How odd that people should be so very against...
31 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
by Pappocom » Sat Jun 25, 2005 4:01 am
Scozzer wrote:This week the LA Times started a daily Sudoku puzzle and for the last two mornings their puzzles have not been solvable without "Proof by Contradiction".
The LA Times does not get its puzzles from Pappocom.
It's what I call the "Hong Kong Legal Aid" effect. I noticed, from my years on the Bench in Hong Kong, that defendants in criminal cases would often fire their perfectly-competent Legal Aid lawyers, in the belief that if they were provided free, they couldn't possibly be any good.
The true irony is that I often saw the same defendants represented later by very expensive, often-incompetent lawyers - whom (if it had been me) I would have paid NOT to represent me.
- Wayne
- Pappocom
- Posts: 599
- Joined: 05 March 2005
by Roz » Sat Jun 25, 2005 1:58 pm
Pappocom wrote:The LA Times does not get its puzzles from Pappocom.
I believe The LA Times gets it's puzzles from The Daily Telegraphs compiler.
- Roz
- Posts: 34
- Joined: 25 May 2005
by tso » Fri Jul 01, 2005 8:14 am
There are so many things exasperating about this thread.
First, I second everything Hammerite said.
Second, I've solved ALL the puzzles in the LA Times from the beginning -- none of them required me to use "Trial and Error". All were solved by simple, rigorous logic. See:
http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/viewtopic.php?t=732
See also:
http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/viewtopic.php?t=594
http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/viewtopic.php?t=692
Even if you if you do think that Trial and Error is less elegant -- far too many puzzles that are beyond current common tactics are tossed on the heap with a "That's not even a puzzle -- you've got to guess." I think many of you might be missing the most sublime part of puzzle solving -- not discovering the solution to the puzzle in front of you, but uncovering new tactics that hadn't occured to you before -- maybe to no one else. But I could be wrong -- unlike many of the posters here, I won't tell you what IS and ISN'T elegant or fun. That's subjective. I will I *challenge you to follow the logic in the above puzzle and tell me it isn't BOTH elegant an logical.
I believe there is room for at least 5, maybe 6 descrete levels of difficulty for 9x9 Sudokus above the level of the hardest published in the London Times (two more than in the LA Times and the Telegraph).
Those levels might be:
1) What Pappocom calls "Very Hard"
2) What Pappocom calls "Arguably Unfair" (These first two may not be demonstrably different for many solvers.)
3) What Pappocom calls "Invalid" but yeild easily to "forcing chains" or similar tactics as described in the link above and elsewhere in these forums. This puzzles typically have large numbers of cells that have only two possibilites left after applying the standard bag of tricks. Many solvers will be able to solve most of these in their head at this point -- and will be very proud of themselves. I believe this is were the Telegraph and LA Times (so far) tops out.
4) As above, but a good number of cells have more than 3 possibilities. Solvers *might* be able to eyeball the solution, but will more often need to use additional markings in the cells -- colors, circles around some pencil marks, etc.
5) As above, but most or all of the empty cells have 3 or more possibilites. Most people will requiredactual trial and error.
6) Puzzle in which very few possibilities are removed from the original clues. Trial and error will be required for all except Rainman. At least until someone in this forum discovers and posts an incredible and ingenious new tactic that can crack these.
Ok -- tell us how the method for solving the "invalid" puzzle here:
http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/viewtopic.php?t=732
violates this? And if it doesn't, can you talk to your dad and maybe get him to change his position?
As to MCC tale of the elegance of life and death -- if you were really earnest about solving elegantly, you'd use only pen and never touch the paper except to enter a 'big' number. Once you start with the pencil marks, it's sooo incredibly arbitrary to disallow another type of mark, or colors or circles, notes -- whatever. Plus -- a point that both sides may be missing, is that Trial and Error the way you imply, filling in many, many cells until finishing or finding a contradition, is rarely required in even the most difficult of published puzzles -- and often, even when you think it is, there's very often a shorter, more 'elegant' way. Many people will solve the LA Times puzzle using Trial and Error when they get to the point where their bag of tricks is empty -- but they didn't have to.
Another point that is overlooked. Trial and Error isn't some elephant gun that we pull out at the start of a puzzle and mow down rabbits with -- it's useless until you reach a tipping point. The existance of or use of T and E doesn't take away any of your other techniques or make them any less usefull. This is may be even more true for forcing chains and similar logical methods that should be embraced by the group.
Except that what is and isn't logic is not subjective -- it's demonstrably true or not. Since Pappocom is claiming that some logic ISN'T logic, that some valid puzzles are "invalid" and he speaks with a voice of great authority, he may very well influence others puzzle creators to follow his lead and not publish the harder puzzles. And that's really all *I* care about -- I'm very selfish and I wants me some harder puzzles! The existance of properly graded harder puzzles won't bother you -- you'll just skip them, just as I won't do challenger diagrammless crossword puzzles. They're just too hard for me.
This is what I'm talking about -- "the problem" of non-Pappocom puzzles. We've got a problem. Gotta do something about this problem. I *want* you to have your puzzles, but I want mine too. As you get more experience, you'll have no problem determining when it's time to use a higner level of logic. Tell me, have you ever resorted to something relatively complex to fill a cell, only to realize that you already had 8 numbers in that row? Did you miss the 'elegance' of filling in the lone space? Or did you get more enjoyment out of the puzzle than you would have otherwise?
Even if we do it in our heads, it isn't elegant? How do we stop our mind from thinking? What are we *supposed* to do when if we simply *notice* a pattern that proves a cell's contents? Do we spin the paper around and around reciting nursery rhymes until that ill-gotten knowledge forgotten? And what if we don't even write a big number (am I really writing this?) in or heads? What if we show that *all* possibilites on one cell lead to one and only result in another (forcing chains). Since we don't prove the first cell, only the second, we only write a 'big number' when the proof is done. Yet puzzles require this method are "invalid" here.
You seem to have a type -- you left out "to me" after the word "satisfying". Much of what the non-trial-and-error crowd calls trial-and-error isn't. Intuitive logic is not really involved in Sudoku, only deductive logic. There's nothing satisfying to me to "trudging" through candidates in this cell and that cell, hoping to find a triplet or whatever. It's MORE trial and error than forcing chains. I only do it to get to the fun point, were either the puzzle starts to solve itself, or, in a harder one, where I get to go hunting for a forcing chain. Come to think of it, when you get to the point where you are filling in the numbers fast and furious, aren't you cheating yourself by not using x-wing technology to prove each cell one by one? Can't you just ignore that most of the rows already have 8 numbers?
I haven't required proof by contradiction for any of the LA Times puzzles yet.
Sure it is. It's a skill like any other. When you've systematically exhausted an easier tactic, you move up to the next one. Make progress, drop down to the easier one again. A beginner may overlook a simple scanning placement and move and move on to something harder. Oh, if all the open cells have only two possibilities, it's a good bet that it's time to look for two chains connecting two cells proving the contents of one is the same regardless of the state of the other. Recognizing when you no longer can apply a tactic is part of the game, even on the pure and virginal puzzles of the Daily Sudoku. Yes, harder puzzles will require more wasted time. They're harder.
The more difficult the puzzles are that are published, the sooner new tactics will be discovered.
TSO
First, I second everything Hammerite said.
Second, I've solved ALL the puzzles in the LA Times from the beginning -- none of them required me to use "Trial and Error". All were solved by simple, rigorous logic. See:
http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/viewtopic.php?t=732
See also:
http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/viewtopic.php?t=594
http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/viewtopic.php?t=692
Even if you if you do think that Trial and Error is less elegant -- far too many puzzles that are beyond current common tactics are tossed on the heap with a "That's not even a puzzle -- you've got to guess." I think many of you might be missing the most sublime part of puzzle solving -- not discovering the solution to the puzzle in front of you, but uncovering new tactics that hadn't occured to you before -- maybe to no one else. But I could be wrong -- unlike many of the posters here, I won't tell you what IS and ISN'T elegant or fun. That's subjective. I will I *challenge you to follow the logic in the above puzzle and tell me it isn't BOTH elegant an logical.
I believe there is room for at least 5, maybe 6 descrete levels of difficulty for 9x9 Sudokus above the level of the hardest published in the London Times (two more than in the LA Times and the Telegraph).
Those levels might be:
1) What Pappocom calls "Very Hard"
2) What Pappocom calls "Arguably Unfair" (These first two may not be demonstrably different for many solvers.)
3) What Pappocom calls "Invalid" but yeild easily to "forcing chains" or similar tactics as described in the link above and elsewhere in these forums. This puzzles typically have large numbers of cells that have only two possibilites left after applying the standard bag of tricks. Many solvers will be able to solve most of these in their head at this point -- and will be very proud of themselves. I believe this is were the Telegraph and LA Times (so far) tops out.
