The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[denis_berthier]

.
This is again about my systematic procedure for generating high B puzzles in T&E(1) from minimal puzzles in T&E(3) or T&E(2).

Initially, I thought it was successful due to the continued presence of a tridagon or some degenerate form of it. But my recent results involving non-tridagon puzzles prove it is not the case. I've now run the procedure on 3 sets of minimal puzzles:
1) mith's latest collection mith-TE3 of T&E(3) puzzles (all of which have a non-degenerate tridagon);
2) the collection col-TE2 of mastermins-1-to-10 assembled by coloin (and found mainly by coloin, Hendrik Monard and Paquita), all in T&E(2) with BxB ≥ 7 (all of which have a non-degenerate tridagon);
3) a sub-collection el-TE2 of eleven's tamagotchi high SER puzzles (none of which has a non-degenerate tridagon).

I've measured the throughput as the ratio: output-nb-minimals-in-B12+ / input-nb-min-expands.
I think this is the right quotient to consider (because the effective input is the min-expands, not the minimals).
The results allow no appeal; the success of the procedure can't be due only to the tridagon pattern (though it may play some role within T&E(2)):

- 1.285 B12+ minimal puzzle for each min-expand in mith-TE3
- 7.30 B12+ minimal puzzle for each min-expand in col-TE2
- 2.68 B12+ minimal puzzle for each min-expand in el-TE2

Why T&E(2) puzzles give better results than T&E(3) ones may be because T&E(2) is closer to T&E(1) than T&E(3). It may also be due to the saturation of mith-TE3 by minimisation of the min-expands, which could imply proportionately fewer p1U puzzles (but the stats don't confirm this).
Why, within T&E(2), the puzzles with BxB≥7 give better results, tends to contradict the previous first pseudo-explanation.

Conclusion: clear facts; no real explanation of the results.
.