Puzzle Description Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

#1: Merili (merilinnuke) on Jun 5, 2009 [HINT]

I started by eliminating the first and last pixel of the second column. Don't exactly know how that logic is called, but it wasn't guessing.

I looked at the two 3s. They can't both be on the same side (left or right) of the blank column. Also look at the 1 1 1 row. You are guaranteed to have at least 1 clue on the left and right of the blank column. If you would try to place the 3 clue in row 5 on the right side, then row 3 would be invalid. So the 3 clue in row 6 has to go on the left side and the 3 clue in row 2 has to go on the right.

It appears there are several approaches to reach a solution logically. Good puzzle!

Found to be logically solvable by jan.

I used the same procedure as the puzzlegator. It's a nice example of just how tricky these things can be, even when very small.

Ditto #2.

I did have to guess to get started.

i should have looked closer at the clues before starting i guessed wrong then looked closer and realized there was only one logical solution

I followed #2 by actually doing it, rather than thinking about it. So I guess you could say that while I did a guess-and-check, it is possible through logic alone. Perhaps small areas of guess-and-check can be considered logic since some people can hold them in their head, while if it's big enough that nobody can hold it in their head then it's gotta be considered guess-and-check for everyone.

Very interesting little puzzle. I had to stare at it for awhile, thinking about those 3s. It taxed my working memory to the max, but was a lot of fun.

Ditto #8.

Ditto #9

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Well, my logic ended up being pretty far ahead, so I'm not sure it counts.

I used kinda-sorta edge logic on the r2 3. The c2 3 would extend down, causing 2 of the 1s in r3 to be on the right side.
that would mean that *two* of the twos would extend down into r4.
There is only a 1 in r4, so the r2 3 must be on the right.

I had to reverse logic the 2 in the first column. It flowed from there.

"reverse logic"?

I did internal edge logic on the 3 in c2 - if it were to go in c1 then the 3 in r2 conflicts with the 2s in c1 & c3. So c2r1 is white. Then LL

Then edge logic on the 3 in r5. If it is in c5-7 then the 2s in those columns conflict with r7. so r7c5-7 is white.

And LL to finish.

I just looked at it a minute and knew how it went! Surprise to me, not a guess because I knew for sure. Usually I only count, don't do any lookahead or edge logic, don't even know what those are, and I guess a lot. But this small, the whole thing just made sense. Nifty little puzzle!

Show: Spoilers

Goto next topic

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