Thursday, 19th April 2018
Puzzles Solved Yesterday: 117
Home | Register | Login | Current Puzzle | Archives | Leaderboard | Forum | Tutorial | FAQ
Forum Index
 
Page 3 of 3<123
Paper vs. Computer
foilman
Kwon-Tom Admin
Puzzles: 1720
Best Total: 24m 8s
Posted - 2006.06.14 13:16:27
I think "lookahead" is the same as logic really... I mean even the easiest of patterns is just looking ahead a very short distance, isn't it? (If I put a cross there on that 3, then those lines there would make the board impossible, therefore that part of the 3 must be a line... it's a pattern, but it's also lookahead...)

I've turned off the post notifications by default! So if you want them, remember to tick the box...
m2e
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 607
Best Total: 16m 43s
Posted - 2006.06.14 13:18:11
Quote:
Originally Posted by drnull
Quote:
Originally Posted by procrastinator
They're all possible to solve like that. you've just got to think harder sometimes.

I'm gonna have to disagree here.  There's a difference between solving a puzzle using lookahead, and solving it using patterns.  What (I believe) you're saying is that using lookahead (no matter what depth) is still logic.  But it's not.  Logic is systematically applying patterns or rules.  Guessing at one configuration, then seeing if that guess works you to contridiction (whether using fix position or doing it in your head) is not, in my opinion, logical.

Now, we each have our own heuristics for deciding where it would be best to "guess", i.e., where we will most quickly (hopefully) reach a contridiction, but they are just that, heuristics.  By definition, that's not logic.

Oh, and by the way.... is there any way we could have "notify me when a reply is posted" default to unchecked? 
i disagree to you
logic: a system of reasoning
I think if you can look ahead in your own mind then you are using logic as you are *reasoning* why or why not an option is feasible. Maybe i should've said ealier that its good the puzzle was possible to do in the head (i didn't need to delve too deep into possibiliies where i needed an aid).

**edit didnt see foilman's post. and i agree with foilman **
Last edited by m2e - 2006.06.14 13:19:24
drnull
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 901
Best Total: 23m 25s
Posted - 2006.06.14 13:27:23
Quote:
Originally Posted by foilman
I think "lookahead" is the same as logic really... I mean even the easiest of patterns is just looking ahead a very short distance, isn't it? (If I put a cross there on that 3, then those lines there would make the board impossible, therefore that part of the 3 must be a line... it's a pattern, but it's also lookahead...)
Ok, good points, both of you.

I guess why I'm trying to argue, though, is that if you had a 10x10 puzzle with no discernable patterns, and no matter where you tried a line or a cross, you had to work at least 20 steps to find out if that line or cross was valid (well, if it was valid, you'd have to work to the end, making this even worse)..  Would you still consider that puzzle to be solvable "logically", or no?
mathmaniac
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 1198
Best Total: 20m 57s
Posted - 2006.06.14 14:51:39
I wouldn't.
m2e
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 607
Best Total: 16m 43s
Posted - 2006.06.14 23:58:04
Neither. I think the line is whether otr not you can do it in your head (and i presume you can't do that puzzle in your head)
Page 3 of 3<123

Forum Index