4) As above, but a good number of cells have more than 3 possibilities. Solvers *might* be able to eyeball the solution, but will more often need to use additional markings in the cells -- colors, circles around some pencil marks, etc.
5) As above, but most or all of the empty cells have 3 or more possibilites. Most people will requiredactual trial and error.
6) Puzzle in which very few possibilities are removed from the original clues. Trial and error will be required for all except Rainman. At least until someone in this forum discovers and posts an incredible and ingenious new tactic that can crack these.
zinckiwi wrote:I can't speak for my father (Wayne), but to me, the context of the word "logical" in the sense that Pappocom uses it is this:
When placing a number, the reason for doing so must a) be provable, and b) eliminate the possibility of any other number appearing in the cell.
Ok -- tell us how the method for solving the "invalid" puzzle here:
http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/viewtopic.php?t=732
violates this? And if it doesn't, can you talk to your dad and maybe get him to change his position?
As to MCC tale of the elegance of life and death -- if you were really earnest about solving elegantly, you'd use only pen and never touch the paper except to enter a 'big' number. Once you start with the pencil marks, it's sooo incredibly arbitrary to disallow another type of mark, or colors or circles, notes -- whatever. Plus -- a point that both sides may be missing, is that Trial and Error the way you imply, filling in many, many cells until finishing or finding a contradition, is rarely required in even the most difficult of published puzzles -- and often, even when you think it is, there's very often a shorter, more 'elegant' way. Many people will solve the LA Times puzzle using Trial and Error when they get to the point where their bag of tricks is empty -- but they didn't have to.
Another point that is overlooked. Trial and Error isn't some elephant gun that we pull out at the start of a puzzle and mow down rabbits with -- it's useless until you reach a tipping point. The existance of or use of T and E doesn't take away any of your other techniques or make them any less usefull. This is may be even more true for forcing chains and similar logical methods that should be embraced by the group.
lunababy_moonchild wrote:Ok, some people like to use T&E and some people don't. The people who like it use it and the people who don't, don't.
Everybody has their reasons and it doesn't mean that anybody is wrong, it's just the way they play the game.
It's a game and it doesn't matter how you play it, it's designed to amuse.
Luna *I don't use T&E myself but don't condemn those who do*
Except that what is and isn't logic is not subjective -- it's demonstrably true or not. Since Pappocom is claiming that some logic ISN'T logic, that some valid puzzles are "invalid" and he speaks with a voice of great authority, he may very well influence others puzzle creators to follow his lead and not publish the harder puzzles. And that's really all *I* care about -- I'm very selfish and I wants me some harder puzzles! The existance of properly graded harder puzzles won't bother you -- you'll just skip them, just as I won't do challenger diagrammless crossword puzzles. They're just too hard for me.
RFB wrote:The problem is with non-Pappocom puzzles that may require bifurcation.
You never know for sure whether you have missed an elegant logical deduction that would allow you to solve the puzzle or if you are wasting your time looking for a non existent (non-T&E) technique.
This is what I'm talking about -- "the problem" of non-Pappocom puzzles. We've got a problem. Gotta do something about this problem. I *want* you to have your puzzles, but I want mine too. As you get more experience, you'll have no problem determining when it's time to use a higner level of logic. Tell me, have you ever resorted to something relatively complex to fill a cell, only to realize that you already had 8 numbers in that row? Did you miss the 'elegance' of filling in the lone space? Or did you get more enjoyment out of the puzzle than you would have otherwise?
MCC wrote:
"But you don't need to "write in a big number" to use the technique..."
I think you do. Whether you write a number down or mentally assign a number to a cell, you've effectively placed a number in that cell.
Even if we do it in our heads, it isn't elegant? How do we stop our mind from thinking? What are we *supposed* to do when if we simply *notice* a pattern that proves a cell's contents? Do we spin the paper around and around reciting nursery rhymes until that ill-gotten knowledge forgotten? And what if we don't even write a big number (am I really writing this?) in or heads? What if we show that *all* possibilites on one cell lead to one and only result in another (forcing chains). Since we don't prove the first cell, only the second, we only write a 'big number' when the proof is done. Yet puzzles require this method are "invalid" here.
Karyobin wrote:
Trial & error (improvement) may be mathematically sound but it is simply not as satisfying a technique as intuitive logic.
