Community Event Giveaway (4 Stacks Le)

I assume that means we need to use the original book and use a book cipher. We’ve been trying that for the whole time though.

________________________________

Also, the book is only 232 pages long — leading me to assume that we need to find words, not chapters or sections. This might mean we need to count each word from the start, or maybe that separates the words by page, line and number. Or it might be column and number if we’re using the original text

________________________________

I’m honestly just confused about what type of book cipher you’re using. Is each number representin a letter? Or a word? Or is every 2 numbers a letter or a word? Or every 3 numbers? And are we using the text you gave us or the book itself? I really don’t want to try every possibility because there’s so many, perhaps you could give us a hint?


Z

 

206 is Ice Bear's guess

 

168 is enufo's wild guess

 

How’d you get that


g

 

Ok so I just tried decoding the book cipher in 3 different ways:

1. Each number represents a word (from the text we received + everything after it in the book)

2. Each 3 digit number is chapter-line-word, each 2 digit number is chapter-word and 1 digit numbers are just the word, starting from the beginning of the book. 206 counts 0 as a 1 and 300 is the 300th word in the book since idk what to do about zeroes. (Taken From the actual book)

3. Each number represents a word in the book, starting from the first chapter and ignoring everything before that (preface, chronology, etc.)

Here are the results:

1. (Words)
A REASONS DARKER SAYING ANSWERS FICTION IS EARTH AND US NOT TIME AND AMPLE FROM SEEN NOT IN AS HAS PROVEN THE THE TO ABOUT THE IN MISTRUST OR AT SO NOT

First letters of the words:
ARDSAFIEAUNTAAFSNIAHPTTTATIMOASN


2. (Words)
Do What Is Highest Time Virtuous Patience I That Fusion And Great Mockery That Itself A To Questions This Begun Is Come And Self-Interest An Desire Any re-examination Want Invented Of Unconditioned

First letters of the words:
DWIHTVPITFAGMTIATQTBICASADARWIOU

3. (Words)
IN IT TRUTHFULNESS VALUE OR THAT IT BE SELFLESSNESS LEER EVEN ONES TRUTH STANDSTILL THINGS THIS TO SEEMS HIDDEN OF AT BECOME TO PERHAPS ANY ORIGINS BEFORE IS US BE NEVER THEY

First letters of the words:
IITVOTIBSLEOTSTTTSHOABTPAOBIUBNT

Any help from anyone is appreciated

 

π ππ 10char

 

https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Nietzsche-Beyond-Good-and-Evil.pdf
This is what I’ve been using

________________________________

Its the ony copy I can find without having to actually pay money

 

K, good luck. If you get the answer by doing that, want to split the prize?

 

I was assuming each 3-digit number is representing a word, each first digit being the page, second is line, and third is word in the line.

Some possible methods to try (with both books): Each 1 or 2 digit number is the starting page of a chapter. Maybe try line-word-letter for the 3 digit numbers, and have the pages on which you do that decided by the 1 and 2 digit numbers (i.e. Every 3 digit number past 3 is on the 3rd page, every 3 digit number past 51 is on the 51st page, etc.)

 

Is the answer 49?

 

Guys we might still be overthinking it so we shouldn't maybe just jump into the german versions of the book or the words of every page or smth. Just a reminder because I was reading through the thread.

 

Could it be 'Beobachtungen'?

 

We should stick to the english version, I doubt he went and got a copy of the german version just for this

 

guys i think i got it. -412, 51, 524, 300, 194, 559, 163, 311, 526, 281, 442, 619, 523, 122, 296, 314, 3, 181, 339, 156, 432, 64, 535, 233, 59, 283, 159, 346, 93, 481, 206, 485

 

pog, no1 solved it yet

 

Bump because I need help solving this

 

I don't understand why some numbers are highlighted in some fashion.
Looks like we're going to have to brute force the book cipher in different ways until we get a reasonable solution.

@Edit:

I'm going to try something a bit random just for the sake of trying, because why the eff not - separating the text we were given in sections ending with a period. Take anything happening below this with a huge sack of salt and skepticism. Spoiler: didn't work.

