udosuk wrote:I suspect this must have been discussed before
You might have deja vu
hereWhere
Red Ed went on to confirm that this pattern
- Code: Select all
x x x | x x x | x x x
x x x | . . . | x x x
x x x | . . . | x x x
------+-------+------
x . . | . . . | . . x
x . . | . x . | . . x
x . . | . . . | . . x
------+-------+------
x x x | . . . | x x x
x x x | . . . | x x x
x x x | x x x | x x x
has more than 1 solution.
Red Ed wrote:I shouldn't bother: there are no puzzles with that template.
udosuk had the right idea: ignore the givens and just search for a way of filling in the blanks (the inner cross shape) such that there are no unavoidables. An exhaustive depth-first search, with some additional trimming by testing partial fills for isomorphism & unavoidables, finishes in less than 2 hours on my computer.
Of course this result means that there are no puzzles with the original template, sans central clue, either.
Other patterns without puzzles include
Trivially
- Code: Select all
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| x x x | x x x | x x x |
+-------+-------+-------+
| x x x | x x x | x x x |
| x x x | x x x | x x x |
| x x x | x x x | x x x |
+-------+-------+-------+
| x x x | x x x | x x x |
| x x x | x x x | x x x |
| x x x | x x x | x x x |
+-------+-------+-------+
less trivially
- Code: Select all
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . x |
| . . . | . . x | . . x |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . . | x x x | x x x |
| x x x | x x x | x x x |
| x x x | x x x | x x x |
+-------+-------+-------+
| x x x | x x x | x x x |
| x x x | x x x | x x x |
| x x x | x x x | x x x |
+-------+-------+-------+
- Code: Select all
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . . | . . . | . . x |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| x x x | x x x | . . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| x x x | x x x | x . . |
| x x x | x x x | x . . |
| x x x | x x x | x . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| x x x | x x x | x . . |
| x x x | x x x | x . . |
| x x x | x x x | x . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
more ?
- Code: Select all
+---+---+---+
|***|***|***|
|***|***|***|
|...|***|...|
+---+---+---+
|...|*.*|...|
|...|*.*|...|
|...|*.*|...|
+---+---+---+
|...|***|...|
|***|***|***|
|***|***|***|
+---+---+---+
and ?
- Code: Select all
+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+
|*..|*.*|..*| |*..|*.*|..*|
|...|*.*|...| |...|*.*|...|
|...|*.*|...| |...|*.*|...|
+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+
|***|***|***| |***|***|***|
|...|***|...| |*..|***|...|
|***|***|***| |***|***|***|
+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+
|...|*.*|...| |...|*.*|...|
|...|*.*|...| |...|*.*|...|
|*..|*.*|..*| |*..|*.*|..*|
+---+---+---+ or +---+---+---+ !
If we could compile a list of these.
We might be able to approach the proof that clues[min] is 17 [ie not 16]
No combination of 16 clues with only clues from the above patterns can give a valid solution.
C