You seem to have a type -- you left out "to me" after the word "satisfying". Much of what the non-trial-and-error crowd calls trial-and-error isn't. Intuitive logic is not really involved in Sudoku, only deductive logic. There's nothing satisfying to me to "trudging" through candidates in this cell and that cell, hoping to find a triplet or whatever. It's MORE trial and error than forcing chains. I only do it to get to the fun point, were either the puzzle starts to solve itself, or, in a harder one, where I get to go hunting for a forcing chain. Come to think of it, when you get to the point where you are filling in the numbers fast and furious, aren't you cheating yourself by not using x-wing technology to prove each cell one by one? Can't you just ignore that most of the rows already have 8 numbers?
Scozzer wrote:Hello Hammerite,
I found your explanation of Proof by Condradiction interesting and encouraging. This week the LA Times started a daily Sudoku puzzle and for the last two mornings their puzzles have not been solvable without "Proof by Contradiction". I found that irritating until I read your explabation.
I haven't required proof by contradiction for any of the LA Times puzzles yet.
Scozzer wrote:,
However I must add that I suspect most people will prefer puzzles without "Trial by contradiction" unless they could be informed at some point that they have gone as far as they can with simple process logic alone. This obviously is not possible,
Sure it is. It's a skill like any other. When you've systematically exhausted an easier tactic, you move up to the next one. Make progress, drop down to the easier one again. A beginner may overlook a simple scanning placement and move and move on to something harder. Oh, if all the open cells have only two possibilities, it's a good bet that it's time to look for two chains connecting two cells proving the contents of one is the same regardless of the state of the other. Recognizing when you no longer can apply a tactic is part of the game, even on the pure and virginal puzzles of the Daily Sudoku. Yes, harder puzzles will require more wasted time. They're harder.
The more difficult the puzzles are that are published, the sooner new tactics will be discovered.
TSO
- tso
- Posts: 798
- Joined: 22 June 2005
by lunababy_moonchild » Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:04 pm
tso
At the time I wrote I was under the impression this was a discussion on the subject of T&E.
"Since Pappocom is claiming that some logic ISN'T logic, that some valid puzzles are "invalid" and he speaks with a voice of great authority, he may very well influence others puzzle creators to follow his lead and not publish the harder puzzles. And that's really all *I* care about -- I'm very selfish and I wants me some harder puzzles! "
I can't possibly comment on what, if indeed any, authority Wayne has on the publishing of puzzles in this country but I have seen him (and I can't remember where, or I'd quote it directly) say that the reason the Times doesn't publish very hard puzzles is because nobody would have the time during the week to do them but, on rare occasions, the Times has been known to publish a very hard one on a Friday when it may be expected that people do have a little time to devote to it. He was speaking about the Times because the Times publish his puzzles but I can't see how that would stop anybody else publishing these or harder if they wanted to. After all, the Independent managed to publish 16 x 16 cell puzzles in their Saturday edition, and there is the famous samurai puzzles, published in the Times (no idea whether these are Pappocom's or not) and there is also the 3D soduko 'Dion Cube' as published by the Telegraph (I believe). I'm not saying that 16 x 16 cell, samurai, or dion cubes are any harder - I haven't tried samurai or dion cubes - rather I'm speaking to the apparent independence of publishers.
Of course you want harder ones, especially if you've mastered all the rest and I don't think that's selfish. Perhaps there may be a market for super hard sodukos, for the advanced among you or the elite solvers, so why don't you look into publishing them yourself? That's how Michael Mepham got started with his.
Also, Nikoli publish what they call Gekikara (Super Hard) - available here : https://www.nikoli.co.jp/howtoget-e.htm - so perhaps you'd like to explore these.
Luna
At the time I wrote I was under the impression this was a discussion on the subject of T&E.
"Since Pappocom is claiming that some logic ISN'T logic, that some valid puzzles are "invalid" and he speaks with a voice of great authority, he may very well influence others puzzle creators to follow his lead and not publish the harder puzzles. And that's really all *I* care about -- I'm very selfish and I wants me some harder puzzles! "
I can't possibly comment on what, if indeed any, authority Wayne has on the publishing of puzzles in this country but I have seen him (and I can't remember where, or I'd quote it directly) say that the reason the Times doesn't publish very hard puzzles is because nobody would have the time during the week to do them but, on rare occasions, the Times has been known to publish a very hard one on a Friday when it may be expected that people do have a little time to devote to it. He was speaking about the Times because the Times publish his puzzles but I can't see how that would stop anybody else publishing these or harder if they wanted to. After all, the Independent managed to publish 16 x 16 cell puzzles in their Saturday edition, and there is the famous samurai puzzles, published in the Times (no idea whether these are Pappocom's or not) and there is also the 3D soduko 'Dion Cube' as published by the Telegraph (I believe). I'm not saying that 16 x 16 cell, samurai, or dion cubes are any harder - I haven't tried samurai or dion cubes - rather I'm speaking to the apparent independence of publishers.
