Opus Finale .... A Warts an' all Exposé of Paintball's Very Own Megalomaniac

[Missy-Q]

I know the answer, but can't figure out the question at all...

...and I've even had the question explained to me...

Robbo's outdone himself with this one...

 

[Spikerz]

It's Missy. She's going to lead the forest ninjas from her lair in Canuckistan.

 

[Tom]

So then surely it's <2.5 but not >2.2

<2.2 is 2.1 etc it can't be <2.2 to 2.5 as this is 2.1 or below so <2.1 would suffice

Read Robbos full clue and explanation, every part of the clue is relevant - and he particularly notes that the last 8 words are very important

Note that in your mathematical logic there are a few flaws:
<2.2 is 2.1 - no, 2.1 is smaller than 2.2 but so is 2.19999999999, and so is 0

(Assuming that 'it' is one number) it can be <2.1 to 2.5
Any number below 2.5 can comply with 'smaller than 2.1 to 2.5' (number 1 is smaller than any number in the range 2.1 to 2.5)
Or it could mean a number within the range of less than 2.1 to 2.5, making 1 unsuitable, but 2.3 suitable

<2.1 might suffice, if the answer is smaller than 2.1. That might not be the answer
There are numbers bigger than 2.1 that complete with <2.2

With the above though we have assumed the answer is a number complying within the rules of mathematical logic, but it's a cryptic clue

What about 'about 530 to just >600'?
about 530 could have any generalization, 500 is roughly about 530 so why say 500 to 600, unless the about and just > are significant to the clue

 

[Tony Harrison]

Hmmmnnn .... well I can discount one of the guys you may be thinking of by saying, he's got far too many other things that take up his time and he's not a natural fit whereas the one Tommy is talking to, well, he fits like a glove.

Yes, I thought it he had too much on his plate as well.

I'll message you with my guess!

 

[Tony Harrison]

My guess is Pauly Shore. Or the guy in Bill & Ted who wasn't Keanu Reeves.

They could both do with the work.

 

[Tom]

My guess is Pauly Shore. Or the guy in Bill & Ted who wasn't Keanu Reeves.

They could both do with the work.

Lots is guys in bill and Ted weren't Keanu

 

[phil-boy]

Excellent Dude !!!

 

[Robbo]

@Robbo

Is the last set of numbers meant to be >2.2 <2.5??

.
Panthro, the numbers and symbols in each pair do not point to a specific number, it more describes a specific range - however, the paired numbers are related to the other two such that if one changes either an element of one or indeed both, then the other pairs naturally have to change.
I have just dropped a pretty big clue but I better let you know what that clue is because it's not obvious.
I used the description, 'range' above which describes the mathematical nature of each pair.
It is necessary to have two numbers which should now be obvious when describing a range.

The trick is to guess the nature of this triplet of pairs with 'nature' being the operative word

As to the identity of the two members of our forum who I thought maybe able to solve this?
I think Adam [Bolter] has got a pretty good chance but maybe RebelTackleberry will have something to say in who claims the honour of the fifty quid donation to the NSPCC.
Time will tell no doubt ..... Oh, that wasn't a clue by the way !!

PS I've slightly changed the numbers/symbols on a couple of the pairs - The original sets were accurate syntactically but I've made them more precise, the numbers themselves haven't been changed, the symbols have, such that there is a commonality of use which makes it more consistent and more precise, overall.
Good luck to any prospective Einsteins

 

[Robbo]

Read Robbos full clue and explanation, every part of the clue is relevant - and he particularly notes that the last 8 words are very important

Note that in your mathematical logic there are a few flaws:
<2.2 is 2.1 - no, 2.1 is smaller than 2.2 but so is 2.19999999999, and so is 0

(Assuming that 'it' is one number) it can be <2.1 to 2.5
Any number below 2.5 can comply with 'smaller than 2.1 to 2.5' (number 1 is smaller than any number in the range 2.1 to 2.5)
Or it could mean a number within the range of less than 2.1 to 2.5, making 1 unsuitable, but 2.3 suitable

<2.1 might suffice, if the answer is smaller than 2.1. That might not be the answer
There are numbers bigger than 2.1 that complete with <2.2

With the above though we have assumed the answer is a number complying within the rules of mathematical logic, but it's a cryptic clue

What about 'about 530 to just >600'?
about 530 could have any generalization, 500 is roughly about 530 so why say 500 to 600, unless the about and just > are significant to the clue

Tom, you'll see my post above this one which hopefully clarifies my clue a little better but I think I need to make the next point if it's not already obvious.

The paired numbers are not meant to designate an expression that is a precise mathematical statement.

If someone states <5 to >8, it is obvious that a single number can be less than 5 but the same number can't be more than 8 for obvious reasons ...

<5 to >8 should be read as a range from less than 5 to more than 8, an answer to this statement could well be from 4 to 9, or indeed from 4.8 to 8.1, both of which satisfy the statement.
In a sense, the numbers and symbols of each pair point to a specific range.
If somebody has a brainwave and thinks of the nature of what those pairs represent/describe/specify then the details will fall into place and the answer will emerge ..... I'm gonna throw in another clue at this stage:- If someone thinks of the general area those pairs relate to, then they won't necessarily have to confirm their suspicions, they can just think of what the numbers relate to and then they can compare that with the array of possibilities .... and I'm referring to the possibilities of ... just who is in discussion with Tommy ....

And no, it's not Gill at Just Paintball if someone might have been thinking of her because of my use of the word 'just' in the sentence above ..

 

[Robbo]

Another clue ....
As we know, we have a triplet of pairs, they all specify a range, the three pairs represent 3 different ranges such that if one element of one range, or indeed both elements of one range change then the other two pairs change in strict accordance.
This obviously implies an interrelationship between all three ranges and it's a relationship that's very similar to the way in which we describe temperature -
Kentucky Fried Chicken's acronym provides the three elements relating to temperature ...

The equivalent elements are, in a jumbled up sequence of:- v m h t z n e

@Bolter , @Rebel Tackleberry, come on you guys, I've got faith in you two ....

.....or maybe someone completely out the blue will come up with the answer, or maybe the general idea of the answer.
If someone is a physics undergrad or graduate then they might have a pretty good chance of stumbling across the answer.
But, in that case, they'd have to know the principal possibilities i.e. the people who might be being considered for the UWL job to get the precise identity ....