
I’m a crossword fan and I probably wouldn’t like such a cocktail!

However, I can confidently say that in cases where the answers are “out there”, we can dispense with definitions. In a way, another degree of freedom is available to the setter to try out some unique stuff which could never be tried out in a crossword situation.
Rgds, Jaymen.

By: Roy Penrose

Roy Penrose — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:21:19 +0000

Jaymen,
There have been specialty crosswords before where definitions were not present in the clueing. However, they indicated these clues in a crossword with a star.So most clues had definitions but some stood out as mentioned. They were solvable because the intersecting letters had to satisfy both “down” and “across” clues.
In your case you have severely limited the possible answers to headings and such. That makes the search bearable. This modus operandi has potential to cover almost any website. It’s a superb insight. Am looking forward to your 3rd hunt.

Roy.

By: Jaymen

Jaymen — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:21:34 +0000

Hello Roy. Welcome aboard. Thank you for your kind comments. The 3rd hunt should be ready in 2 weeks.
Rgds, Jaymen.

By: Roy Penrose

Roy Penrose — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:23:48 +0000

Webmazers,
After looking at the last 2 sets of questions, I am looking forward to the 3rd hunt. When will that be?
Though I am more familiar with cryptic crosswords, I see that you have stuck to the basic rules ( minus the definitions , in some cases).
So the questions don’t feel that odd.
In truth, they are very cunning and being an amateur setter myself, I can see that pains have been taken to devise them.
Looking forward to the 3rd Hunt. Hope it’s not too far off!
Roy.