Of course you want harder ones, especially if you've mastered all the rest and I don't think that's selfish. Perhaps there may be a market for super hard sodukos, for the advanced among you or the elite solvers, so why don't you look into publishing them yourself? That's how Michael Mepham got started with his.
Also, Nikoli publish what they call Gekikara (Super Hard) - available here : https://www.nikoli.co.jp/howtoget-e.htm - so perhaps you'd like to explore these.
Luna
- lunababy_moonchild
- Posts: 659
- Joined: 23 March 2005
by Hammerite » Fri Jul 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Here's the problem in a nutshell.
Proof by contradiction is a logical technique that can be used to eliminate possibilities and make entries in the course of doing a Su Doku puzzle. What those of us who recognise this dislike is the way in which people who dislike using it will tend to describe it as illogical, or will imply that it is so by saying things such as "this puzzle cannot be solved by logic; you have to use trial and error".
When the point is brought up, as in this topic, many people will post saying things such as "Well, you are entitled to use trial and error if it pleases you; no-one is stopping you, we're just saying we don't like it". That's fair enough, but those same people will then continue to post statements denying the status of proof by contradiction as a valid logical technique. They thus miss the point of the objections people like me are making.
This is the issue I have here; I'm not denying anyone the right to have their own personal opinions and preferences to avoid particular problems. What I am pointing out is that if you make statements implying that proof by contradiction (as described previously) is illogical, then you are not giving an opinion or stating a preference, you are saying things that are factually incorrect. This is irritating, and besides, it makes it appear that you have not even made the effort to fully understand the logic behind the procedure.
Proof by contradiction is a logical technique that can be used to eliminate possibilities and make entries in the course of doing a Su Doku puzzle. What those of us who recognise this dislike is the way in which people who dislike using it will tend to describe it as illogical, or will imply that it is so by saying things such as "this puzzle cannot be solved by logic; you have to use trial and error".
When the point is brought up, as in this topic, many people will post saying things such as "Well, you are entitled to use trial and error if it pleases you; no-one is stopping you, we're just saying we don't like it". That's fair enough, but those same people will then continue to post statements denying the status of proof by contradiction as a valid logical technique. They thus miss the point of the objections people like me are making.
This is the issue I have here; I'm not denying anyone the right to have their own personal opinions and preferences to avoid particular problems. What I am pointing out is that if you make statements implying that proof by contradiction (as described previously) is illogical, then you are not giving an opinion or stating a preference, you are saying things that are factually incorrect. This is irritating, and besides, it makes it appear that you have not even made the effort to fully understand the logic behind the procedure.
- Hammerite
- Posts: 44
- Joined: 20 June 2005
by Karyobin » Fri Jul 01, 2005 6:17 pm
Hang on! I never said nuffin' of the sort, however much respondents may wish that I had. I have the utmost respect for all proof, be it derived at through trial & improvement or otherwise. You can even use exhaustive techniques for all I care, I just don't find them as rewarding as plain straightforward thinking (sorry, baiting a little there).
The one point I will concede is that I did use a generalisation in an earlier entry - sorry tso. As a soon-to-be-ex-teacher I find people take a lot of notice when you include them against their will, though I must say that knowledge such as is being displayed in this thread really shouldn't go to waste as the modern education system would benefit greatly from half the passion that is being displayed in this, let's face it, really quite unimportant display of mutual back-slapping which I am thoroughly enjoying taking part in.
One proviso though you two, should you ever consider pedagogy as a career path, take a bit of Donald Shimoda's advice and keep it short!. The stamina required to get through some of your expo's often eludes the working male.
And I know you didn't accuse me of anything, but I'm thinking of going into politics.
