
Page 1 of 1

[ 8 posts ] 

Calcudoku 9×9 with "expo"
Author 
Message 
kozibrada
Posted on: Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:03 pm
Posts: 37 Location: Karviná Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:25 am

Calcudoku 9×9 with "expo"
I am back with a new "operator" – exponential function in calcudoku practice. Result of both "2^Z" cells is a number which is obtained as 2^Z; Z belongs to the set of integers. Good solving…
Last edited by kozibrada on Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.




bram
Posted on: Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:42 am
Posts: 193 Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 4:55 pm

Re: Calcudoku 9×9 with "expo"
Hard but fun! And certainly solvable if you are an experienced puzzler who has done some prime factorization before and is familiar with considering numbers that are powers of 2 separately from the other numbers used in the puzzle. Note/hint: When the author says that Z (the exponent) belongs to the set of integers, what is meant is the set of all integers – not just those used in the puzzle (1 through 9)




nicow
Posted on: Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:57 am
Posts: 66 Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Calcudoku 9×9 with "expo"
Nice puzzle. According to my solver, the two cells do not influence the solution. So they might be replaced by ?signs as well.




clm
Posted on: Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:35 pm
Posts: 698 Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 6:51 pm

Re: Calcudoku 9×9 with "expo"
Nice puzzle, and amused, thanks . bram wrote: ... Note/hint: When the author says that Z ... belongs to the set of integers, what is meant is the set of all integers – not just those used in the puzzle (1 through 9) Yes, that's the case in this puzzle (the 0 is part of Z but not part of the set [1, ... , n]), though it's well explained in the puzzle's presentation and then the puzzler can assume that the 0 is a valid option for Z. The idea is brilliant since it permits to create individual cells "undetermined", and it could be used in puzzles "from zero" (Z would be in the set [0, ... , n]), i.e., in a "from zero" 9x9, here you could obviously have, i.e., Z = 0, 1, 2 and 3 for a result of 1, 2, 4 or 8, in a 2 ^ Z cell, having at the same time the important "information" that 3, 5, 6 or 7 could not be the result of that cell (in this same puzzle 5 ^ Z could only be 1 or 5, etc.). And it could be specially used in the exponentiation puzzles, as a new operator (different than the "^" and the algebraic ones) to make more attractive the individual cells.




bram
Posted on: Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:41 pm
Posts: 193 Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 4:55 pm

Re: Calcudoku 9×9 with "expo"
clm wrote: (…) it's well explained in the puzzle's presentation and then the puzzler can assume that the 0 is a valid option for Z. I agree. The presentation is both concise and clear. But rather than understanding "the set of integers" in the general mathematical sense intended by the author, I initially (somewhat sloppily) misread it to mean "the specific set of integers used in the puzzle". Like the "prime factorization" and "exponent" hyperlinks, my note/hint was directed at less experienced puzzlers (not forum regulars) because they might otherwise misread the author's explanation the same way that I did (even though it is actually unambiguous). clm wrote: The idea is brilliant since it permits to create individual cells "undetermined", and it could be used in puzzles "from zero" (Z would be in the set [0, ... , n]), i.e., in a "from zero" 9x9, here you could obviously have, i.e., Z = 0, 1, 2 and 3 for a result of 1, 2, 4 or 8, in a 2 ^ Z cell, having at the same time the important "information" that 3, 5, 6 or 7 could not be the result of that cell (in this same puzzle 5 ^ Z could only be 1 or 5, etc.). Well put! That nicely captures what is attractive about kozibrada's new "operator". But it would be a shame to limit its use to puzzles "from zero" just to prevent doofuses like me from misreading the explanation. Instead, the explanation could be amended to read like this: "Result of both "2^Z" cells is a number which is obtained as 2^Z; Z belongs to the set of nonnegative integers." Although superfluous from a mathematical point of view (since Z being a negative integer would obviously mean that the result would not be an integer), this would alert puzzles to the fact that Z = 0 (for a result of 1) is a valid option, whether the puzzle is "from zero" or not.




kozibrada
Posted on: Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:52 pm
Posts: 37 Location: Karviná Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:25 am

Re: Calcudoku 9×9 with "expo"
Thanks for the reactions. bram wrote: […] Note/hint: […] Exactly so… nicow wrote: Nice puzzle. According to my solver, the two cells do not influence the solution. So they might be replaced by ?signs as well. Yes, I knew it. At least this "eliminating" operation (2^Z) facilitates solving of the puzzle. ?sign is also possibility. clm wrote: […] And it could be specially used in the exponentiation puzzles, as a new operator (different than the "^" and the algebraic ones) to make more attractive the individual cells. Yes, I agree. Magic of zero is and will be still alive. By the way, I’m already working on other invention for calcudokus…
Last edited by kozibrada on Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.




skeeter84
Posted on: Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:07 pm
Posts: 40 Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:47 pm

Re: Calcudoku 9×9 with "expo"
If there's a way to submit usercreated 9x9 exponentiation puzzles in the somewhat near future, I might update my exponentiation tables to include the number 9.




pnm
Posted on: Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:18 pm
Posts: 2238 Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Calcudoku 9×9 with "expo"
skeeter84 wrote: If there's a way to submit usercreated 9x9 exponentiation puzzles in the somewhat near future, I might update my exponentiation tables to include the number 9. This is possible already, just not mentioned on the submit page (I thought I'd keep things simple at first)






Page 1 of 1

[ 8 posts ] 


You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum

