Calcudoku puzzle forumhttp://www.calcudoku.org/forum/ An international terminology for the Calcudoku-Kenken?http://www.calcudoku.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=104 Page 1 of 1

 Author: jomapil  [ Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:11 pm ] Post subject: Re: An international terminology for the Calcudoku-Kenken? It's very interesting and useful.Why in 15) you present >>> and no the more frequent -->?In the second note if we can calculate (n+V)/2 we obtain the upper limit for the value of the cells, Why did you say " this is impossible ". Of course on account the 7's already known the cells can't be 7. But in this context 7 will be the upper value and not a possible value. Do you want to tell other thing?

 Author: clm  [ Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:22 pm ] Post subject: Re: An international terminology for the Calcudoku-Kenken? jomapil wrote:It's very interesting and useful.Why in 15) you present >>> and no the more frequent -->?In the second note if we can calculate (n+V)/2 we obtain the upper limit for the value of the cells, Why did you say " this is impossible ". Of course on account the 7's already known the cells can't be 7. But in this context 7 will be the upper value and not a possible value. Do you want to tell other thing? It is something to start... the terminology is made initally by those 15 paragraphs... but subjected to additions, modifications... . With respect to "this implies that..." yes, I absolutely agree with you, I prefer the horizontal arrow as in maths. I prepared the text with the "Word" processor, I do not have the horizontal arrow directly in my keyboard, then when typing two consecutive dashes and the character > the text processor joined all giving an arrow, so I thought it was Ok, but at the moment of submitting the post to the Forum, here it appeared instead a small square in all places (I do not know why, ASCII code, the language of my keyboard, etc.). I modified all directly in real-time in the Forum's window, but I certainly prefer the -->. My "Word" do this well (if I leave an space between the second dash and the >) so initially I will reedit the post (this afternoon) and change all again (I have to reedit the post anyway to add the 9x9 graphics referred to, only the original puzzle and the solution). You have probably observed that e9 = 6 can be inmediately obtained, and consequently "11+" (b9-c9) = [3, 8] placing the 3 in c9 (b9= 8) according to parity rules; however I have preferred to solve the "indetermination" of cage "11+" (b9-c9) first, via the analysis shown, to practice a little bit with the concepts though mainly to practice with this new terminology (I have not seen yet the sneaklyfox's video on this puzzle so I do not know if I am being redundant or following a different way). When I said " ... and this is impossible ... " I was referring to the 7 as the higher number (the other two numbers in the cage would have been lower and subtracted from the 7) inside the cage "0-" (a6-b6-b7) and this is obvious in this particular case because there are already two 7's in columns a and b, in the cells a7 and b8, so this cage could never contain a 7 or have an "addition value" of 14. If the explanation is confuse or not well expressed (my English) pse tell me to try modify the text. P.D.: I am specially interested in the 15 paragraphs, the body of the "terminology", is the English correct? Are the ideas and concepts well explained and understood?.

 Author: jomapil  [ Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:11 pm ] Post subject: Re: An international terminology for the Calcudoku-Kenken? The text is very well explained. Concerning your English, for me is perfect ( I can't tell the same from my own and every time I write something here at the Forum I do it with some shame on account of the blunders ). ( Quiçá en Español yo escribiria mejor! ).Concerning to any changes, for me I don't think any alterations, when the time goes by maybe appears any sugestion.In short, in my humble opinion it's everything OK!

 Author: jomapil  [ Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:48 am ] Post subject: Re: An international terminology for the Calcudoku-Kenken? With the purpose to lighten some aspects I suggest the following:1) The names of cells ( b7 ) and cages ( 27+ ) have different configurations. So I would not use the "" in the designation of the cages.“840x” (g1-g2-h1-h2) = [u, v, w, 7] --> 840x (g1-g2-h1-h2) = [u, v, w, 7]2) It would not be necessary the inclusion of all the cells of a cage but only the cell where is the value of the cage.840x (g1-g2-h1-h2) = [u, v, w, 7] --> 840x (g1) = [u, v, w, 7]3) If there is only one cage in the puzzle with the value of that cage it's not necessary to indicate the name of the first cell840x (g1) = [u, v, w, 7] --> 840x = [u, v, w, 7]This 3rd suggestion can be optional.Maybe there is a reason for the original ideas. If so ...