The one point I will concede is that I did use a generalisation in an earlier entry - sorry tso. As a soon-to-be-ex-teacher I find people take a lot of notice when you include them against their will, though I must say that knowledge such as is being displayed in this thread really shouldn't go to waste as the modern education system would benefit greatly from half the passion that is being displayed in this, let's face it, really quite unimportant display of mutual back-slapping which I am thoroughly enjoying taking part in.
One proviso though you two, should you ever consider pedagogy as a career path, take a bit of Donald Shimoda's advice and keep it short!. The stamina required to get through some of your expo's often eludes the working male.
And I know you didn't accuse me of anything, but I'm thinking of going into politics.
- Karyobin
- Posts: 396
- Joined: 18 June 2005
by lunababy_moonchild » Fri Jul 01, 2005 6:52 pm
I didn't say anything like that either.
Luna *That short enough?
*
Luna *That short enough?
*- lunababy_moonchild
- Posts: 659
- Joined: 23 March 2005
by abrecher » Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:56 pm
tso wrote:Since Pappocom is claiming that some logic ISN'T logic, that some valid puzzles are "invalid" and he speaks with a voice of great authority, he may very well influence others puzzle creators to follow his lead and not publish the harder puzzles. And that's really all *I* care about -- I'm very selfish and I wants me some harder puzzles!
Think about it this way:
Crossword experts don't bother with the syndicated crossword puzzles that appear their local newspapers. There are other places to find more challenging crosswords.
Puzzle experts don't bother with the Dell collections that appear in their local newsstand. There are other places to find more challenging puzzles.
At some point, Sudoku experts should realize that they shouldn't bother with the popular Pappocorn Sudokus. There are (or will be) plenty of other places to find more challenging Sudokus. The mass-market crossword or other puzzle market hasn't stopped anyone from creating more challenging versions. Why would it be any different for Sudoku?
Didn't I read somewhere here that this has only been an issue on the Pappocorn message board? There's nothing wrong with having separate mass-market Sudoku communities (like this message board) and purist Sudoku communities (like other message boards), each appealing to people with different tastes.
- abrecher
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 09 July 2005
by tso » Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:59 pm
Abrecher, I agree with you.
Still, Pappocom should stop insisting that other Sudokus with unique solutions are "invalid". He states this as *fact* not opinion, and it is simply not true. I'll never begrudge anyone stating their opinion, but fact is fact. Certainly, most people would be vexed if they purchased a Crossword Puzzle application that insisted that many crosswords published in the Telegraph were "invalid" because they were too hard.
I find it ironic that Gould is quoted several places as saying:
“I think there’s something in the British personality — they like their puzzles hard,”
... yet calls hard puzzles "invalid" or "arguably unfair" -- and apparently, the hardest Pappocom puzzles in the newspapers max out at HARD, not the VERY HARD that his software *does* create.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7967849/
Still, Pappocom should stop insisting that other Sudokus with unique solutions are "invalid". He states this as *fact* not opinion, and it is simply not true. I'll never begrudge anyone stating their opinion, but fact is fact. Certainly, most people would be vexed if they purchased a Crossword Puzzle application that insisted that many crosswords published in the Telegraph were "invalid" because they were too hard.
I find it ironic that Gould is quoted several places as saying:
“I think there’s something in the British personality — they like their puzzles hard,”
... yet calls hard puzzles "invalid" or "arguably unfair" -- and apparently, the hardest Pappocom puzzles in the newspapers max out at HARD, not the VERY HARD that his software *does* create.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7967849/
- tso
- Posts: 798
- Joined: 22 June 2005
by Karyobin » Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:42 am
Without wishing to breathe too much life back into an old subject, I do feel you're both being a little unfair.
There is a regular puzzle that appears in the UK's 'Daily Mail' which consists of a square grid of sixteen numbers with a few 'randomly' placed digits inside it. Each row, column and diagonal total is given (they are not the same) and the challenge is to place other single-digit numbers into the vacant squares, thus acheiving the desired totals - an old theme.
My point is that, as a mathematician myself, I appreciate that the puzzle is anything other than difficult. It is just, in my opinion, utterly mindless. No skill whatsoever is involved (other than the basic application of number bonds) and a solution will be arrived at via nothing more than tenacity. As such and through, perhaps, a misplaced sense of intellectual snobbery I have rarely stooped to 'challenge' myself with such exhibitions of number-crunching.
