zebedeezbd wrote:I don't think there is any ambiguity. Yes, The Times has messed up at least three times now in attempting to state, clarify and reclarify the rule situation, but each time it is reasonably clear what they were TRYING (and failing) to say.
Killer sudokus are just ordinary sudokus, with one additional constraint, namely that certain irregular groups of boxes have to sum to a given total. Nobody ever said anything about a further constraint that you cannot repeat digits within those dotted blocks (provided the ordinary rules of sudoku are not violated), so why make that assumption?
I think that's what the debate is about: the Times first said that 1-2-3 was the only valid triplet for a region/cage of 6 - which implies that repetition is not allowed, since otherwise 1-4-1 is sometimes valid. They then said that repetition is allowed, and their last attempt was to change the word CAN to CANNOT in the rules, resulting in the nonsensical rule I mentioned above (and then change it back again) - but I'm not sure how one could argue that that wasn't intended to reverse the rule.
Either way, so far there hasn't been a puzzle involving duplicates in a cage (as far as I know), and so to me, so far, forcing one to consider the possibility of duplication and therefore consider multiple options which disappear if one assumes no duplication, is a daft restriction amounting to a speed-bump and nothing more.
One could also argue that we're all applying too much logic to the rules - but then, this is a logic puzzle!