Puzzle Description:

This is a Penrose triangle - popularly known as an Escher triangle.

#1: Joe (infrapinklizzard) on May 6, 2013 [HINT]

There is lots and lots of color logic in this puzzle. There are also about seven places where I used advanced logic - mainly edge logic.

For a pictorial tutorial see http://infrapinklizzard.deviantart.com/art/21815-Logic-370002130

I recently did another simple triangle (21810) and then the three previous ones that Adam pointed out (18, 1167 & 7569). I found it interesting that all four were made differently, even though they (presumably) didn't know of the previous ones.

They were all very easy, though, with solid color sides. I thought that I should make one that wasn't so simple. I'm pretty sure you'll agree that this one is anything but simple.





-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Try all my mind-twisting puzzles!
http://webpbn.com/find.cgi?search=1&author=infrapinklizzard
http://www.webpbn.com/find.cgi?search=1&author=infrapinklizzard

Yep, this one was very tricky. I ended up using a lot of visual logic (this square can't be red, because that would be outside of the triangle), but I trust you that there were logical steps to take. :)

Tricky can be good. I was ready to move on after the fifth solve, tho.

Interesting

Found to be solvable with moderate lookahead by infrapinklizzard.

solved!!! (with a couple of reverts)

Congrats, Vaggelis. It's a tough one!

very hard but beautiful. kind of sparkly when you view it from a distance.

Thanks, Linda. This is one of my hardest, and that's saying something.

Difícil, pero puede resolverse lógicamente con un par de suposiciones para asegurar la forme de contactar de las rojas arriba y de las azules abajo a la izquierda.

Thanks, portafolio12000. You shouldn't need any assumptions to finish this one. Just a lot of very careful color logic and a fair bit of edge logic.

Too tedious for me at this time.

I tried it again and find that it is still too tedious. Great amount of work seems to have gone into its design though.

Not fun.

It's super fun for the logic wonks. ;)

Kristen, are you saying it's wonky?

Now that you mention it. ;)

Excellent puzzle. I would have considered it "deep look ahead" There were several places where I I made an assumption, then disproved the opposite, and some of those required many steps before arriving at the disprove.

Thank you, Bill. There is definitely a moderate lookahead method to solve it. I link to a tutorial in the first comment that gives the moderate lookahead bits, and everything in between is either line or color logic. (Although a lot of it is rather hard-to-find color logic.)

Goto next topic

You must register and log in to be able to participate in this discussion.