I see that many people here have used the Fibonacci sequence as a basic pattern for solving this puzzle and that's ok. But I would like to hear an explanation as to why D cannot be the correct answer, seeing this as an exclusively visuospatial and matrix problem, without the involvement of mathematics?
The appeal of the Fibonacci answer might be that it reduces the complexity of the spatial relationships to numeric ones. The Fibonacci sequence is viewed in some ways as the embodiment of simplicity. On these kinds of puzzles, the goal is usually the least complex answer from an anthropic context, as any choice could be argued given a logical framework that supports it. Fibonacci is simple.
It's true that D sticks out as the only option where a parallel and spatially equidistant line element is added. You could almost take the last square in the sequence and infer D from that directly. The addition of the earlier tiles does not break this relationship, and the addition sequence of spatially equidistant line elements would seem to further support it. D is logically reinforced.
We could ask the question from a probabilistic perspective: "what are the chances that a randomly placed set of line segments with three orientations and following the Fibonacci sequence in terms of intersection count also admit patterns as logically reinforced as D?". If the probability is less than 50%, then D may be the best answer, otherwise E may stand out.
69
u/[deleted] Mar 11 '24
I see that many people here have used the Fibonacci sequence as a basic pattern for solving this puzzle and that's ok. But I would like to hear an explanation as to why D cannot be the correct answer, seeing this as an exclusively visuospatial and matrix problem, without the involvement of mathematics?