Ancient puzzle, solved by abstract algebra?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a number rearrangement puzzle involving the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 10, with a vacant space for movement. Participants argue about the impossibility of solving the puzzle, particularly the challenge of swapping the numbers 10 and 11 while adhering to the game's constraints. It is noted that achieving the correct order requires an even number of swaps, which complicates the solution. The conversation also highlights the poorly written nature of the problem statement, leading to confusion. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards the belief that the puzzle cannot be solved.
MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
i reackon youv'e seen it already, the problem is to rearrange the next numbers in the fixed order:
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 11 10
when you have at the last entry a vacant place you need to put it in order.
this is from the text of edwin h. connell, and i think it's impossible (after a lot of trial & error on my behalf), now my question is how do you prove/disprove my assertion?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's impossible. I've seen it before but I couldn't remember how to prove it until I looked here
http://members.tripod.com/~dogschool/permutation.html

If on each move you could make a swap between _any_ two numbers (or between a number and the space) then to swap the 11 and the 10 while leaving the other pieces the same requires an odd number of swaps. But the way the game is set up, the empty space can only be at the bottom right if you have made an even number of swaps.
 
oh, this old dogschool site is indeed great, this was my first insight into group theory.
 
loop quantum gravity said:
i reackon youv'e seen it already, the problem is to rearrange the next numbers in the fixed order:
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 11 10
when you have at the last entry a vacant place you need to put it in order.
this is from the text of edwin h. connell, and i think it's impossible (after a lot of trial & error on my behalf), now my question is how do you prove/disprove my assertion?

i did not understand the problem until i quoted it. it is poorly written...the 9 11 and 10 appear to be as long as the first columns. Okay...everyone says it is impossible but...

5 6 7 8
9 11 10

9 6 11 10

5 7 11 8
9 6 10

5 7 10 11
9 6 8

1 2 3 4
5 6 7 10
9 8 11

almoust...almoust...

5 6 10 11
9 8 7

5 6 11
9 8 10 7

1 2 3 4
5 6 11
9 8 10 7

1 2 3 4
5 6 7 10
9 8 11

once again...close

5 8 6 10
9 7 11

5 7 8 10
9 6 11

that 10 just won't go down!

i give up. I'll let you with this lengthy post maybe someone uses a Rhiemann Space to teleport it into place.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
15K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
12K