### Random Post

### Recent Posts

- Enigma 1065: Cute cubes
- Enigma 444: Rows and rows
- Puzzle 50: Football and addition
- Enigma 1066: Members of the clubs
- Enigma 443: The bells they are a-changing
- Tantalizer 455: Ballistico
- Tantalizer 456: Square deal
- Enigma 1067: Bye!
- Enigma 442b: Oh yes I did! Oh no you didn’t!
- Puzzle 51: A multiplication

### Recent Comments

Brian Gladman on Enigma 1065: Cute cubes | |

Jim Randell on Enigma 1065: Cute cubes | |

geoffrounce on Enigma 444: Rows and rows | |

Jim Randell on Enigma 444: Rows and rows | |

geoffrounce on Enigma 1611: Three sister… |

### Archives

### Categories

- article (11)
- enigma (1,167)
- misc (2)
- project euler (2)
- puzzle (42)
- site news (45)
- tantalizer (45)
- teaser (3)

### Site Stats

- 180,599 hits

Advertisements

This is straightforward to solve. This Python program runs in 31ms.

Solution:The five numbers are 343, 243, 256, 216 and 512.Pretty similar in structure to Jim’s version

Without writing a computer program, here is my list:

343, 243, 256 216 512

The only discrepency I have with this solution is that the enigma specifies that proceeding numbers can have the same hundreth _or_ the same tens _or_ the same units.

E.g. 343 couldn’t be followed by 243 (since the tens match _and_ the units match)

By sticking to this stringently the puzzle is unsolvable though…

I agree that the puzzle could have been clearer on whether the “or” was “exclusive” or “inclusive”. But having studied logic and programming I was perfectly happy to use the standard inclusive meaning. And, as you point out, there are no solutions if you assume the exclusive meaning.