 Author: clm  [ Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:47 pm ] Post subject: Re: An international terminology for the Calcudoku-Kenken? jomapil wrote:With the purpose to lighten some aspects I suggest the following:1) The names of cells ( b7 ) and cages ( 27+ ) have different configurations. So I would not use the "" in the designation of the cages.“840x” (g1-g2-h1-h2) = [u, v, w, 7] --> 840x (g1-g2-h1-h2) = [u, v, w, 7] I think it is necessary to maintain the quotes for the cages because, i.e., 5+ may be interpreted as an arithmetic operation along the text, etc... (see, for instance, its importance for the compiler of the Forum, in our posts, see the effect when we say: quote="clm") jomapil wrote:2) It would not be necessary the inclusion of all the cells of a cage but only the cell where is the value of the cage.840x (g1-g2-h1-h2) = [u, v, w, 7] --> 840x (g1) = [u, v, w, 7] This is very interesting to simplify the terminology, I will quickly introduce it, and even for "any" of the cells of the cage, like "840x" (h1) though no objections if the full position is given. jomapil wrote:3) If there is only one cage in the puzzle with the value of that cage it's not necessary to indicate the name of the first cell840x (g1) = [u, v, w, 7] --> 840x = [u, v, w, 7]This 3rd suggestion can be optional.Maybe there is a reason for the original ideas. If so ... This was already included in the terminology "3. The position of the cages (if necessary to avoid uncertainties) will be referred ..." so it's already optional if there are not uncertainties (in the example given in the original post, in step 7, I intentionally refer to the cage "588x" without the position because it is unique), the idea was defining the position when there are two or more cages "840x". Thank you very much.

 Author: jomapil  [ Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:50 pm ] Post subject: Re: An international terminology for the Calcudoku-Kenken? Hi, Clm.I finished to solve a puzzle 9x9 to post at the Forum and it appears some situations not thought:When a cage occupies 2 columns when I wanted refer to only the part of the cage in a determined column I said "12+"(e) <<>>5. The column e of the cage "12+" doesn't contain the number 5.I think a letter or a number alone ( without more sinals or symbols can represent a column or a row without ambiguity.I felt another necessity. At the following equationh2 = g9 - "4-"(i2)(+) +5"4-"(i2)(+) ( the addition of all the cells of the cage "4-" beginning from the cell i2 ) can be simpler, for instance, "4-,+"(i2) or another way.What do you think?

 Author: clm  [ Sun Nov 27, 2011 1:05 pm ] Post subject: Re: An international terminology for the Calcudoku-Kenken? jomapil wrote:Hi, Clm.I finished to solve a puzzle 9x9 to post at the Forum and it appears some situations not thought:When a cage occupies 2 columns when I wanted refer to only the part of the cage in a determined column I said "12+"(e) <<>>5. The column e of the cage "12+" doesn't contain the number 5.I think a letter or a number alone ( without more sinals or symbols can represent a column or a row without ambiguity. This is a good idea, the last time the paragraph 6. was modified something was missing, I have included now the "doesn't contain" condition for "part of a cage" and even for a group of independent cells (that may be or may be not part of a cage). And I have also extended the paragraph 3. to include the reference to part of a cage in a certain row or column, also avoiding the uncertainties and making consistent the terminology with the use of the redundant letter or number, i.e., "1280x" (5555) because a single 5 like "1280x" (5) would create confusion (not in the case of the letters, but the redundancy is for consistency). jomapil wrote:I felt another necessity. At the following equationh2 = g9 - "4-"(i2)(+) +5"4-"(i2)(+) ( the addition of all the cells of the cage "4-" beginning from the cell i2 ) can be simpler, for instance, "4-,+"(i2) or another way.What do you think? I think that perhaps it is better to show equations like these in this way: h2 + "4-" (i2) = g9 + 5, so reducing the number of minus signs; but I am not inclined to introduce two different signs inside the quotes for a cage because we would break the "definition" of the cage (paragraph 2.) and create some confusion, for the moment the idea with the terminology is that it be clear and "easy" to understand (though enough rich in the "vocabulary") with the time and the use, and if it has acceptance, we may go to a more concise expressions. (By the way, I will make the translation for the Spanish Forum every two months or so to resume the changes, so in this moment is not actualized)

 Author: jomapil  [ Sun Nov 27, 2011 3:03 pm ] Post subject: Re: An international terminology for the Calcudoku-Kenken? clm wrote:I think that perhaps it is better to show equations like these in this way: h2 + "4-" (i2) = g9 + 5,You are right. But in this equation you missed a signal +. Is this intentionally?Because in an equation like that, the term "4-"(i2) is assumed to be an addition?i.e. "4-"(i2)(+) is equal to "4-"(i2) in an equation?

 Author: clm  [ Sun Nov 27, 2011 3:43 pm ] Post subject: Re: An international terminology for the Calcudoku-Kenken? jomapil wrote:clm wrote:I think that perhaps it is better to show equations like these in this way: h2 + "4-" (i2) = g9 + 5,You are right. But in this equation you missed a signal +. Is this intentionally?Because in an equation like that, the term "4-"(i2) is assumed to be an addition?i.e. "4-"(i2)(+) is equal to "4-"(i2) in an equation? Yes, we may include it optionally, but not necessarily, it is easily assumed in a linear equation with only sums, as, in this other example: h2 x "4-" (i2) x ... = 2 x 9! = 725760 where we are assuming that we are multiplying h2 x "4-" (i2) (x) x ... by the rest of the elements of columns h and i, so we are referring to the "product value" of cage "4-", in this way we simplify a little bit the expressions without confusion.

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