Google's Math Puzzle

An anonymous reader writes "Commuters in Cambridge, Mass., are scratching their heads over signs challenging passers-by to solve a complicated math problem. The mysterious banners are actually a job-recruiting pitch from Google."

Comments

Just Google for the answer!

[Zog The Undeniable]

Remember kids, you don't have to KNOW anything any more. This is the age of the search engine.

Re:I wonder

[rusty0101]

I presume that would work for billboards where 'Google' is prominently displayed somewhere on the billboard. From the images I have seen of the billboards, it ain't there.

Given a Billboard where the only content is a text string '{first 10 digit prime in e}.com' there are three ways to find out that it is a 'google' ad.

1. Solve the puzzle.
2. Bribe the billboard owner. (surely you have seen this billboard advertizing itsel out at one time or another.)
3. Wait till the news breaks that it is a Google Job offer.

Something tells me that Google is more interested in people who quickly solve #1, vs people who can handle #2, or wait for #3.

-Rusty

Really really lame

[taybin]

In the latest issue Dr. Dobbs (you get a free subscription if you attend LinuxWorldConf), they had a pullout job application. It was in the style of an SAT test and was filled with such "oh we're so smart and clever and funny and funky funky fresh" questions such as "write a haiku on database caching" and "the box below is empty. fill it with something" and other questions where any of the questions could be considered correct.

It was really annoying. It didn't make me want to work there at all. It was like a "oh we're so smart mensa+masturbating club".

Re:not that complicated

[div_2n]

Presumably they are looking for geeks to apply. They put that out there and it gets posted to Slashdot (which they probably expected) and gets deciphered in less than 20 minutes or so (which they also probably expected) and inevitably results in lots of geeks pondering applying to Google.

Sounds reasonable and gets them good exposure at the same time. There is a reason why Google is a household name. This is one more example.

Re:not that complicated

[gowen]

Nice idea, except if you've only seen the billboard, how do you know it has anything to do with Google?

Re:not that complicated

[davorg]

how do you know it has anything to do with Google?

You don't need to know that. Here's how I solved it when I first heard about it in July.

#!/usr/bin/perl

use Net::DNS;

my $res = Net::DNS::Resolver->new;

my $e = '2718281828459045235360287471352662497757247093699 9'
.'59574966967627724076630353547594571382178525 166427'
.'427466391932003059921817413596629043572 90033429526'
.'0595630738132328627943490763233829 8807531952510190'
.'11573834187930702154089149934 884167509244761460668';

foreach (0 .. length $e) {
my $n = substr $e, $_, 10;
my $q = $res->search("$n.com");

if ($q) {
print $n, "\n";
last;
}
}

Re:not that complicated

[Phisbut]

It's also clear that during the interview process, they're gonna ask people how they found the answer. If you can detail your calculations or reasoning, you're in; if you say "I Googled the question and found the answer...", they'll say "Well, thanks for the flattery, but get the hell out"

Re:aaah

[Jerf]

I think you, and the thread stretching out from your post, are missing the point. The point is not the with polynomial interpolation, gowen can get "the answer". His point is that you can reasonably get any answer.

The set of functions is uncountably infinite. There are uncountably infinite functions that have f of 1, 2, 3, and 4 set to the values Google gave. The reality is that mathematically speaking, giving four numbers results in exactly no constraint on the next number; you might as well just pick one at random. "Polynomial interpolation" is one reasonable path to this, but remember that functions need not even be continuous and are ultimately just infinite look-up tables. (Note the final "solution" is just a lookup table-type function.)

To counter the obvious next objection ("well obviously it is going to be a human-meaningful number"), I take my objection one meta. Obviously we're not truly drawing from that infinite set of functions. However, there's still an effectively infinite set of "human meaningful functions", too. So the true challenge becomes not a math problem, but in sheer guessing which exact constraints the puzzle writer chose.

This is not a mathematical problem. It tries to pretend to be one, but it is not. Generally, once you know the constraints the solution is trivial.

The correct mathematical answer to all such sequences remains "The next number is whatever the hell it feels like being". I have better things to do with my time then try to second-guess somebody pretending to be clever and plucking some random thing out of the uncountably infinite set and demanding that I guess it. Thus, I don't do these puzzles; they're sophmoric in the literal sense of the term, created by people who think they are clever but don't seem to have a deep understanding of math.

People who "solve" the puzzle may impress Google, but I am not impressed by Google using this as a puzzle.