Timeline for Not an affix-riddle at all
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 28, 2021 at 21:37 | history | bounty ended | Feryll | ||
| Aug 28, 2021 at 1:27 | vote | accept | Dannyu NDos | ||
| Aug 27, 2021 at 22:26 | comment | added | Gareth McCaughan♦ | OK, others gone now. | |
| Aug 27, 2021 at 22:26 | history | edited | Gareth McCaughan♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Leading theory confirmed by OP, hence other candidate theories are now out of date; remove them
|
| Aug 27, 2021 at 21:01 | comment | added | Dannyu NDos | Edit your answer to leave Theory 0 alone; then I'll accept it. | |
| Aug 27, 2021 at 12:01 | comment | added | Gareth McCaughan♦ | I'm confident that my "theory 0" explains everything in the puzzle and hints so far. If you say it's essentially the right answer then I can't see why you'd be lying about it. What further signs of confidence would you like, @DannyuNDos? :-) | |
| Aug 27, 2021 at 2:36 | comment | added | Dannyu NDos | @Feryll If Gareth feels confident. | |
| Aug 27, 2021 at 1:17 | comment | added | Feryll | How do you mean "essentially"? Are you going to accept it as the correct answer? | |
| Aug 26, 2021 at 20:36 | comment | added | Dannyu NDos | Theory 0 is essentially the right answer. | |
| Aug 26, 2021 at 13:52 | history | edited | Gareth McCaughan♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
an approach that seems consistent with everything in the riddle and its hints, though head and foot aren't the way around I'd have preferred
|
| Aug 25, 2021 at 15:48 | comment | added | Gareth McCaughan♦ | @DannyuNDos You mentioned that an earlier version of this was "extremely close"; would you like to give any guidance on the situation now? | |
| Aug 24, 2021 at 16:42 | comment | added | Gareth McCaughan♦ | I've updated my answer to include that idea (which I think is currently my best theory for what's going on) and also Feryll's (which despite my misgivings has a lot going for it). | |
| Aug 24, 2021 at 16:41 | history | edited | Gareth McCaughan♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
mention Feryll's approach to exact sequences too
|
| Aug 24, 2021 at 15:42 | history | edited | Gareth McCaughan♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
restructure a bit and don't be quite so diffident; this might actually be the intended answer now
|
| Aug 24, 2021 at 15:19 | history | edited | Gareth McCaughan♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
soften the disclaimer at the start a little since I do now kinda have a proposal for the third line
|
| Aug 24, 2021 at 15:12 | comment | added | Gareth McCaughan♦ | Another thought: although I don't think I've ever actually seen it, I can totally imagine using an arrow with a small slash through the middle meaning that some sort of map/function/arrow doesn't exist. That would be at the waist, and "kill" would be a reasonable notation for it. But, again, I don't think I've ever actually seen it used. | |
| Aug 24, 2021 at 10:32 | comment | added | Gareth McCaughan♦ | Actually, I don't like Feryll's proposal quite so much now I've thought about it more, because I want "slice" to mean cutting out one of A,B,C, and (1) the right end should definitely be the head end but that's the wrong way round (0->A->B is saying that the A->B arrow is monic, not epic) and (2) we need it to mean "just remove A/C" in two cases but "force B to be 0" in the third. | |
| Aug 24, 2021 at 10:24 | comment | added | Gareth McCaughan♦ | In the usual large-scale divisions of mathematics (algebra, geometry, topology, number theory, analysis, ...) I think it's fair to put category theory in the "algebra" box. (Despite its origins in topology.) I like Feryll's way of looking at the exact-sequence idea. I really hope there isn't an _end_omorphism pun, but I don't see why "slice my waist" in that case. | |
| Aug 23, 2021 at 22:30 | comment | added | SpiritFryer | Sorry forgot there is no formatting in comments. But anyway, the thing about the "endomorphism" idea is that it doesn't seem like there is a symbol used to indicate endomorphism, so not sure how to connect it to the "slice my waist" clue. -- On the other hand, there is the idea of "dashed arrows" used to claim the existence of a morphism, as this page mentions: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutative_diagram but not sure how to connect that to the "you shall have a kill" clue | |
| Aug 23, 2021 at 22:29 | comment | added | SpiritFryer | Here are some links that may be relevant. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(symbol) ||| ↠ epimorphism (or epic) (surjective function) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimorphism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surjective_function ||| ↣ monomorphism (or monic) (injective function) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomorphism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injective_function ||| "Slice my waist, you shall have a kill." This could be referring to endomorphism (kill = end) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endomorphism | |
| Aug 23, 2021 at 22:17 | comment | added | Feryll | However, I'm still not sure why it would be "neck" and "thigh" rather than anatomy more common in riddles, like "head" and "leg," unless there were some specific reason. As well, category theory isn't really algebra, even if it finds use there. Nor would I understand the "overkill" line, unless we just read "kill = overkill." | |
| Aug 23, 2021 at 22:10 | comment | added | Feryll | If "an exact sequence" were the answer, it would probably mean "slice my waist/get a kill" to mean "if B = 0, then necessarily A = 0 and C = 0." Note that this "killing" isn't true if you slice the "thigh" (force C = 0 to be epic) or the "neck" (force A = 0 to be monic). | |
| Aug 23, 2021 at 20:56 | comment | added | Dannyu NDos | Extremely close! | |
| Aug 23, 2021 at 18:48 | history | answered | Gareth McCaughan♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |