ronk wrote:champagne wrote:I got the following resultsrows 1;3 columns 1;3
- Code: Select all
first step ..B...B...3...1.4.B.......B.....6.1.....3.....7.8.2...B.......B.8.4...7...B...B..
raw generation 354
net generation 123
OK, I can duplicate your count of 354, so I assume we're counting the same list. But what does "net generation" mean? IOW on what basis are you making the reduction from 354 to 123? Full-fledged canonicalization would reduce it to 56, so that can't be it.
Also, why are most pattern cells here shown with tokens other than '1' or 'B''? To be consistent with your prior posts, shouldn't all digits be '1'?
Lastly, I seem to be the only one having trouble intrepreting or duplicating your posted data and I'm about ready to throw in the towel. Is no one else trying to follow, or is everyone else smarter?
I think I do my best to explain what I did.
Regarding the command line I wrote earlier
I added in the command line a 81 bits field having
‘A’ for already assigned position
‘B’ for positions to assign in that step
Any digit for other positions of the pattern.
this is in line with the post
I usually take care to start the generation with a template having all active cells set to '1', to have an easier reading of the output, but it could be any digit as well.
it's not so important in the command line. I sometimes use an existing puzzle.
As I wrote, I apply only morphing valid for the full pattern (here four possible morphs), so I go from 'raw' to 'net' clearing all morphs with that restrictive definition.
I hope the process is correct.
I don't know what is "Full-fledged canonicalization"
champagne
EDIT: I see anomalies in my "canonicalization in pattern". I'll fix it and see if it leads to the 56 found by ronk