Tanya Khovanova's Math Blog

In a puzzle book by Mari Berrondo (in Russian), I found the following logic problem:

Alfred, Bertran and Charles are asked about their profession. One of them always lies; another one always tells the truth; and the third one [who I will refer to as a “half-liar”] sometimes lies and sometime tells the truth. Here are their answers:

Bertran: I am a painter, Alfred is a piano-tuner, Charles is a decorator.
Alfred: I am a doctor, Charles is an insurance agent. Concerning Bertran, if you ask him, he will tell you that he is a painter.
Charles: Alfred is a piano-tuner. Bertran is a decorator, and I am an insurance agent.
What is the profession of the half-liar?

The solution in the book is the following. As Alfred is right about what Bertran would say, Alfred can’t be a liar. If Alfred is a half-liar then the other two people would give the opposite statements, since one will be a truth-teller and the other a liar. But they both say that Alfred is a piano-tuner, therefore Alfred must be a truth-teller. Hence, Alfred’s statement about everyone’s profession must be the truth. Now we know that Charles is an insurance agent. As Charles confirms that, thus telling the truth in this instance, we recognize that he must be a half-liar. The answer to the problem is that the half-liar is an insurance agent.

But I have a problem with this problem. You see, a liar can say many things. He can say that he is a conductor, a mathematician, a beekeeper or whatever. So there is no way of knowing what a person who decides to lie can say. Let’s just analyze the statement by Alfred: “Concerning Bertran, if you ask him, he will tell you that he is a painter.”

If Alfred tells the truth about what Bertran would say, he needs to know for sure that Bertran will say that he is a painter. Hence, Bertran must be a truth-teller and a painter. If Alfred lies, he needs to be sure that Bertran won’t say that he is a painter. So Bertran must be either a truth-teller and not a painter, or a liar and a painter. Bertran can’t be a half-liar, because a half-liar can say that he is a painter as well as he can say something else, no matter what his real profession.

There is one interesting aspect of this that many people overlook. There are different types of people who are half-liars. In some books half-liars are introduced as people who, before making a statement, flip a coin to decide whether to lie or to tell the truth. Such a person needs to know in advance exactly what other people are saying, in order to construct a statement about what those people might say that corresponds to the coin flip. On the other hand, other types of half-liars exist. One half-liar can say something and then see later whether it is true. If Alfred is a half-liar who doesn’t care in advance about the truth of his statement, he can say that Bertran will claim that he is a painter.

I leave it to my readers to finish my analysis and see that the problem doesn’t have a solution. To end my essay on a positive note, I decided to slightly change the problem, so that there is no contradiction. In the same setting:

Bertran: I am a painter, Alfred is a piano-tuner, Charles is a decorator.
Alfred: I am a doctor, Charles is an insurance agent. Concerning Bertran, if you ask him, he will tell you that he is not a painter.
Charles: Alfred is a piano-tuner. Bertran is a decorator, and I am an insurance agent.
What is the profession of the half-liar?

33 horsemen are riding in the same direction along a circular road. Their speeds are constant and pairwise distinct. There is a single point on the road where the horsemen can pass one another. Can they ride in this fashion for an arbitrarily long time?

The puzzle appeared at the International Tournament of the Towns and at the Moscow Olympiad. Both competitions were held on the same day, which incidentally fell on Pi Day 2010. Just saying: at the Tournament the puzzle was for senior level competitors; at the Moscow Olympiad it was for 8th graders.

Warning: If you want to solve it yourself first, pause now, because here is the solution I propose.

First, consider two horsemen who meet at that single point. The faster horseman passes the slower one and gallops ahead and the slower one canters along. The next meeting point should be at the same place in the circle. Suppose the slower horseman rides n full circles before the next meeting, then the second horseman could not have passed the first in between, so he has to ride n+1 full circles. That means their speeds should have a ratio of (n+1)/n for an integer n. And vice versa, if their speeds have such a ratio, they will meet at the same location on the circle each time. That means that to solve the problem, we need to find 33 different speeds with such ratios.

