MB : Clearly, we are at 4 Minutes so we must be brief.
Clearly, when I say that when arriving at the last solution, the moment where we are supposed to find the cache, we must remember certain things without more, I believe that these are more or less the words that I
I employed.
It's the same thing in puzzles, I rebel against the concept of a passage key, as I rebel against the concept of remainders and so on.
Because it would seem to say, demonstrate or impose the fact that there is a mechanism, but there is no passage key mechanism, that is to say that we can perfectly go from an enigma to the another, without necessarily having understood everything about the previous one. We can very well decipher an enigma, and say to ourselves, well, I understood, I deciphered it, but then I'm going to be missing something and at that moment, I take a little step back, I'm going to look for it. in my previous knowledge.
But all of that is not a mechanism, that's what I'm trying to tell you, it's not a mechanism of a key, a key is something that opens a door. This means that if the door is closed, if you don't have the key, you don't get through.
However, in the puzzles, we can pass very well, without necessarily having seen everything clearly before. We can very well attack a new enigma, understand it, decipher it and say at that moment to interpret it, I say to interpret it, to draw a deduction from it, we will need to refer to something something from before.
But it's the same thing when I say, at the moment of the super solution, we have in our head an asset, it will potentially be useful, more or less, but which will be useful, but it is an asset, it is not is not a precise, isolated element that we have that we have put aside, as the remainders might suggest, that we would have put aside previously to use it later, it is very different as a concept.
Is my answer clear or I need to clarify it?
Because it would seem to say, demonstrate or impose the fact that there is a mechanism, but there is no passage key mechanism, that is to say that we can perfectly go from an enigma to the another, without necessarily having understood everything about the previous one. We can very well decipher an enigma, and say to ourselves, well, I understood, I deciphered it, but then I'm going to be missing something and at that moment, I take a little step back, I'm going to look for it. in my previous knowledge.
But all of that is not a mechanism, that's what I'm trying to tell you, it's not a mechanism of a key, a key is something that opens a door. This means that if the door is closed, if you don't have the key, you don't get through.
However, in the puzzles, we can pass very well, without necessarily having seen everything clearly before. We can very well attack a new enigma, understand it, decipher it and say at that moment to interpret it, I say to interpret it, to draw a deduction from it, we will need to refer to something something from before.
But it's the same thing when I say, at the moment of the super solution, we have in our head an asset, it will potentially be useful, more or less, but which will be useful, but it is an asset, it is not is not a precise, isolated element that we have that we have put aside, as the remainders might suggest, that we would have put aside previously to use it later, it is very different as a concept.
Is my answer clear or I need to clarify it?