How are we solving the puzzles?

Advanced methods and approaches for solving Sudoku puzzles

Postby stuartn » Tue Aug 30, 2005 1:51 pm

lunababy_moonchild wrote:Stuartn

Setting puzzles by hand is wholly different to writing alogorithms for a computer program to create (or that matter solve) the puzzles.

Luna


Disagree entirely.

Depends entirely on where you're coming from - some programs are created to blindly crash through the grid. Others, created by people who are more interested in the logic and overall structure, mimic the human thought processes involved in solving (or creating) the grid ( which are advancing rapidly as people such as those on this site make further advances in solving methods) - without recourse to sledgehammer techniques and an opportunity to make a fast buck. Have a look at some of them. IMHO a good programmer would use the same algorithms to both build and solve a grid (although sledgehammers can be built in) - Once you've written the rules for solving they are immediately available for creating - and we may not yet have found all the rules . It only makes sense doesn't it? - Try building one yourself - (you've probably done this already with your wealth of experience) - start by building the full grid - how do you do it? - what rules are you following? I'd be very interested if there were any different rules to those that you follow while solving.

stuartn
stuartn
 
Posts: 211
Joined: 18 June 2005

IMHO...

Postby Big Blue » Tue Aug 30, 2005 1:58 pm

...tso has said everything that can be said on this issue.

Just for sake of contradicting my own statement let me add that I enjoy very much solving hard Sudokus by hand - not the ones that take you 10-20 minutes, but those where you sit an hour over some bilocation graph and try to obtain some conflicting paths. It is a nice challenge, and I hope that people keep constructing these beasts.

EDIT: @lunababy and stuartn: you are so cute while quarreling - keep it going!:)
Big Blue
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 01 August 2005

Postby Karyobin » Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:16 pm

Luna

I believe that was the point that stuartn just made. Though I could be reading it incorrectly of course.

K

(Bit of argy-bargy goin' on 'ere...)

[5 minutes later - blummin' 'eck, I've just responded to a post that's well out of date. Gettin' fed duff information by my lappie. Acursed silicon demon.]
Last edited by Karyobin on Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Karyobin
 
Posts: 396
Joined: 18 June 2005

Re: IMHO...

Postby stuartn » Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:16 pm

Big Blue wrote:...tso has said everything that can be said on this issue.


EDIT: @lunababy and stuartn: you are so cute while quarreling - keep it going!:)


I know - and it brightens up my day:D

stuartn
stuartn
 
Posts: 211
Joined: 18 June 2005

Postby emm » Tue Aug 30, 2005 6:48 pm

Earth to Moonchild :

Hang in there! Nil bastardo carborundum.
emm
 
Posts: 987
Joined: 02 July 2005

Postby Karyobin » Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:13 pm

Always thought it was 'Nil carborundum illegitimi'. Still, nothing lost in translation either way, methinks.
Karyobin
 
Posts: 396
Joined: 18 June 2005

Postby stuartn » Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:32 pm

NEVER insult my mother..............:)
stuartn
 
Posts: 211
Joined: 18 June 2005

Postby lunababy_moonchild » Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:38 pm

Stuartn

We were talking about Wayne Gould/Pappocom software and I still think that he's the only one who can say what he did with solving and creating algorithms "without a doubt". And he'd be the one to ask.

Wayne has already stated that the only advanced techniques needed to solve his puzzles - and that would only be the Very Hard at that - is x wings.

Other software is, of course another matter and you are right, you could use the same solving alorithms to create (but, imho, you don't have to). Sledgehammer, brute force et al. But to make the game fair to your average non-programmer - Joe Public - wouldn't it be fairer to leave out the very advanced techniques to create a puzzle? Personal taste not withstanding.

Anyway, thanks for the time.

Em, thank you.

Big Blue, first time I've ever been called cute:)

Luna
lunababy_moonchild
 
Posts: 659
Joined: 23 March 2005

Postby stuartn » Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:44 pm

lunababy_moonchild wrote:Big Blue, first time I've ever been called cute:)

Luna


Really? You're not related to Ricky Ponting are you?:D
stuartn
 
Posts: 211
Joined: 18 June 2005

Postby lunababy_moonchild » Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:20 am

Stuartn wrote:
Really? You're not related to Ricky Ponting are you?:D


Nope, I'm waaaaaaaaay cuter than that (obviously!). Bet Australia thrash England at The Oval, though.

Luna
lunababy_moonchild
 
Posts: 659
Joined: 23 March 2005

Postby emm » Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:39 pm

No! not the bleating Ozzies!!!
emm
 
Posts: 987
Joined: 02 July 2005

Postby Karyobin » Wed Aug 31, 2005 11:11 pm

*Heh*
Karyobin
 
Posts: 396
Joined: 18 June 2005

Postby Big Blue » Thu Sep 01, 2005 7:09 am

@lunababy: sorry, won't do it again...:)

This thread has become a nice counterpoint to the mathematical ones... Even though I have not the slightest idea who Ricky Ponting is (well, I googled him up, but what is so special about him? sorry for my naive question...)
Big Blue
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 01 August 2005

Postby lunababy_moonchild » Thu Sep 01, 2005 7:30 am

Big Blue :

@lunababy: sorry, won't do it again...:)


Ooooh, please don't stop.

Ricky Ponting is the Australian Cricket Team's Captain. Much criticised for his 'crucial' decisions on the field, leading to them being beaten etc. So he's not overly popular just now, let alone cute.

*I believe it's Pakistan, next*

Certainly does make a pleasant change to the mathematical.

Luna
lunababy_moonchild
 
Posts: 659
Joined: 23 March 2005

Postby angusj » Thu Sep 01, 2005 7:37 am

lunababy_moonchild wrote:So he's not overly popular just now

He's not unpopular, he just has to win the toss (and when he does make sure he doesn't send the poms in like last time):D .
angusj
 
Posts: 306
Joined: 12 June 2005

PreviousNext

Return to Advanced solving techniques

cron