Jump to content
BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers

plasmid

VIP
  • Content Count

    1741
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

plasmid last won the day on August 24 2019

plasmid had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

41

About plasmid

  • Rank
    Senior Lolcat

Profile Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The first thing that jumps out at me is that when I do Einstein puzzles by hand I usually need to do many iterations of going through the rules and filling out as much as I can, and then going through the rules again to narrow things down further based on what I’ve eliminated so far. In this case there’s a single loop of For cr = 1 to cntRules that gets executed once, as if a human were to just go through all the rules once instead of iteratively. If you as a human are able to solve the puzzle by going over each of the rules once in the order that they're presented, then the program
  2. We'll have to see the algorithm and what it's doing in order to say much. Could you share it and walk through how it would handle an example Einstein puzzle that folks without the game could follow (say the one at https://web.stanford.edu/~laurik/fsmbook/examples/Einstein'sPuzzle.html)? If you solve the puzzle the old fashioned way and keep track of what you eliminate and why, is your algorithm able to recreate the path to the solution? If not, then what parts is it missing?
  3. Ah, I see. So in that spirit you could present your solution #2 this way (not particularly efficient, but crystal clear that it works)
  4. I'm afraid I might be missing something, because it seems like whenever you switch parity you end up losing all the ground you previously covered. Consider xp2008's solution... Similarly for EventHorizon's first solution You could argue that if you start off covering a finite area, then cover a slightly larger area, then cover a slightly larger area, etc. then you will eventually catch the groundhog because the groundhog must be at some finitely numbered hole which you will eventually reach. My counterargument to that is:
  5. Only if they're imaginary stonenibblers.
  6. Just a reference to something commonly associated with it...
  7. I'm pretty sure this isn't optimal, but it's a start.
  8. I agree completely with EventHorizon, and will try to summarize in a way that addresses the OP and deconvolutes the paradox at its heart:
  9. The part that I turned red in the quote bugs me a little bit.
  10. It looks like that will indeed work. And I know I just said this about the previous solution, but now I really don't think there's a way to do it with any fewer breadcrumbs. As for ever finding a general solution to the breadcrumbing problem,
  11. I would have to disagree with that since I just posted a solution with only one breadcrumb going from C to E. But I do agree that there probably isn't a better solution for the pentagon case than adding five new breadcrumbs.
  12. That's the best solution so far, and matches the number of breadcrumbs I had even though it seems substantially different. I strongly suspect that there aren't any better solutions with fewer breadcrumbs, although I don't know of a way of proving it, let alone finding a general solution for determining the fewest number of breadcrumbs it would take to "teach" a dumb but hungry mouse to travel any arbitrary path. And I sort of doubt that anyone has figured it out since this sort of puzzle isn't a common thing. But I'll go ahead and share my perspective on the problem and the solution I reached.
  13. That's correct. The mouse can take whatever path you want it to take, even if it's not straight lines from A to C to E to B to E, as long as it reaches the specified destinations in the specified order. And it took me more than a day or two, so I certainly wouldn't fault you if it takes more than that.
×
×
  • Create New...