Calcudoku puzzle forumhttp://www.calcudoku.org/forum/ testing no-op puzzleshttp://www.calcudoku.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=441 Page 4 of 4

 Author: sjs34  [ Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:06 pm ] Post subject: Re: testing no-op puzzles A few extra seconds devoted to an unnecessary end. Why not simplify?

 Author: jaek  [ Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:17 pm ] Post subject: Re: testing no-op puzzles beaker wrote:I too do not put them in until I have all the cells filled........but,I don't know why this bring discussed........What did I miss I think the idea is that if you end up with [1,6] in a two cell cage labeled 5, then it must be subtraction; [2,3] or [1,4] must be addition. So why force its entry. In addition, [1,5] could be for either multiplication or division, so which should you enter?

 Author: pnm  [ Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:22 pm ] Post subject: Re: testing no-op puzzles jaek wrote:In addition, [1,5] could be for either multiplication or division, so which should you enter?Either will work.At the moment a solution will be approved if all cages have an operatorthat produces the target result (and all rows/columns have 1..6 etc.)

 Author: jaek  [ Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:10 am ] Post subject: Re: testing no-op puzzles pnm wrote:jaek wrote:In addition, [1,5] could be for either multiplication or division, so which should you enter?Either will work.At the moment a solution will be approved if all cages have an operatorthat produces the target result (and all rows/columns have 1..6 etc.)Which is as it should be. It does introduce a trivial argument for non-uniqueness of the solution, though - the placement of the numbers is still unique, but the designation of operators might not be. I suppose you could add a restriction specifying how many of each operator a given puzzle requires. The 14 Jul 2013 puzzle could specify either {4 +, 2 -, 6 *, 1 /} or {4 +, 0 -, 6 *, 3 /} and then the operations and operands could be unique.Note: I'm not advocating this, just thinking out loud. It would certainly take things in the opposite direction from skipping the operations entirely. Not that I'm advocating skipping the operations either. As far as benevolent dictatorships go, calcudoku.org is one of the best I've been a part of so whatever Patrick decides is fine by me. (And no he didn't ask me to say that. Again, just thinking out loud. I should go solve some puzzles instead.)

 Author: pnm  [ Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:22 am ] Post subject: Re: testing no-op puzzles jaek wrote:Which is as it should be. It does introduce a trivial argument for non-uniqueness of the solution, though - the placement of the numbers is still unique, but the designation of operators might not be.Yes. There was some discussion about that when the no-ops started.(I can generate them so the operators are also unique)jaek wrote:(And no he didn't ask me to say that. Again, just thinking out loud. I should go solve some puzzles instead.)Welcome to the dark world of calcudoku.org, where shills furthermy agenda in exchange for bonus points

 Author: picklepep  [ Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:13 am ] Post subject: Re: testing no-op puzzles beaker wrote:I too do not put them in until I have all the cells filled........but,I don't know why this bring discussed........What did I miss It seems to be two things; The annoyance factor of having to go back and input the operators after the puzzle is completed, and the fact that it is not a perfect puzzle because the operators are not unique.Oh, guess this was discussed, ignore post than.

 Author: pnm  [ Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:31 am ] Post subject: Re: testing no-op puzzles picklepep wrote:It seems to be two things; The annoyance factor of having to go back and input the operators after the puzzle is completed, and the fact that it is not a perfect puzzle because the operators are not unique.Oh, guess this was discussed, ignore post than.The first issue (having to put the operators) is a new one though, which I can fix.(not straight forward, I can't simply ignore the "cage check", but will have to tryall four operators for each, and flag a cage as ok if there is at least one that works)

 Page 4 of 4 All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ] Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Grouphttp://www.phpbb.com/