Are you sure it's magic squares and not Latin squares?
For those interested I found the 10x10 problem on the original site.
GC21V2P Number Crunch (Unknown Cache) in Western Cape, South Africa created by MnCo
Looks like it's only been solved by 15 people, not >100.
I'm not a huge fan of ambiguous puzzles. For example for the 10x10, if we choose the ten numbers to be
5,4,9,0,8,2,0,3,4,5
and put the first number in the first column, etc., then we see all 10 numbers (where a number is given by a row) add to 50000000000, which is a valid pattern, however this answer is not accepted; and there are other valid patterns one could come up with that would also be wrong, essentially we have to read the mind of the puzzle maker.
Please do excuse... I think I remember somone else state something similar while podering this puzzle over a lunch break ~ Would you care to expain that again. Perhaps it will bring a spark?
(But seriously Undefined ~ your assistance is appreciated. Nobody else is coming forth and I'm sure this forum could build a space shuttle!)
Well for example, questions like "given the first n terms of this integer sequence, find term n+1" are generally ambiguous, because you can always find a polynomial to generate a sequence whose first n terms match those given, and you can arbitrarily choose any term n+1 and find a polynomial to generate that sequence as well, although this is generally not what is intended by the one who made the problem.
And for the numbers themselves, I was saying
1519659415 + 8382742842 + 3472327514 + 2486333741 + 4180932906 + 6798475171 + 4641761363 + 3234822847 + 5748293263 + 9534650938 = 50000000000
well what i hate much more then a worng math problem is a wrong person. and i wansn't trying to be rude, its your own falt if you asume something. isn't that right.....
and to answer your other question, i asked my math perfessor for the answer, i only went to website after the fact.
Haha, I guess I'd make a terrible psychologist. Sometimes people misunderstand what I say/write, and when I explain it to them, they misunderstand me again, and again, and again...
Here's why I responded the way I did. You wrote originally
"well i see that both of you have not solved the puzzle but looking at it, it seems that you guys are thinking about it too hard. or thats what it seems. try to look at it in another way, and i do belive that it is hard at all."
So, you say we're thinking too hard, which could be criticism or a suggestion, I'm not assuming anything. But you do this with weasel words "it seems" and again "or thats what it seems" meaning you're not even sure if we're thinking too hard. Then you make a suggestion to look in another way, then you use the weasel word "believe" meaning it's not sure whether you know the answer or not. So basically you're telling us how to solve it when you don't even know how to solve it yourself. It's not making assumptions, it's just reading based on what you wrote, based on how English words are used.
If you know the answer and want to push us to look more simply, you could say something like
"Hey I found the answer to this problem, it's really not that hard once you see it and it's simpler than how you're going about it; I'd tell you the solution but I don't want to give it away and spoil your fun. Best of luck!"
I would find this much more helpful than what you wrote.
But I'm not sure there's much use discussing it further.
fyi, here is the other one
GC20QQZ Number crunch 2: Elephant's Hump (Unknown Cache) in Western Cape, South Africa created by CapeDoc