If I ever were to feel the urge to solve such 'puzzles', I'd be much more likely to write an excel file to solve them for me, and herein lies the distinction between logic and trial-and-error (and damn the nit-pickers). I do cryptic crosswords for the sense of achievement and to improve my solving times; I do conventional crosswords for the same reason. As maths is pretty much my raison d'etre I have embraced whole-heartedly the emergence of the sudoku puzzle as the more I do, the better and faster I become. This is simply not the case when attempting puzzles of the type described earlier - as no skill is involved, no skills can be developed or improved. As such I will resist with the same passion any move to reduce sudoku to another puzzle of this type.
I have rarely seen myself as a purist in any sphere, but in the case of sudoku I stand proud. Creating sudoku which cannot be solved through deductive/inductive whatever does not mean they are harder, it simply excludes members of the community who don't get a sense of achievement from solving in this way.
I boulder/climb rock faces too, but you can keep mountains - it's the gymnastic feel I enjoy, working out the precise combination of movements to solve the crux. I've even put down sudoku when I know I've got past this crucial point, as the satisfaction seems to wane. I love the feeling, after five minutes of sitting, of having the epiphany - "Ah, there's the x-wing!" or "Of course, a hidden triplet, how did I miss that?" And at the risk of generalising again, I doubt anyone gets that same feeling from "Well, it could be a 5 or 6, so I'll try 6. That implies, lah de dah de dah... Oh, I happened to be correct." Sorry, that just doesn't do it.
It's not about difficulty, in some ways it's about aesthetics, but more importantly, for me it's about the technique. I couldn't care less about the answer.
There is a regular puzzle that appears in the UK's 'Daily Mail' which consists of a square grid of sixteen numbers with a few 'randomly' placed digits inside it. Each row, column and diagonal total is given (they are not the same) and the challenge is to place other single-digit numbers into the vacant squares, thus acheiving the desired totals - an old theme.
My point is that, as a mathematician myself, I appreciate that the puzzle is anything other than difficult. It is just, in my opinion, utterly mindless. No skill whatsoever is involved (other than the basic application of number bonds) and a solution will be arrived at via nothing more than tenacity. As such and through, perhaps, a misplaced sense of intellectual snobbery I have rarely stooped to 'challenge' myself with such exhibitions of number-crunching.
If I ever were to feel the urge to solve such 'puzzles', I'd be much more likely to write an excel file to solve them for me, and herein lies the distinction between logic and trial-and-error (and damn the nit-pickers). I do cryptic crosswords for the sense of achievement and to improve my solving times; I do conventional crosswords for the same reason. As maths is pretty much my raison d'etre I have embraced whole-heartedly the emergence of the sudoku puzzle as the more I do, the better and faster I become. This is simply not the case when attempting puzzles of the type described earlier - as no skill is involved, no skills can be developed or improved. As such I will resist with the same passion any move to reduce sudoku to another puzzle of this type.
I have rarely seen myself as a purist in any sphere, but in the case of sudoku I stand proud. Creating sudoku which cannot be solved through deductive/inductive whatever does not mean they are harder, it simply excludes members of the community who don't get a sense of achievement from solving in this way.
I boulder/climb rock faces too, but you can keep mountains - it's the gymnastic feel I enjoy, working out the precise combination of movements to solve the crux. I've even put down sudoku when I know I've got past this crucial point, as the satisfaction seems to wane. I love the feeling, after five minutes of sitting, of having the epiphany - "Ah, there's the x-wing!" or "Of course, a hidden triplet, how did I miss that?" And at the risk of generalising again, I doubt anyone gets that same feeling from "Well, it could be a 5 or 6, so I'll try 6. That implies, lah de dah de dah... Oh, I happened to be correct." Sorry, that just doesn't do it.
It's not about difficulty, in some ways it's about aesthetics, but more importantly, for me it's about the technique. I couldn't care less about the answer.
- Karyobin
- Posts: 396
- Joined: 18 June 2005
by RFB » Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:30 am
I have rarely seen myself as a purist in any sphere, but in the case of sudoku I stand proud. Creating sudoku which cannot be solved through deductive/inductive whatever does not mean they are harder, it simply excludes members of the community who don't get a sense of achievement from solving in this way.
There are puzzles that cannot be solved by currently known deductive/inductive means but through these forums new techniques are being found. There are already many puzzles that can be solved but which Pappocom's program brands as invalid because he was not aware of those logic techniques.
For some people the search for new solving techniques is the sense of achievement.
- RFB
- Posts: 43
- Joined: 03 April 2005
31 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
