Some of us want MAZE solved. I want it solved as it helps solve Blue Prince. I shared my solutions on the off chance of an intelligent person seeing the posts and developing them further or uncovering a new solution then sharing it. After several months that has not happened a single time. I did stop sharing solutions and entire classes of solutions which apply across the whole house. Strong answers with proven statistical significance.

I can’t believe the quality of answers they managed to obtain over more than a decade. You can see when smart posters like ARIA left everything ground to a halt here.

Their door answer for room 45 – the most important room – was SP’s “a spear points to the door” as if objects don’t often point to the wrong door.
I give them “the floor has U and LaCe like periodic table, move along periodic table from U to LaCe and it spells PaTh, draw a line from U to LaCe in the room and it points to correct door to continue path “. Their next posts to me after that are “RIP abyss” and telling me to stop sharing any solutions at all.

> if you can’t seem to reason with the people you’re debating, why spend time debating them?

There are readers who don’t yet know vewatkin / SPs character and will believe them when they use pseudoscience or manipulate together. They back each other up, like their own posts, and write as if they are speaking on behalf of many people. It’s all a manipulation trick. Most people get persuaded by consensus rather than logic and think “oh theres a consensus that guy is wrong” ; which then enables vewatkin and SP to prevent solutions from being developed so they can maintain their delusion of being the self appointed “maze experts” at the cost of preventing progress. They’ve done that for a decade. If someone called them out 10 years ago then there could have been far more solved and discovered. And I just want all the solutions no matter who solves them.

Vewatkin rationalised his gaslighting and smearing in a reply to my solution in room 9 by using the fact I didn’t reply here. They wrote:
> Obviously, britzerland’s manner of interpreting Maze seems outlandish to everyone else, and britzerland himself has given up trying to engage earnestly with others. In all fairness, we all, myself included, pretty quickly took the opportunity to crack wise about the new David Gentile. But in poking fun at britzerland’s mental health, you’re dipping your toe into some very personal and potentially very real issues that we really don’t need to exacerbate.

Now that I respond with full scientific method and logic I’ll get asked “why are you responding earnestly?” and vewatkin writes “no need to respond to us!” in a different thread to hide his lack of any real response in this thread. This is after smearing me with falsehoods that I was mentally unwell and not replying to good faith reaching out. Vewatkin operates on so many f&cking levels of deceit and manipulation.

For them to both still be repeatedly publicly mocking David Gentile – who meant well from what I could see – 10 years later, when he can’t defend himself as they apparently got him banned: it shows how dishonourable, pathetic and rat-like SP and vewatkins are as men

Just read again vermin watkins post and the manipulation tricks he employs. “obviously” “mental health” “everyone else” “very personal” “very real issues” . Utterly disgusting person at their core

Is this helping you with other solutions? Is it helping you refine existing solutions? Is it an efficient use of time? Yes, these responses are annoying, but that isn’t really a reason to do anything. But then I’m generally quiet on this site even when I do have an opinion on the solutions being shared, so maybe I’m just surprised seeing a different person’s approach to disagreement.

No again, I dont even need MUG that was just extra reinforcement. I was given CuP. It says this all very clearly in the first post.

> An example of a good use of chemical symbols is in Room 30 where the N + O — Nitrogen, 7 and Oxygen, 8, add up to 15, the correct door, using only clues in the room without any unjustified leaps of logic. I don’t think this is something Manson intended, it’s just a coincidence.

No thats again completely wrong SP.
Two letters in the room adding to 15 is not statistically significant.
You are allowing for ambigramming (u->n), changing from lower to uppercase (“n” is not in periodic table “N” is), two methods {abc=123 / Chemical Symbols}) and would allow for both sum and multiply (that room is about multiplying and the text about O and U says “times”).
For all 2 a-z letter combinations there are 50 out of 325 that would hit a door numbered 1-45 in a room with 4 doors.
Thats a p-value of 0.15. Thats just something that will often happen to random chance. You need <0.05 to publish a scientific study.
My p-value was 0.000053.

Here are 15 other ways you can get door 15 using 2 a-z letters when you allow ambigramming and abc=123 or chemsymbols and + or ×:
(a,n): orig: a(abc=1) + n(abc=14) = 15
(a,o): orig: a(abc=1) × o(abc=15) = 15
(a,r): ambi: e(abc=5) + j(abc=10) = 15
(b,m): orig: b(abc=2) + m(abc=13) = 15
(c,e): orig: c(abc=3) × e(abc=5) = 15
(c,f): orig: c(chem=6) + f(chem=9) = 15
(c,l): orig: c(abc=3) + l(abc=12) = 15
(d,k): orig: d(abc=4) + k(abc=11) = 15
(d,y): ambi: p(chem=15) × h(chem=1) = 15
(e,j): orig: e(abc=5) + j(abc=10) = 15
(e,o): ambi: a(abc=1) × o(abc=15) = 15
(e,u): ambi: a(abc=1) + n(abc=14) = 15
(f,i): orig: f(abc=6) + i(abc=9) = 15
(g,h): orig: g(abc=7) + h(abc=8) = 15
(h,p): orig: h(chem=1) × p(chem=15) = 15
(n,o): orig: n(chem=7) + o(chem=8) = 15
(o,u): ambi: o(chem=8) + n(chem=7) = 15
(q,w): ambi: b(abc=2) + m(abc=13) = 15

———–

vewatkin:
> Since there are countless ways to try to code letters through numbers

No there aren’t. I’m not doing a Viginere cipher with some random key. The list of fair ways of hiding letters inside numbers is short: abc=123, atomic numbers, roman numerals; the letter-to-number mappings taught in school to children.

> in a way that doesn’t seem prompted or confirmed by any clues in the room

You are contradicting yourself. You were trying to claim there are countless valid number-to-letter substitutions, then suddenly saying the bar is very high and so this one isn’t valid.

This is also wrong – I dont need a roman soldier present in a room to be able to think XII might mean 12. I dont need anything present to consider abc=123. The many rooms of the house using periodic table answers are enough justification for me using it in this room.

And despite this: I already had justification for *the exact word* CuP being spelt in chemical symbols from room 1.

> you found a word that is an approximate synonym of a word that is a synonym of a phrase that appears in the text.

No. I found CuP which is given in room 1. There’s the “cup-i-ed” text. CaFe and CuP are the chemical symbol words present in the room about alchemical symbols. CuP in chemical symbols I got pre-hoc from that room; I had my eye out for it.
You are writing as if I used MUG alone when it was just reinforcement.

I just gave an LLM as much MAZE context as possible and info about the CuP doors. Asked it to be as critical and fair as possible. Told it to build a model on if CuP above doors is likely intentional/real or appears probably due to random chance and importantly it needs to use Bonferroni correction. It gives:

> “Very strong evidence of intentional design — Bonferroni-corrected p = 5.39e-5, well below α=0.05. Not chance.”.

Thats a model using either CaFe/CuP as both were given prehoc, the 7 doors in this room, CuP being in correct order on correct doors, the 4 rooms I would also have considered valid as they have the sun (and the sun’s i/eye selected the CuP).

vewatkin your judgement has been consistently verifiably wrong every time you have given it. Even in the 15% of cases when it isnt trash talking, gaslighting or inane nonsense as replies to my posts – when you actually believe you are “acting in good faith” and trying to use reason and logic – you are still a net negative, as you are simply wrong.

You lack the ability or skills to discern truth through checking statistical significance while accounting for look-elsewhere-effect; the most scientific measure of truth in this context. You are “using your judgement” but you never trained it on truthful signal so its worthless. Which is why I didn’t ask for it.