Corrections to numbers methods on the wiki

[Graeme Cole]

A few days ago, someone pointed out that the wiki page for a Countdown episode listed a contestant's method incorrectly, because it used a number twice. After fixing it, I ran a script on my database (which is derived from the wiki), and found there were hundreds of other cases where a supposedly valid method shown on the wiki doesn't equal the declaration, uses numbers not in the selection, or just isn't a valid expression.

Almost all of these were the result of some typo or transcription error when putting the details on the wiki, and I've fixed all but a few of them, detailed below. I must commend Mike Brown for his diligent note-taking over the years - where a method shown on the wiki didn't make sense and it wasn't obvious how to correct it, his notes proved crucial.

However, there are (at least!) three numbers rounds on the wiki which still have incorrect methods, and I can't be certain what the correct method was. Any help or additional information will be gratefully received...

1. Series 4: Episode 163, round 4. C2 uses the 3 twice. There's no way to make a 3 from the remaining numbers, but perhaps one of the 8s in the selection was actually a 3?

2. Series 5: Episode 224, round 4. C2's method is incomplete. I'm guessing there should be a -5/5 on the end, but Mike's scanned notes start at series 7 so they can't confirm this or the previous example.

3. Series 64: Episode 5242, round 14. Rachel's method for 409 is given as (75 − 7) × (8 − 2) − 5, but that doesn't equal 409. If we assume the correct method is very close to this, I can see two possibilities for the correct method:

• (75 - 7 + 1) * (8 - 2) - 5
• (75 - 7) * (8 - 2) + 1

Robbo's recap contains the same mistake, and the relevant page is missing from Mike's scanned notes.

Finally, a note on "wrongly allowed" numbers solutions: I've left this one and this one as they are. However, as a cautionary tale against trusting everything you read on the wiki, I should mention that episode 2475, whose wiki page previously included a note that C1 qualified for the finals with a supposedly incorrect numbers solution, was in fact perfectly legit. There were two 2s - the selection had simply been miscopied into the wiki.

[Rhys Benjamin]

For reference, this is why Mike has not published his notes for Series 2-6, and the recaps are all written by him. I don't want to put any pressure on Mike, but he ought to be able to help you out on the first two issues here.

[Elliott Mellor]

A few days ago, someone pointed out that the wiki page for a Countdown episode listed a contestant's method incorrectly, because it used a number twice. After fixing it, I ran a script on my database (which is derived from the wiki), and found there were hundreds of other cases where a supposedly valid method shown on the wiki doesn't equal the declaration, uses numbers not in the selection, or just isn't a valid expression.

Almost all of these were the result of some typo or transcription error when putting the details on the wiki, and I've fixed all but a few of them, detailed below. I must commend Mike Brown for his diligent note-taking over the years - where a method shown on the wiki didn't make sense and it wasn't obvious how to correct it, his notes proved crucial.

However, there are (at least!) three numbers rounds on the wiki which still have incorrect methods, and I can't be certain what the correct method was. Any help or additional information will be gratefully received...

1. Series 4: Episode 163, round 4. C2 uses the 3 twice. There's no way to make a 3 from the remaining numbers, but perhaps one of the 8s in the selection was actually a 3?

2. Series 5: Episode 224, round 4. C2's method is incomplete. I'm guessing there should be a -5/5 on the end, but Mike's scanned notes start at series 7 so they can't confirm this or the previous example.

3. Series 64: Episode 5242, round 14. Rachel's method for 409 is given as (75 − 7) × (8 − 2) − 5, but that doesn't equal 409. If we assume the correct method is very close to this, I can see two possibilities for the correct method:

• (75 - 7 + 1) * (8 - 2) - 5
• (75 - 7) * (8 - 2) + 1

Robbo's recap contains the same mistake, and the relevant page is missing from Mike's scanned notes.

Finally, a note on "wrongly allowed" numbers solutions: I've left this one and this one as they are. However, as a cautionary tale against trusting everything you read on the wiki, I should mention that episode 2475, whose wiki page previously included a note that C1 qualified for the finals with a supposedly incorrect numbers solution, was in fact perfectly legit. There were two 2s - the selection had simply been miscopied into the wiki.

