View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:27 pm



← Back to the Calcudoku puzzle page




Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
 truncated(?) labels for exponents 
Author Message
User avatar

Posted on: Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:56 pm




Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:15 pm
Post truncated(?) labels for exponents
Today's difficult 8 was a little more difficult that usual for me. The three cell, L-shaped cage that starts in the seventh row is labeled "6^". That looks like 6^1^1 to me, so I entered 1,6,1 early on, but soon ran into a contradiction.

It turns out that 1,6,1 is incorrect and that the label should be "216^". Oddly, both 1,6,1 and the correct triplet passed the puzzle's audits.

A similar thing happened two or three weeks ago as well.

Is anyone else experiencing this? Is anyone seeing the correct "216^" label?


Profile
User avatar

Posted on: Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:45 pm




Posts: 2215
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 11:58 pm
Post Re: truncated(?) labels for exponents
jaek wrote:
It turns out that 1,6,1 is incorrect and that the label should be "216^". Oddly, both 1,6,1 and the correct triplet passed the puzzle's audits.

It's because the exponentiation evaluation is done from right to left.

for 6, 1, 1: 6 ^ (1 ^ 1) = 6 ^ 1 = 6

for 6, 3, 1 (the solution in this case): 6 ^ (1 ^ 3) = 6 ^ 1 = 6

Patrick


Profile
User avatar

Posted on: Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:52 pm




Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:15 pm
Post Re: truncated(?) labels for exponents
pnm wrote:
jaek wrote:
It turns out that 1,6,1 is incorrect and that the label should be "216^". Oddly, both 1,6,1 and the correct triplet passed the puzzle's audits.

It's because the exponentiation evaluation is done from right to left.

for 6, 1, 1: 6 ^ (1 ^ 1) = 6 ^ 1 = 6

for 6, 3, 1 (the solution in this case): 6 ^ (1 ^ 3) = 6 ^ 1 = 6

Patrick


Of course. I was so sure of my incorrect explanation that I couldn't see the fairly obvious correct one. Thanks.


Profile
User avatar

Posted on: Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:39 pm




Posts: 2215
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 11:58 pm
Post Re: truncated(?) labels for exponents
jaek wrote:
Of course. I was so sure of my incorrect explanation that I couldn't see the fairly obvious correct one. Thanks.

I did switch a couple of months ago (was it April?) from left-to-right evaluation
for exponentiation to the more common right-to-left though. So you're not
completely crazy :-)


Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 4 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

Search for:
Jump to:  
All forum contents © Patrick Min, and by the post authors.

Forum software phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.