peek at solution solve puzzle
quality: difficulty:
solvability: deep lookahead
Puzzle Description Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers
#1: annalivia (annalivia) on May 24, 2011 [SPOILER]
Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers#2: bugaboo (bugaboo) on May 24, 2011
oh i get it now#3: Sarah Andrews (sarah) on May 24, 2011
you are "doubling" (doublin')
i dont think regular logic can solve this
clever!#4: Aldege Cholette (aldege) on May 25, 2011
Have an ale for me annalivia.#5: David Bouldin (dbouldin) on May 26, 2011 [HINT]
had to resort to symmetry logic with an assumed unique solution.#6: Ron Jacobson (shmily999) on May 26, 2011
ditto #5#7: Brian Bellis (mootpoint) on May 27, 2011 [SPOILER]
Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers#8: Web Paint-By-Number Robot (webpbn) on Jun 1, 2011
Found to require some guessing by gator.#9: Gator (gator) on Jun 1, 2011 [HINT]
I also had to use symmetry.#10: Joe (infrapinklizzard) on Jun 4, 2011 [HINT]
I found this able to be solved with no look-ahead. There is however, some out-of-the-box thinking to be done. I made a tutorial to explain:#11: Joe (infrapinklizzard) on Jun 4, 2011
http://infrapinklizzard.deviantart.com/art/Logic-14154-211769555
The gist is that the 2 in c5 must be next to both the 4 in c4 and the 4 in c6. Therefore there must be two horizontal blocks of three pixels. The only place they can go is in rows 5&6. See the tutorial for a more detailed explanation.
This is why I make these tutorials! The AHA moment when something clicks is the very opium of puzzledom. Writing these tutorials forces me to think deeply about what I'm doing and confront all the possibilities.#12: Al LaPointe (kancamagus) on Feb 22, 2013 [HINT]
When I was halfway through writing this the first time, I realized I had missed a possibility. "AAArgh!" I thought. But putting that aside and reassessing it from another angle brought an even more elegant solution.
Happiness!
i think this is logic-only solvable using an "extended" form of smile logic. working it out without smile logic would take too much look-ahead though.#13: Web Paint-By-Number Robot (webpbn) on Oct 28, 2013
Found to be solvable with deep lookahead by jan.#14: Jan Wolter (jan) on Oct 28, 2013
Joe's analysis is cool. I'm promoting this to "solvable with deep lookahead". I'm not exactly sure how many steps of lookahead there are in Joe's analysis, but it's certainly deep thinking of some sort.
Show: Spoilers
You must register and log in to be able to participate in this discussion.