First things first, I'll assume the "keys" were done following the rules listed below:
- If any preceding character is a 0 (zero), exclude them - such as in 051, 003 and 093
- Let f be the first character and p the corresponding paragraph.. Then, p is the (f + 1)-th paragraph in the spoiler below.
- Let s be the second character and w the corresponding word. Then, w is the (s + 1)-th word of p in the spoiler below.
- Let t be the third character and c the corresponding character. Then, c represents the (t + 1)-th character of w in the spoiler below.

Spoiler

1. It does not matter what philosophical standpoint you might take these days: any way you look at it, the erroneousness of the world we think we live in is the most certain and solid fact that our eyes can still grab hold of.
   
2. We find reason after reason for it, reasons that might lure us into speculations about a deceptive principle in “the essence of things.”
   
3. But anyone who makes thinking itself (and therefore “the spirit”) responsible for the falseness of the world (an honorable way out, taken by every conscious or unconscious advocatus dei), anyone who considers this world, together with space, time, form, and motion, to be falsely inferred – such a person would at the very least have ample cause to grow suspicious of thinking altogether.
   
4. Hasn’t it played the biggest joke on us to date? And what guarantee would there be that it wouldn’t keep doing what it has always done? In all seriousness, there is something touching and awe-inspiring about the innocence that, to this day, lets a thinker place himself in front of consciousness with the request that it please give him honest answers: for example, whether or not it is “real,” and why it so resolutely keeps the external world at arm’s length, and other questions like that.
   
5. The belief in “immediate certainties” is a moral naivete that does credit to us ´ philosophers: but – we should stop being “merely moral,” for once! Aside from morality, the belief in immediate certainties is a stupidity that does us little credit! In bourgeois life, a suspicious disposition might be a sign of “bad character” and consequently considered unwise.
   
6. But here with us, beyond the bourgeois sphere with its Yeses and Noes, – what is to stop us from being unwise and saying: “As the creature who has been the biggest dupe the earth has ever seen, the philosopher pretty much has a right to a ‘bad character.’ It is his duty to be suspicious these days, to squint as maliciously as possible out of every abyss of mistrust.”
7. – Forgive me for playing jokes with this gloomy grimace and expression: because when it comes to betrayal and being betrayed, I myself learned a long time ago to think differently and evaluate differently; and my elbow is ready with at least a couple of nudges for the blind rage of philosophers as they struggle not to be betrayed.
   
8. Why not? It is no more than a moral prejudice that the truth is worth more than appearance; in fact, it is the world’s most poorly proven assumption.
   
9. Let us admit this much: that life could not exist except on the basis of perspectival valuations and appearances; and if, with the virtuous enthusiasm and inanity of many philosophers, someone wanted to completely abolish the “world of appearances,” – well, assuming you could do that, – at least there would not be any of your “truth” left either! Actually, why do we even assume that “true” and “false” are intrinsically opposed? Isn’t it enough to assume that there are levels of appearance and, as it were, lighter and darker shades and tones of appearance – different valeurs, to use the language of painters? Why shouldn’t the world that is relevant to us – be a fiction? And if someone asks: “But doesn’t fiction belong with an author?” – couldn’t we shoot back: “Why? Doesn’t this ‘belonging’ belong, perhaps, to fiction as well? Aren’t we allowed to be a bit ironic with the subject, as we are with the predicate and object? Shouldn’t philosophers rise above the belief in grammar? With all due respect to governesses, isn’t it about time philosophy renounced governess-beliefs?” – X

Then, from the numbers we were given in the first line of the original post, we get:
412: l
051: h
524: [NOPE, I GOT COCKBLOCKED HERE]
300: h
194: t
559: [AGAIN, COCKBLOCKED HERE]

 

Has this not yet been solved? I just saw it.

 

Nope, I’ve been busy doing other stuff

 

munky hasnt been on, but the answer is
y = x^4 - 1
z = 1

or

y=x-1
z=1+4n+6n^2+4n^3 = (n+1)^4 - n^4

gimmie my le