As all speed ratios are rational numbers, we can scale speeds so that they are relatively prime integers. The condition that two integers have a ratio (n+1)/n is equivalent to the statement that two integers are divisible by their difference. So the equivalent request to the problem is to find a set of 33 positive integers (or prove non-existence), such that every two integers in the set are divisible by their difference.

Let’s look at examples with a small number of horsemen. For two riders we can use speeds 1 and 2. For three riders, speeds 2, 3 and 4.

Now the induction step. Suppose that we found positive integer speeds for k horsemen. We can add one more horseman with zero speed who quietly stays at the special point and everyone else passes him. The difference condition is satisfied. We just need to tweak the set of speeds so that the lazy horseman starts moving.

We can see that if we add the least common multiple to every integer in a set of integers such that every two numbers in a pair are divisible by their difference, then the condition stays satisfied. So by induction we can find 33 horsemen. Thus, the answer to the problem is: Yes they can.

Now I would like to apply that procedure from the solution to calculate what kind of speeds we get. If we start with one rider with the speed of 1, we add the second rider with speed 0, then we add 1 to both speeds, getting the solution for two riders: 1 and 2. Now that we have a solution for two riders, we add a third rider with speed 0 then add 2 to every speed, getting the solution for three horsemen: 2, 3 and 4. So the procedure gave us the solutions we already knew for two and three horsemen.

If we continue this, we’ll get speeds 12, 14, 15 and 16 for four riders. Similarly, 1680, 1692, 1694, 1695, and 1696 for five riders.

We get two interesting new sequences out of this. The sequence of the fastest rider’s speed for n horsemen is: 1, 2, 4, 16, 1696. And the sequence of the least common multiples for n−1 riders — which is the same as the lowest speed among n riders — is: 1, 1, 2, 12, 1680, 343319185440.

The solution above provides very large numbers. It is possible to find much smaller solutions. For example for four riders the speeds 6, 8, 9 and 12 will do. For five riders: 40, 45, 48, 50 and 60.

I wonder if my readers can help me calculate the minimal sequences of the fastest and slowest speeds. That is, to find examples where the integer speed for the fastest (slowest) horseman is the smallest possible.

One day we may all face the necessity of hiring a lawyer. If the case is tricky the lawyer must be smart and inventive. I am collecting puzzles to give to a potential lawyer during an interview. The following puzzle is one of them. It was given at the second Euler Olympiad in Russia:

At a local Toyota dealership, you are allowed to exchange brand new cars. You can exchange three Camrys for one Prius and one Avalon, and three Priuses for two Camrys and one Avalon. Assuming an unlimited supply of cars at the dealership, can collector Vasya exchange 700 Camrys for 400 Avalons?

The beauty of this puzzle is that the answer I may find acceptable from a mathematician is not the same as I want from my future lawyer.

Have I intrigued you? Get to work and send me your solutions.

Most movies related to mathematics irritate me because of simplifications. I especially do not like when a movie pretends to be intelligent and then dumbs it down. I recently watched the Spanish movie Fermat’s Room, which, as you may guess, annoyed me several times. In spite of that I enjoyed it very much.

The movie opens with people receiving invitations to attend a meeting for geniuses. To qualify for the meeting they need to solve a puzzle. Within ten days, they must guess the order underlying the following sequence: 5, 4, 2, 9, 8, 6, 7, 3, 1. Right away, at the start of the movie, I was already annoyed because of the simplicity of the question. You do not have to be a genius to figure out the order, not to mention how easy it would be to plug this sequence into the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences to find the order in five minutes.

The participants were asked to hide their real names, which felt very strange to me. All famous puzzle solvers compete in puzzle championships and mystery hunts and consequently know each other.

