hi
today was the first time i've tried a su doku. i noted the puzzle when The Times began running it a few weeks back, and then i found that a colleague was really into it. but it wasn't enough to provoke me into giving it a go. however, the catalyst was yesterdays Newsnight report into the phenomenon. hence today i finally succumbed to my curiosity, with a gentle start (Puzzle 9 on this site). took me about half an hour i think, as one who knows no techniques, and didn't fill in the grid with possibilities, but worked out using elimination in my head.
the reason i ventured into the so doku universe is probably my longstanding fascination with informal logic. i love that the philosophy behind this puzzle be logic.
for the past, well, over an hour, i have been devouring the posts on this forum, and would like to extend my gratitude to pappocom (Wayne), and the rest of you, but especially to IJ, whose posts i have found tremendously interesting, well-written and helpful. that spirit of sincerity and altruism is maybe one reason why i'm less nervous about posting than i otherwise might have been.
the reason i decided to post was to ask a few things. and lest anyone direct me to older threads, i have not been lazy, rather, i have done searches on the key words, but still remain unsure, hence the following:
1. having read all the threads on x-wings, i still cannot comprehend this concept as a technique. admittedly, i'm not the brightest, but having read and reread the explanations, i think my struggle lies with the way the diagramatic representations of the explanations are offered on screen, as well as the referents. i cannot visualise the x-wing, nor see how it, as a technique, aids the solution. without imposing unduly upon any of you - and certainly with no offence to your attempts to explain it so far - but is there anywhere which explains this technique in a clearer diagrammatic manner, similar to the onscreen layout method used How to Solve section, which i found very easy to follow? whereby the x-wing is actually shown on the screen, rather than just referred to using co-ordinates? and with a breakdown to the level of a Dummies Guide, for this dolt?
2. how are su dokus created? randomly, using a program, or with much forethought, using human intellect? is there some process which we could be privy too (again, apologies if that is a laughable question, i don't know if su doku is primarily a commercial venture)
3. forgive me, i am not familiar with su doku's history, so what are it's origins? how was the idea behind it first borne?
4. what are the factors that determine an easy su doku as opposed to a fiendish one? just less numbers on the grid to begin with, or the way they are arranged too? i assume the latter plays a role, but to this neophyte i struggle to explain to myself how? that is, what the relationship is between ease/difficulty and the layout of a puzzle?
4. within the 3x3 standard format, what is the finitude of eventual possibilities of the puzzle? like, how many of them can be created before they are all exhausted? (i realise there may be an obvious and easy answer to calculate this, but again, i'm not that bright, and would prefer to ask and appear dumb, than not ask and continue to wonder.
5. having read the extremely intriguing few threads on logic versus trial-&-error, would it be fair to say that the difference between the two is that with the latter one starts from an unfounded and arbitrary postulate, for which there is no preponderating evidence/justification? whereas with a logical attempt to proceed one begins with a valid reason for taking the first step. by way of example:
a. trial and error: "how about if i put a 5 here and see what the implications are"? (having not considered beforehand the context nor circumstance behind placing the 5 there on the grid.) such that you might as well have not even looked at the gird, and with your eyes closed, merely have pointed to a cell and used that as your startpoint (assuming it wasn't already occupied)
b. logic: "okay, so i see that in this first box of 3x3 there is a 2, and in the last box of 3x3 on this same row there is also a 2, so i can use that as a basis for assisting in figuring out where the 2 in the middle box of 3x3 might go"
whilst i can see how trial-&-error could be a valid starting point, i don't think it necessary, and definitely reckon there is more satisfaction from beginning with a justified first step. though i also accept i don't yet have enough experience of su doku to know whether there aren't ever points in the solving process where trial-&-error may be necessary (e.g. i have only done one so far, ever, so have no way of gauging what makes one harder than another, or indeed any experiential notion of what such hardship feels like!). nonetheless, i still harbour a doubt about the need for employing trial-&-error as a tool, as it would erode the edifice of the puzzle being one which can be entirely reasoned, logically, using elimination, or other non-random and arbitrary techniques, from start to completion.
to anyone kind enough to offer some answers/insights, please know that i'm not mathematical by nature, and i find it hard to comprehend abstract formal logical explanations (e.g. boolean formats).
i appreciate i've asked a lot, and recognise that may result in disinclination to answer, so i'd like to express my thanks in advance.
a Wayfarer