| Today's puzzle (Sunday, 16th July 2006) |
Jankonyex
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 5669
Best Total: 9m 35s | Posted - 2006.07.16 07:57:46
Today's puzzle's good because I like solving puzzles by using calculations more than disproofs.
deduce by:
here's one of the patterns found in today's puzzle:
|
procrastinator
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 1083
Best Total: 12m 56s | Posted - 2006.07.16 18:14:20
Quote: Originally Posted by jankonyex Today's puzzle's good because I like solving puzzles by using calculations more than disproofs.
|
Where do you draw the distinction between those two methods?
I agree about it being an ideal level of difficulty - it definitely took more than just applying common patterns, but was still faster to solve without using FP. That's the kind of puzzle I like. (well, the kind I like to do fast - if I'm doing it slowly I like the challenge of holding a 15x20 FP in my head.  It's possible I'd prefer it slightly harder if I'd had a few less beers, though. |
Jankonyex
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 5669
Best Total: 9m 35s | Posted - 2006.07.16 19:01:20
Quote: Originally Posted by procrastinator Where do you draw the distinction between those two methods? |
I meant I like solving puzzles by using straight proofs instead of disproofs.
The distinction is that their in different form.
And I agree straight proofs and disproofs can respectively prove everything.
Last edited by Jankonyex - 2006.07.16 19:03:07 |
procrastinator
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 1083
Best Total: 12m 56s | Posted - 2006.07.17 07:52:50
Quote: Originally Posted by jankonyex Quote: Originally Posted by procrastinator Where do you draw the distinction between those two methods? |
I meant I like solving puzzles by using straight proofs instead of disproofs. |
Sorry, I still don't get it. I feel like everything I do is a disproof - ruling out things that don't work - until I get to the stage where I can visualise the last remaining lines and hence see directly that they're correct.
At the very least it's a straight proof composed of known lemmas (i.e. patterns) which in turn can only be proven by contradiction (nothing else works). And surely avoiding local loops and odd-crossings are also forms of disproof?
So I think we have a different definition of the boundary between proof and disproof. How do I tell which one I'm doing? |
Jankonyex
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 5669
Best Total: 9m 35s | Posted - 2006.07.17 17:28:50
for example:
+x+ +
a2b
+c+d+
e2f
+ +x+
x=0
a+b+c=2
d+e+f=2
f<=1
d+e>=1
b+c+d+e=2
b+c<=1
a>=1
also known that a<=1, so a certain state's formed and all relevant values are at extreme, we get
f=1
d+e=1
b+c=1
a=1
This is one of my methods and I don't think any disproof occurrs here. |