The meeting presumably targets the brightest minds and promises to provide “the greatest enigma.” During the meeting they are given seven puzzles to solve. All of them are from children’s books and the so-called “greatest enigma” could easily be solved by kids. Though I have to admit that these were among the cutest puzzles I know. For example:

There are three boxes: one with mint sweets, the second with aniseed sweets, and the last with a mixture of the two. The boxes are labeled, but all the labels are wrong. What is the minimum number of sweets you need to taste to correctly re-label all the boxes?

Another of the film’s puzzles includes a light bulb in a room and three switches outside, where you have to correctly find the switch that corresponds to the bulb, but you can only enter the room once. In another puzzle you need to get out of prison by deciding which of two doors leads to freedom. You are allowed to ask exactly one question to one of the two guards, one of whom is a truth-teller and the other is a liar.

The other four puzzles are similar to these three I have just described. To mathematicians they are not the greatest enigmas. They are nice material for a children’s math club. For non-mathematicians, they may be fascinating. Certainly it’s a good thing that such tasteful puzzles are being promoted to a large audience. But they just look ridiculous as “the greatest enigmas.”

So what is it about this film that I so enjoyed?

The intensity of the movie comes from the fact that the people are trapped in a room that starts shrinking when they take more than one minute to solve a puzzle.

I well remember another shrinking room from Star Wars: A New Hope. When Princess Leia leads her rescuers to a room, it turns out to be a garbage compactor. The bad guys activate the compactor and two opposite walls start moving in. In contrast, Fermat’s room is shrinking in a much more sophisticated way: all four walls are closing in. Each of the walls in the rectangular room is being pressured by an industrial-strength press. The walls in the corners do not crumble, but rather one wall glides along another. I was more puzzled by this shrinking room than I was by the math puzzles. I recommend that you try to figure out how this can be done before seeing the movie or its poster.

However, the best puzzle in the movie is the plot itself. Though I knew all the individual puzzles, what happened in between grabbed me and I couldn’t wait to see what would happen next. I saw the movie twice. After the first time, I decided to write this review, so I needed to check it again. I enjoyed it the second time even better than the first time. The second time, I saw how nicely the plot twists were built.

Maybe I shouldn’t complain about the simplicity and the familiarity of the puzzles. If they were serious new puzzles I would have started solving them instead of enjoying the movie. The film’s weakness might be its strength.

I collect hats puzzles. A puzzle about hats that I hadn’t heard before appeared on the Konstantin Knop’s blog (in Russian):

The sultan decides to test his hundred wizards. Tomorrow at noon he will randomly put a red or a blue hat — for both of which he has an inexhaustible supply — on every wizard’s head. Each wizard will be able to see every hat but his own. The wizards will not be allowed to exchange any kind of information whatsoever. At the sultan’s signal, each wizard needs to write down the color of his own hat. Every wizard who guesses wrong will be executed. The wizards have one day to decide on a strategy to maximize the number of survivors. Suggest a strategy for them.

I’ll start the discussion with a rather simple idea: Each wizard writes down a color randomly. In this case the expected number of survivors is 50. Actually, if each wizard writes “red”, then the expected number of survivors is 50, too. Can you find a better strategy, with a greater expected number of survivors or prove that such a strategy doesn’t exist?

As a bonus question, can you suggest a strategy that guarantees 50 survivors?

Now that you’ve solved that issue, here’s my own variation of the problem.

The wizards are all very good friends with each other. They decide that executions are very sad events and they do not wish to witness their friends’ deaths. They would rather die themselves. They realize that they will only be happy if all of them survive together. Suggest a strategy that maximizes the probability of them being happy, that is, the probability that all of them will survive.

The following two problems appeared together in Martin Gardner’s Scientific American column in 1959.

Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that both children are boys?

Mr. Jones has two children. The older child is a girl. What is the probability that both children are girls?

Many people, including me and Martin Gardner, wrote a lot about Mr. Smith. In his original column Martin Gardner argued that the answer to the first problem is 1/3. Later he wrote a column titled “Probability and Ambiguity,” where he corrected himself about Mr. Smith.

