View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:54 am ← Back to the Calcudoku puzzle page

 Page 1 of 2 [ 12 posts ] Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Print view Previous topic | Next topic
Author Message

Posted on: Fri May 17, 2013 8:29 pm

Posts: 2342
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 11:58 pm
After quite a few headaches and solver code plumbing...:

Posted on: Fri May 17, 2013 10:19 pm

Posts: 720
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 6:51 pm
pnm wrote:
After quite a few headaches and solver code plumbing...:

...

Interesting this first no-ops , solution unique, not difficult (I am sure you will soon provide them much more difficult ). 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).

Posted on: Fri May 17, 2013 11:03 pm

Posts: 193
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 4:55 pm
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!

Posted on: Fri May 17, 2013 11:11 pm

Posts: 2342
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 11:58 pm
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...

Posted on: Fri May 17, 2013 11:15 pm

Posts: 2342
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 11:58 pm
Another one to keep you busy

Last edited by pnm on Sat May 18, 2013 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Posted on: Sat May 18, 2013 12:06 am

Posts: 720
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 6:51 pm
pnm wrote:
Another one to keep you busy

...

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).

Posted on: Sat May 18, 2013 11:33 am

Posts: 2342
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 11:58 pm
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

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

Posted on: Sat May 18, 2013 2:35 pm

Posts: 2342
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 11:58 pm
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):

Posted on: Sat May 18, 2013 7:06 pm

Posts: 720
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 6:51 pm
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.

Posted on: Sat May 18, 2013 7:45 pm

Posts: 193
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 4:55 pm
[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.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by
 Page 1 of 2 [ 12 posts ] Go to page 1, 2  Next

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

Search for:
 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ English    Announcements    Calcudoku General    Other number stuff    Solving strategies and tips    Specific puzzles / your own puzzles    Timed Puzzles    Bugs and errors    Killer Sudoku    Sudoku Nederlands    Aankondigingen    Calcudoku Algemeen    Oplostips en strategieën Italiano    Calcudoku Generale    Strategie e consigli per risolvere Español    Avisos    Calcudoku - General    Estrategias de solución y aspectos relevantes
All forum contents © Patrick Min, and by the post authors.

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