For 1, you can do 75-9*8 for the 3. It's not a very intuitive solution, but could very well be the answer?

[James Robinson]

3. Series 64: Episode 5242, round 14. Rachel's method for 409 is given as (75 − 7) × (8 − 2) − 5, but that doesn't equal 409. If we assume the correct method is very close to this, I can see two possibilities for the correct method:

• (75 - 7 + 1) * (8 - 2) - 5
• (75 - 7) * (8 - 2) + 1

Robbo's recap contains the same mistake, and the relevant page is missing from Mike's scanned notes.

I’d say that the first solution is the most likely. Not sure how I missed the 1, but that’ll be it, I’m sure…

[Graeme Cole]

1. Series 4: Episode 163, round 4. C2 uses the 3 twice. There's no way to make a 3 from the remaining numbers, but perhaps one of the 8s in the selection was actually a 3?

For 1, you can do 75-9*8 for the 3. It's not a very intuitive solution, but could very well be the answer?

Thanks, I hadn't seen that - I didn't even consider the 75. I'd still say it's plausible that the selection is wrong, though.

[James Robinson]

3. Series 64: Episode 5242, round 14. Rachel's method for 409 is given as (75 − 7) × (8 − 2) − 5, but that doesn't equal 409. If we assume the correct method is very close to this, I can see two possibilities for the correct method:

• (75 - 7 + 1) * (8 - 2) - 5
• (75 - 7) * (8 - 2) + 1

Robbo's recap contains the same mistake, and the relevant page is missing from Mike's scanned notes.

I’d say that the first solution is the most likely. Not sure how I missed the 1, but that’ll be it, I’m sure…

Also, if you look at Mike's scans, he actually has the second half of this episode and the first half of the next episode missing...

[Mike Brown]

Hi everyone.

It's been nice to trawl through the archives (it's been a while) and I'm pleased to say that I can provide insight of varying levels into these discrepancies.

Series 4, Episode 163: The wiki matches my notes exactly. Although it's obviously possible that I wrote down an 8 instead of a 3, I suspect a second 3 being used by the contestant and it not being spotted is more likely (especially given that 8 and 3 don't sound very similar ) - we will probably never know for sure!

Series 5, Episode 224: Quite right, Graeme, there was a 5/5 at the end - I had simply failed to pick it up when transcribing my notes (probably due to the way it was written on the sheet of paper - that's my excuse, anyway!).

Series 64, Episode 5242: The feeder on the photocopier obviously skipped a couple of pages when I was scanning this series (and maybe others!?!?), but I can confirm that Rachel's method was in fact (75 - 7) * (8 - 2) + 1.

As a final note, although I haven't scanned anything for a while, I still take notes every day, so I'm quite happy to act as another check for any queries that might crop up post Series 64.

[Graeme Cole]

Hi everyone.

It's been nice to trawl through the archives (it's been a while) and I'm pleased to say that I can provide insight of varying levels into these discrepancies.

Series 4, Episode 163: The wiki matches my notes exactly. Although it's obviously possible that I wrote down an 8 instead of a 3, I suspect a second 3 being used by the contestant and it not being spotted is more likely (especially given that 8 and 3 don't sound very similar ) - we will probably never know for sure!

Series 5, Episode 224: Quite right, Graeme, there was a 5/5 at the end - I had simply failed to pick it up when transcribing my notes (probably due to the way it was written on the sheet of paper - that's my excuse, anyway!).

Series 64, Episode 5242: The feeder on the photocopier obviously skipped a couple of pages when I was scanning this series (and maybe others!?!?), but I can confirm that Rachel's method was in fact (75 - 7) * (8 - 2) + 1.

As a final note, although I haven't scanned anything for a while, I still take notes every day, so I'm quite happy to act as another check for any queries that might crop up post Series 64.

Many thanks for this, Mike!