… the answer depends on the procedure by which the information “at least one is a boy” is obtained.

This time I would like to ignore Mr. Smith, as I wrote a whole paper about him that is now under consideration for publication at the College Mathematics Journal. I would rather get back to Mr. Jones.

Mr. Jones failed to stir a controversy from the start and was forgotten. Olivier Leguay asked me about Mr. Jones in a private email, reminding me that the answer to the problem about his children also depends on the procedure.

One of the reasons Mr. Jones was forgotten is that for many natural procedures the answer is 1/2. For example, the following procedures will produce an answer of 1/2:

• We ask Mr. Jones whether his older child is a daughter and he says “yes.”
• Mr. Jones flips a coin deciding which child to talk about. After that he has to tell us the gender and whether the child is the oldest.
• Mr. Jones is asked to say nothing if he doesn’t have a daughter, to select the daughter if has just one, or to pick one at random if he has two daughters. After that he has to tell us whether the daughter he has selected is the oldest.

There are many other procedures that lead to the answer 1/2. However, there are many procedures that lead to other answers.

Suppose I know Mr. Jones, and also know that he has two children. I meet Mr. Jones at a mall, and he tells me that he is buying a gift for his older daughter. Most probably I would assume that the other child is a daughter, too. In my experience, people who have a son and a daughter would say that they are buying a gift for “my daughter.” Only people with two daughters would bother to specify that they are buying a gift for “my older daughter.”

In some sense I didn’t forget about Mr. Jones. I wrote about him implicitly in my essay Two Coins Puzzle. His name was Carl and he had two coins instead of two children.

My blog is getting more famous. Now I don’t need to look around for nice problems, for my readers often send them to me. In response to my blog about him, Sergey Markelov’s Best, Markelov sent me more of his problems. Here is a cute tetrahedron problem that he designed:

Six segments are such that you can make a triangle out of any three of them. Is it true that you can build a tetrahedron out of all six of them?

Another reader, Alexander Shen, sent me a different tetrahedron problem from a competition after reading my post on Problem Design for Multiple Choice Questions:

Imagine the union of a pyramid based on a square whose faces are equilateral triangles and a regular tetrahedron that is glued to one of these faces. How many faces will this figure have?

Shen wrote that the right answer to this problem had been rumored to have a negative correlation with the result of the entire test.

86 is conjectured to be the largest power of 2 not containing a zero. This simply stated conjecture has proven itself to be proof-resistant. Let us see why.

What is the probability that the nth power of two will not have any zeroes? The first and the last digits are non-zeroes; suppose that other digits become zeroes randomly and independently of each other. This supposition allows us to estimate the probability of 2ⁿ not having zeroes as (9/10)^k-2, where k is the number of digits of 2ⁿ. The number of digits can be estimated as n log₁₀2. Thus, the probability is about cxⁿ, where c = (10/9)² ≈ 1.2 and x = (9/10)^log₁₀2 ≈ 0.97. The expected number of powers of 2 without zeroes starting from the power N is cx^N/(1-x) ≈ 40 ⋅ 0.97^N.

Let us look at A007377, the sequence of numbers such that their powers of 2 do not contain zeros: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 49, 51, 67, 72, 76, 77, 81, 86. Our estimates predicts 32 members of this sequence starting from 6. In fact, the sequence has 30 conjectured members. Similarly, our estimate predicts 2.5 members starting from 86. It is easy to check that the sequence doesn’t contain any more numbers below 200 and our estimate predicts 0.07 members after 200. As we continue checking larger numbers and see that they do not belong to the sequence, the probability that the sequence contains more elements vanishes. With time we check more numbers and become more convinced that the conjecture is true. Currently, it has been checked up to the power 4.6 ⋅ 10⁷. The probability of finding something after that is about 1.764342396 ⋅10^-633620.

Let us try to approach the conjecture from another angle. Let us check the last K digits of powers of two. As the number of possibilities is finite, these last digits eventually will start cycling. If we can show that all the elements inside the period contain zeroes, then we need to check the finite number of powers of two until this period starts. If we can find such K, we can prove the conjecture.

