On Dec 3, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Branko Vukelic wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com> wrote: >> The answer was obvious at a glance to those of us who had multiplication >> tables drilled into us all those years ago, I think. > > I hated those tables. :) Probably explains why it took me so long. But > I did in my head more or less the same thing massimo's program did. > Just tried different permutations until one fit, and then applied it > to the last one to test if it works.
Yeah, they were pretty tedious. 2+3=10 7+2=63 6+5=66 8+4=96 So: 9+7=??? When I see "7+2=63", the 9 sort of jumps out at me, from the proximity of the 7 & 63. And of course the 7 & 2 also look like 9, so Eureka! (Once you then figure out the role the 9 has to play.) Ditto the other combinations, though in practice they just serve to confirm the original hypothesis.
