Pel: Right and when you when you solve the riddle you should know that you've solved the riddle.
This is one of the things that confuses me most about the posted solution. Pel told us that "when you solve the riddle you should know that you've solved the riddle." And that's how it worked with Masquerade: When you solved the technique of connecting fingers and eyes, it gave you a few sentences of instructions that obviously couldn't be occurring by chance. You knew that you had solved it.
But with this puzzle, even if you managed to guess the right digits formed by the blocks in the border, there was nothing to confirm that those numbers were more significant than other numbers scattered through the book. Why would the border blocks be more significant than the 1653 or the 1927614 or all the mileages on the signposts or the digits on the dolphin's head or the ISBN or so forth? Even without counting or measuring, there were a lot of numbers in this puzzle! How were searchers supposed to know which ones to use?
As someone put it yesterday, there's nothing in the published solution that would have seemed solid enough to justify a trip to MDI. In fact, the lack of a confirmation element in the solution would have made me assume that the solution was wrong.
Contrary to what Pel said in the interview, it was very possible to solve the riddle of Fandango without ever knowing that you had solved it.
Exactly. wgardner actually did solve it, they just didn't know they did. The Master Riddle AND the final numbers in the fold were found, and you're still left wondering what to do with which numbers exactly.
Even if you somehow knew the border numbers were THE numbers, there is zero way to know why one nondescript yellow bar that crosses the fold should be a one but another nondescript yellow bar that crosses the fold is not a one. Totally arbitrary. And the folding doesn't solve anything, it just confuses the issue more because there are ones that shouldn't be counted as ones that cross the fold in the same color, which would lead me to believe that they should be counted as ones, but they're arbitrarily not. I don't know how he couldn't see that just maybe somebody might not read a random yellow bar in the middle of a bunch of colored bars as a 1.
" Contrary to what Pel said in the interview, it was very possible to solve the riddle of Fandango without ever knowing that you had solved it."