Let us look at the last two digits of powers of two. The sequence starts as: 01, 02, 04, 08, 16, 32, 64, 28, 56, 12, 24, 48, 96, 92, 84, 68, 36, 72, 44, 88, 76, 52, 04. As we would anticipate, it starts cycling. The cycle length is 20, and 90% of numbers in the cycle don’t have zeroes.

Now let’s continue to the last three digits. The period length is 100, and 19 of them either start with zero or contain zero. The percentage of elements in the cycle that do not contain zero is 81%.

The cycle length for the last n digits is known. It is 4 ⋅ 5^n-1. In particular the cycle length grows by 5 every time. The number of zero-free elements in these cycles form a sequence A181610: 4, 18, 81, 364, 1638, 7371, 33170. If we continue with our supposition that the digits are random, and study the new digits that appear when we move from the cycle of the last n digits to the next cycle of the last n+1 digits, we can expect that 9/10 of those digits will be non-zero. Indeed, if we check the ratio of how many numbers do not contain zero in the next cycle compared to the previous cycle, we get: 4.5, 4.5, 4.49383, 4.5, 4.5, 4.50007. All of these numbers are quite close to our estimation of 4.5. If this trend continues the portion of the numbers in the cycle that don’t have zeroes tends to zero; however, the total of such numbers grows exponentially. We can even estimate that the expected growth is 4 ⋅ 4.5^n-1. From this estimation, we can derive the conjecture:

Conjecture. For any number N, there exists a power of two such that its last N digits are zero-free.

Indeed, the last N digits of powers of two cycle, and there are an increasing number of members inside that cycle that do not contain zeroes. The corresponding powers of two don’t have zeroes among N rightmost digits.

So, how do we combine the two results? First, the expected probability of finding the power of two larger than 86 that doesn’t contain zero is minuscule. And second, we most certainly can find a power of two that has as many zeroless digits at the end as we want.

To combine the two results, let us look at the sequences A031140 and A031141. We can deduce from them that for the power 103233492954 the first zero from the right occupies the 250th spot. The total number of digits of that power is 31076377936. So 250 is a tiny portion of the digits.

As time goes by we grow more and more convinced that 86 is the largest power of two without zeroes, but it is not at all clear how we can prove the conjecture or whether it can be proven at all.

My son, Sergei, suggested that I claim that I have a proof of this conjecture, but do not have enough space in the margin to fit my proof in. The probability that I will ever be shamed and disproven is lower than the probability of me winning a billion dollars in the lottery. Though then, if I do win the big bucks, I will still care about being shamed and disproven.

I wrote a series of essays about AMC competitions:

• Metasolving AMC 8
• AMC, AIME, USAMO Contradiction
• Multiple Choice Proofs
• Should You Check Your Answers During Tests?
• To Guess or Not to Guess?
• Solving Problems with Choices
• How to Boost Your Guessing Accuracy During Tests
• Choices or No Choices
• Problem Design for Multiple Choice Questions

This essay is next in the series. Although it is not strictly about AMC, it should be useful during any test when you need to check your answers. There are several important rules which are helpful.

Rule 0. Checking is important. If wrong answers are punished, then correcting a mistake brings more points than solving a new problem. In addition, problems that were solved are often easier than problems yet to be solved, so finding a mistake might be faster than solving a new problem.

Rule 1. Your checking methods must be fast. The tests are generally timed. This means that in order to check your answers, you need to sacrifice your work on the next problem.

Rule 2. Customize how you check according to your strengths and weaknesses. For example, if you tend to jump to conclusions about what the question is going to be, and as a result answer your anticipated question instead of the one that is actually on the test, then when you are checking you should start reading the problem from the question. Or, if you usually make mistakes in geometry problems, you should allocate more time to geometry problems when you are checking. If you never make mistakes in arithmetic problems then you do not need to check those.

