Nice couplet, r.e.s.
----------------------------------------
drawing the line between logic & guessing,
eschewing brute force, we're seducing, caressing,
teasing the clues until we're possessing
a unique solution; the final undressing!
Guesses?
52 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
by emm » Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:23 am
Surely, this is tautological! Practically speaking, we say 'if that were' at every step of the solution.
Nice couplet, r.e.s.
----------------------------------------
drawing the line between logic & guessing,
eschewing brute force, we're seducing, caressing,
teasing the clues until we're possessing
a unique solution; the final undressing!
Nice couplet, r.e.s.
----------------------------------------
drawing the line between logic & guessing,
eschewing brute force, we're seducing, caressing,
teasing the clues until we're possessing
a unique solution; the final undressing!
- emm
- Posts: 987
- Joined: 02 July 2005
by cheesemeister » Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:36 pm
You could say that some people want to use forcing chains, colours, and whatever other techniques happen to come under the "validity" debate and some don't, whatever the reason(s). Given that we have just accepted this fundamental difference between what one person wants and what another wants we could then attempt to go towards a situation where everybody is happy.
Surely if a program like simple sudoku can create a puzzle that can be solved with only a specific set of techniques; naked singles up to triples for example then couldn't a "custom" option be worked into the difficulty menu, for any program, such that a puzzle can be created where a particular technique or group of techniques are left out of the bracket of required techniques. - If I don't want puzzles which require swordfish I can have them, I don't want puzzles which require x-wing or swordfish or colours I can have them, why not extend this degree of choice so that a player has the option to be able to choose precisely which techniques are included or excluded from the range of those which might be needed to solve the puzzle. Rather than as at present have the techniques grouped by difficulty before they can be excluded or included.
Incidently I have no programming experience so I can't offer the mearest hint of a suggestion as to how this would be achieved...
This would also be extremely useful for the player who decides he wants to try to expand the range of techniques he can currently use. He could create a puzzle which could be sovled using only a particular technique and would be able to focus on improving his ability to recognise and use that one technique.
Just my thoughts.
Cheese
Surely if a program like simple sudoku can create a puzzle that can be solved with only a specific set of techniques; naked singles up to triples for example then couldn't a "custom" option be worked into the difficulty menu, for any program, such that a puzzle can be created where a particular technique or group of techniques are left out of the bracket of required techniques. - If I don't want puzzles which require swordfish I can have them, I don't want puzzles which require x-wing or swordfish or colours I can have them, why not extend this degree of choice so that a player has the option to be able to choose precisely which techniques are included or excluded from the range of those which might be needed to solve the puzzle. Rather than as at present have the techniques grouped by difficulty before they can be excluded or included.
Incidently I have no programming experience so I can't offer the mearest hint of a suggestion as to how this would be achieved...
This would also be extremely useful for the player who decides he wants to try to expand the range of techniques he can currently use. He could create a puzzle which could be sovled using only a particular technique and would be able to focus on improving his ability to recognise and use that one technique.
Just my thoughts.
Cheese
- cheesemeister
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 02 October 2005
by tso » Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:28 pm
SadMan Sudoku can be set to allow and/or require various tactics in the puzzles it creates.
SadMan and Sudoku Susser can be set to solve only the tactics you wish. If for some reason you don't like X-wings, you could set it to solve ONLY X-wings. Click on F9 (SadMan) or Deduce Single Step (Susser) after each manual entry and it will take care of these for you without giving away any other hints.
You can fast forward through a puzzle using Simple Sudoku by pressing F11 to check if there are any tactics you don't like. If it finds something you don't like, toss it and try another.
Both Susser and SadMan create a solution log. Solve the puzzle automatically, examine the log for the forbidden tactics. If it is to your liking, rewind or print it out.
Astraware's Sudoku of the Day includes a list of tactics required to solve each puzzle along with a general difficulty rating.
SadMan and Sudoku Susser can be set to solve only the tactics you wish. If for some reason you don't like X-wings, you could set it to solve ONLY X-wings. Click on F9 (SadMan) or Deduce Single Step (Susser) after each manual entry and it will take care of these for you without giving away any other hints.
You can fast forward through a puzzle using Simple Sudoku by pressing F11 to check if there are any tactics you don't like. If it finds something you don't like, toss it and try another.
Both Susser and SadMan create a solution log. Solve the puzzle automatically, examine the log for the forbidden tactics. If it is to your liking, rewind or print it out.
Astraware's Sudoku of the Day includes a list of tactics required to solve each puzzle along with a general difficulty rating.
- tso
- Posts: 798
- Joined: 22 June 2005
by emm » Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:32 pm
cheesemeister wrote:why not extend this degree of choice so that a player has the option to be able to choose precisely which techniques are included
tso has already explained this but what I want to know is ...
why on earth we want this?
cheesemeister wrote:we could then attempt to go towards a situation where everybody is happy
what then would we fight about?
- emm
- Posts: 987
- Joined: 02 July 2005
by lunababy_moonchild » Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:51 am
em wrote:why on earth we want this?cheesemeister wrote:we could then attempt to go towards a situation where everybody is happy
Never mind wanting it, is this even possible?
Luna
- lunababy_moonchild
- Posts: 659
- Joined: 23 March 2005
by r.e.s. » Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:36 pm
lunababy_moonchild wrote:em wrote:why on earth we want this?cheesemeister wrote:we could then attempt to go towards a situation where everybody is happy
Never mind wanting it, is this even possible?
Luna
Situations in which someone is unhappy ... are hereby declared invalid. Voilà! In all valid situations everyone is happy. (And who cares about invalid situations, anyway?) This also makes the pursuit of happiness much easier, by simply avoiding invalid situations.
- r.e.s.
- Posts: 337
- Joined: 31 August 2005
by Lummox JR » Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:49 am
r.e.s. wrote:Situations in which someone is unhappy ... are hereby declared invalid. Voilà! In all valid situations everyone is happy. (And who cares about invalid situations, anyway?) This also makes the pursuit of happiness much easier, by simply avoiding invalid situations.
Now, now, that's arguably unfair.
- Lummox JR
- Posts: 125
- Joined: 22 September 2005
52 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
