Post by Apple on Jul 15, 2020 14:07:13 GMT -5
Hi Indigo, I think what you've done is imaginative but I find the solution you presented leading up to Adelaide problematic. In particular, (1) it requires many assumptions that are hard to swallow if Fenn's puzzle is indeed elegant, unambiguous ("confident"), and thorough ("thought of everything") and (2) I get different but ultimately inconsequential results (inconsequential is a problem) when projecting lines.
The logic of rainbow >> colors >> Colorado is clever. I question how Fenn would have expected us to choose from the narrow set of search states compared to the set of probably thousands of geographic names related to color in the search area. In TTOTC, he doesn't say it's in New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, or Montana; he says it's in the "mountains somewhere north of Santa Fe" (p.131). That being said, he does explicitly mention states later, such as the search area excludes "Utah, Idaho, and Canada" (Forrest Gets Mail - 8). This is an imaginative starting point but it requires a huge assumption on the part of players to choose only from the narrow set of state names. Therefore, unless I'm missing crucial points, I find this point clever but not elegant.
The logic of using temperature in conjunction with physical properties of rainbows/prisms is clever. As borders are discussed in TTOTC [for example, the "Amos 'n Andy radio show" line "don't make the alligator mad until you've crossed the river" (p.24), the No Place for the Biddies comment "he'd run away from home but he’s not allowed to cross the street" (p.20), the image of "the big window" (p.26), and Fenn's comment that he was learning "where the edges were" (p.27)] there is some logic to choose a corner from which to project lines. However, this reasoning doesn’t unambiguously tell us to focus on corners. We can project a line from any point along the border, not just at a corner. It requires an assumption on the part of players to choose to project a line from the corners. Further, I do not see the logic of which particular corner to use and which particular border to use for measuring the angle. Therefore, unless I’m missing crucial points, I find the concept clever but its application problematic.
I have a problem with your line projection. I believe part of this problem relates to the level of precision one can expect when drawing freehand on a small scale, such as a map printed on typical letter paper. Additionally, it is difficult to distinguish in any sort of meaningful way between 40 degrees and 42 degrees when drawing freehand on such a small piece of paper.
Using Caltopo, I can accurately project a bearing line on its Mercator projection map. Using the southeastern corner of Colorado and projecting a line at 40 degrees north of the southern border of Colorado, the line passes just south of Colorado Springs. However, a line projected at 42 degrees does pass directly through central Colorado Springs. [See image here; the top line from the SE corner of CO is 42 degrees, the bottom line from that corner is 40 degrees]
Similarly, a projecting a line at 40 degrees north of the southern border of Colorado from the southwestern corner skirts mostly south of the patchwork boundaries of Aurora (it is uncanny how it misses almost all parts of this disjointed city). However, a line projected at 42 degrees does pass directly through central Aurora. [See image here; the top line from the SW corner of CO is 42 degrees, the bottom line from that corner is 40 degrees]
My bearings have 42 degrees as the proper angle to use. I question the choice of 40 degrees projections based on the clever logic of blue refraction >> cold >> where warm waters halt. This requires further explanation.
The solution of Canon City, located south and west of Colorado Springs, is only somewhat satisfactory; it does leave me wondering how to account for the west part of the direction. The solution of Pueblo as a brown home and the entirely concrete take on the meaning of too far to walk is also similarly satisfactory. Finding blue within Pueblo and again applying the refraction properties of rainbows is consistent.
We must once again make a huge assumption of which reference line from which to project a line from Pueblo at 40 degrees. You used a line parallel to the southern border of Colorado. I do not see any logical reason to use that again other than it was the previous reference point. Similar to the discussion above, the difference between 40 and 42 degrees is meaningless and perhaps even more so now that we are dealing with smaller distances. It becomes even more meaningless when we consider that Pueblo isn't a discrete point like the corners of Colorado but rather an area.
In any event, projecting a line from some point approximating central Pueblo at both 40 degrees and 42 degrees north relative to a line parallel to the southern border of Colorado passes within 1.5 miles of each other in the Adelaide region. I don't know where your cistern is located in this region so I can't comment on whether the 40 degree or 42 degree line is closer to the cistern but that hardly matters when we don't have an unambiguous starting point but rather a starting area (all of Pueblo). Shifting the starting point from one area of Pueblo to another will bring these lines closer or further from this cistern in whatever way we would find to be convenient. [See image here; the top line is 42 degrees from Pueblo, the bottom line is 40 degrees]
I think what you've done is clever and imaginative but there is plenty of ambiguity in many of the steps, unless I'm missing a big chunk of your reasoning. I haven't yet delved into the next part of your solution, the zodiac wheel.