Rule 3. Mark problems that might need checking. If you do not have enough time to check all the problems, check only those you are not sure about.

Rule 4. Do not repeat your solution when you check. While solving the problem your brain often creates a pathway from start to finish. If on this pathway your brain decided to believe that two plus two is five, very often during checking, your brain will make the same mistake again. Because of that it is crucial to use other methods for checking than repeating your reasoning. In case you can’t find a way to check your answers using a different method and have to repeat your reasoning, you should repeat it in a different order.

This rule is so important, that I am providing some methods to change your brain pathway when you are checking your answers.

Plug in. Plugging in the answer you found is much faster than finding it. Use this method whenever possible. It is perfect for problems like this one below from 2004 AMC10-A:

What is the value of x if |x – 1| = |x – 2|?

Plug in an intermediate result. Sometimes you can’t plug in the answer, but you can plug in an intermediate result. In the following problem from 2004 AMC10-B you can plug in the number of nickels and dimes:

Patty has 20 coins consisting of nickels and dimes. If her nickels were dimes and her dimes were nickels, she would have 70 cents more. How much are her coins worth?

Calculate something else related to your answer. For example a negation. Here is a problem from 2004 AMC10-B:

How many two-digit positive integers have at least one 7 as a digit?

If you calculated the answer directly, to check it you may want to calculate the number of two-digit positive integers that do not contain 7.

Create an example. Sometimes you solve a problem by reasoning, but to check it you might create a particular example. Here is a problem from 2001 AMC10:

Let P(n) and S(n) denote the product and the sum, respectively, of the digits of the integer n. For example, P(23) = 6 and S(23) = 5. Suppose N is a two-digit number such that N = P(N) + S(N). What is the units digit of N?

If we denote the tens digit by a and the units digit by b, then N = 10a + b, P(N) = a*b, and S(N) = a + b. We get an equation a(b+1) = 10a, from which the answer is 9. To check the answer we do not need to repeat the reasoning. It is enough to check that 19 is the sum of the product of its digits plus the digits.

Here is another problem from 2001 AMC10:

Suppose that n is the product of three consecutive integers and that n is divisible by 7. Which of the following is not necessarily a divisor of n?

The list of choices is: 6, 14, 21, 28, 42. Your solution might go like this: the product of three consecutive numbers is divisible by 6. Hence, n is divisible by 42. So, the answer must be 28. To check you might consider a product of three consecutive numbers: 5*6*7=210 and see that it is not divisible by 4, hence it is not divisible by 28.

Rule 5. Embrace the partial check. It is very important to check your answers fast. Sometimes you can gain speed if you do not check the problem completely, but check it partially. For example, you can check that your answer is one of the two correct answers. There are many methods for partial checking.

Try an example. Sometimes an example doesn’t guarantee that your choice is correct, but it increases your confidence in your answer. Here is another problem from 2001 AMC10:

The sum of two numbers is S. Suppose 3 is added to each number and then each of the resulting numbers is doubled. What is the sum of the final two numbers?

The choices are: 2S + 3, 3S + 2, 3S + 6, 2S + 6, 2S + 12. You can reason that increasing each summand by 3, increases the sum by 6. After that doubling each summand increases the resulting sum twice, so the answer is 2S + 12. To check the answer you can use an example. Usually an example doesn’t guarantee the confirmation of your answer, but it might help you eliminate some of the wrong answers. For example, if you choose zero and zero as your initial two numbers, then S = 0, and your transformation brings the result to 12, which confirms your answer 2S + 12. In this particular case, a very easy specific example excluded all the wrong answers.

Divisibility. Sometimes it is faster to calculate the remainder of the answer by some number.

For example, look at the following problem from 2003 AMC10:

What is the units digit of 13²⁰⁰³?

The choices are 1, 3, 7, 8, 9. We can immediately say that the answer must be an odd number.

