Calcudoku puzzle forum
http://www.calcudoku.org/forum/

and what about this puzzle... :-)
http://www.calcudoku.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=440
Page 1 of 2

Author:  pnm  [ Fri May 17, 2013 8:29 pm ]
Post subject:  and what about this puzzle... :-)

After quite a few headaches and solver code plumbing...:

Image

Author:  clm  [ Fri May 17, 2013 10:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: and what about this puzzle... :-)

pnm wrote:
After quite a few headaches and solver code plumbing...:

...


Interesting this first no-ops [thumbup], solution unique, not difficult (I am sure you will soon provide them much more difficult [smile]). Anyway, I think it would be more interesting if at first sight you did not know the range of the numbers, that is, if you had to decide if it is 1 thru 6, 0 thru 5, -1 thru 4, -2 thru 3, etc.. (I don't know the difficulties of implementing this).

Author:  bram  [ Fri May 17, 2013 11:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: and what about this puzzle... :-)

Wow, a no-op puzzle! And it seems to have the "unicity of operators" discussed in that thread/topic. Which is a quality, I agree with starling and sneaklyfox, that shouldn't necessarily be required of a no-op puzzle (although of course there's no harm done if, after solving the puzzle, you discover that all the cages had unique operators in that particular one).

clm wrote:
Anyway, I think it would be more interesting if at first sight you did not know the range of the numbers, that is, if you had to decide if it is 1 thru 6, 0 thru 5, -1 thru 4, -2 thru 3, etc..

clm, that's positively evil! :-) I like that idea!

Author:  pnm  [ Fri May 17, 2013 11:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: and what about this puzzle... :-)

bram wrote:
shouldn't necessarily be required of a no-op puzzle (although of course there's no harm done if, after solving the puzzle, you discover that all the cages had unique operators in that particular one).

That was a goal I had in mind for my solver, so each no-op should have a unique solution (both
in numbers and in operators).
clm wrote:
Anyway, I think it would be more interesting if at first sight you did not know the range of the numbers, that is, if you had to decide if it is 1 thru 6, 0 thru 5, -1 thru 4, -2 thru 3, etc..

One thing at a time... [blink]

Author:  pnm  [ Fri May 17, 2013 11:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: and what about this puzzle... :-)

Another one to keep you busy [lol]

Image

Author:  clm  [ Sat May 18, 2013 12:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: and what about this puzzle... :-)

pnm wrote:
Another one to keep you busy [lol]

...


I have found 2 different solutions for this 8x8 puzzle, so not unique solution in my opinion. More precisely, the pair [2,3] in a6-a7 and the pair [2,3] in g6-g7 in "parallel" (can be swapped).

Author:  pnm  [ Sat May 18, 2013 11:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: and what about this puzzle... :-)

clm wrote:
I have found 2 different solutions for this 8x8 puzzle, so not unique solution in my opinion. More precisely, the pair [2,3] in a6-a7 and the pair [2,3] in g6-g7 in "parallel" (can be swapped).

You are right, thanks for spotting that. Will have to do some more debugging [sad]

Edit: ok, that was easy, the solver did find both solutions, I shouldn't have put that one up [blush]

Author:  pnm  [ Sat May 18, 2013 2:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: and what about this puzzle... :-)

bram wrote:
And it seems to have the "unicity of operators" discussed in that thread/topic.

So the consensus is that unicity of operators is not required?

Here's a puzzle with 1 solution, but no unicity of operators
(it should be quite a bit harder than the previous ones):

Image

Author:  clm  [ Sat May 18, 2013 7:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: and what about this puzzle... :-)

pnm wrote:
bram wrote:
And it seems to have the "unicity of operators" discussed in that thread/topic.

So the consensus is that unicity of operators is not required?

Here's a puzzle with 1 solution, but no unicity of operators
(it should be quite a bit harder than the previous ones):

...


A little bit harder and very amused, solution unique, and yes, three 2-cell cages in this puzze have not unicity of operators having each two possibilities.

The "unicity" of operators could be a target in the future but the lack of unicity could be initially accepted provided that the solution is unique, that would give you more flexibility to generate these puzzles (assuming that the "continuous error checking" feature will "know" this and accept those different possibilities).

Perhaps you could include one of these (as the Sudoku, with 0 points) a few weeks to gain experience and to debug errors.

Author:  bram  [ Sat May 18, 2013 7:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: and what about this puzzle... :-)

[answering two latest posts by pnm and clm:]

I too found this latest puzzle to be slightly harder than the others but only very slightly so. Maybe this is because I've solved a number of no-ops at other websites where there's no guarantee that operators will be unique. It's a very nice puzzle and the detail I liked the most was the way the operator of the vertical 10 cage near the lower left corner could be deduced once a bunch of other stuff (including the operator and operands of the horizontal 10 cage below it) had been determined.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/