I love these books. I first read them as a kid while they were being released, and enjoyed a reread of them all about a month ago.

I imagine a mix of tradition and a desire to be any to graph when necessary, but since leaving school I've always preferred blank paper, or even ruled, to grid.

(What was also nice was the ability to express the answer in a way where the two key results are different permutations of the same 3 digits)

Believe I've got an answer I'm pretty confident in now. That was fun!

Mm. Haven't had a chance to doodle on paper yet, but I think I've gotten 80% of the way through, and it's been a really pleasant exploration on the way to an answer.

Huh. I'm not sure I've ever considered how to quantity odds of winning when both players take the same action before.

Beyond just making the most of the buzz of the initial success, you miss the opportunity to build a stronger foundation by proving to yourself you've got it, and more naturally connecting it to all the other things you know.

Those are really good observations. Definitely have been on both sides of many of those, and having them without elaboration definitely makes you think more about them. I think the one about not rewarding success by skipping straight to extension is one that particularly resonates.

That is super cool!

Assuming some collinearity, I've a number of sides that give the perimeter, though I'm not yet confident that one less isn't possible. But my selection doesn't seem to allow for the area. But could a different selection of sides allow for the area to be calculated too I wonder... 🤔

The question makes me wonder whether if we swapped perimeter for area, if the answers would be the same or different.