Approximation check. One important example of a partial check is an approximation check. By estimating an approximate answer you might exclude most of the wrong answers. Consider this problem from 2001 AMC12:

How many positive integers not exceeding 2001 are multiples of 3 or 4 but not 5?

The divisibilities by 3, 4 or 5 shouldn’t correlate with each other. Approximately one third of those number are multiples of 3 and one quarter are multiples of 4. Let’s say that one twelfth are multiples of both 3 and 4. Hence, we estimate the portion of numbers that are multiples of 3 or 4 as 1/3 + 1/4 – 1/12 = 1/2. We have about 1,000 such numbers. The number of numbers that are, in addition, not divisible by 5, are less than that. So out of the given choice of (A) 768, (B) 801, (C) 934, (D) 1067, (E) 1167, we can immediately confirm that the answer is among the first three.

The methods above can be useful even if you do not have multiple choices. But if you do…

Rule 6. Use given choices as extra information. In the previous examples you saw how to use a partial check to exclude some of the choices. Here is a specific example from 2006 AMC10-A of how to exclude choices:

What non-zero real value for x satisfies (7x)¹⁴ = (14x)⁷?

The choices are: 1/7, 2/7, 1, 7, 14. If you solved the problem directly, to check it you can reason why other choices do not work. In this particular case it can be done very fast. 1/7 doesn’t work because the left part of the equation becomes 1 when the right is clearly not. 1 and 7 do not work because the left part is odd and the right is even; 14 doesn’t work because the left is clearly bigger than the right.

Rule 7. Use meta considerations. If you get into the mind of the designers you can better anticipate when you should check more thoroughly. Consider this problem from 2006 AMC10-A:

A digital watch displays hours and minutes with AM and PM. What is the largest possible sum of the digits in the display?

The most common mistake would be to assume that 12:59 supplies the largest sum, which is 17. But look at the choices: 17, 19, 21, 22, 23. When the designers are asking to find the largest number with some property, they assume that some students will make a mistake and chose a smaller number over a larger one. That means the designers would include this potential mistake among the choices. So the answer is extremely unlikely to be the smallest number on the list of choices. Thus, if you think the answer is 17, understanding how these problems are constructed should alert you to thoroughly check your answer. Indeed, the correct answer is 23 which corresponds to 9:59. Not surprisingly, it is the largest on the list of choices.

AMC 10/12 is coming on February 8 and HMMT on February 12. Happy checking.

As I did for 2010 and for previous years, here are math-related puzzles from the MIT Mystery Hunt 2011.

• Another Small Collection of Immense Integers — Large integers.
• Two Heads are Better than One — A logic puzzle.
• Worthy of Picasso — Paint-by-Numbers followed by a mathematical extraction.
• Unfair Cryptogram — A cryptogram.
• The Eternal Struggle — Something happens at every time step.
• N-tris — A tetris variation.
• Scrambling Attributes Yields Conundrum — A hidden logic puzzle.
• Basic Knowledge — An integer circuit diagram.
• Nik-holey — A set of Nikoli puzzles with a twist, including Nurikabe, Slitherlink, Hitori, Heyawake, Fillomino, Hashiwokakero.
• Games — Related to games.
• You Shall Understand What Hath Befallen — An Othello game.
• Pointillisme — Paint-by-Numbers.
• The Crypt — A cryptogram.
• Technological Crisis at Shikakuro Farms — My favorite puzzle, a blend of shikaku, kakuro, and sudoku.
• Showcase — This one looks the most mathematical, but you need to physically visit MIT’s math department to solve it.
• Advanced Maths — My second favorite, this looks like binary operations, but not quite.
• Efficiency — A Scheme code.
• Losing My Nerve — A changing cipher cryptogram with extra math at the extraction stage.
• Clues and Coordinates — 3D geometry.

Two more puzzles deserve a special mention for their nerdiness. My teammates loved them.

• Sufficiently Advanced Technology — It is difficult to believe that this puzzle is not over-constrained.
• Unlikely Situations — This puzzle needed cooperation from a very special person in advance.