|
|
vopani
Posts: 739
  
Country : India | vopani posted @ 2017-10-03 7:43 PM detuned - 2017-10-03 6:40 PM
Ok, so there might be two equally valid interpretations of the joker, the one which forcolin outlines and the one which Rohan has outlined. So it becomes a question of which interpretation takes precedence.
Perhaps we need a statement along the lines of “there exists a value the joker can take so that the dot or lack of dot works” whilst making clear that is also possible to choose other values which break the rule. Rereading this entire round, it strikes me that this definition of what a joker is has not been adequately described to remove the ambiguities in the rules. Could I suggest this is added as a round note please?
We will review and get back on this.
|
|
jzverina
Posts: 4
Country : Czech Republic | Hi,
must be the joker always uniquely determinable? Example: in non-consecutive, if only numbers 4 and 5 break non-consecutivity (i.e. only consecutive pairs 45 appear in the grid), you can´t determine which of the digits is the joker. You need either 4 to touch 3 or 5 to touch 6 to uniquely identify the joker. |
|
vopani
Posts: 739
Country : India | vopani posted @ 2017-10-04 8:46 AM jzverina - 2017-10-04 2:23 AM
Hi,
must be the joker always uniquely determinable? Example: in non-consecutive, if only numbers 4 and 5 break non-consecutivity (i.e. only consecutive pairs 45 appear in the grid), you can´t determine which of the digits is the joker. You need either 4 to touch 3 or 5 to touch 6 to uniquely identify the joker.
In all puzzles, the joker digit will be uniquely determinable, just like the IB examples.
So, the example you give will not happen.
|
|
vopani
Posts: 739
Country : India | vopani posted @ 2017-10-06 10:27 AM vopani - 2017-10-03 7:43 PM
detuned - 2017-10-03 6:40 PM
Ok, so there might be two equally valid interpretations of the joker, the one which forcolin outlines and the one which Rohan has outlined. So it becomes a question of which interpretation takes precedence.
Perhaps we need a statement along the lines of “there exists a value the joker can take so that the dot or lack of dot works” whilst making clear that is also possible to choose other values which break the rule. Rereading this entire round, it strikes me that this definition of what a joker is has not been adequately described to remove the ambiguities in the rules. Could I suggest this is added as a round note please?
We will review and get back on this.
We have added clarification in Clock Faces and Battenburg "The joker may also assume a value such that it satisfies the constraint of a dot / battenburg not being marked."
I hope that helps and makes it easier to understand.
|
|
TiiT
Posts: 139
Country : Estonia | TiiT posted @ 2017-10-07 12:58 PM Maybe it's easyer to understand if you think that a Joker can break any rules. If there is no battenburg sign and you know there is Joker in that 2x2 area, then it doesn't matter what the other digits are. |
|
forcolin
Posts: 172
Country : ITALY | TiiT - 2017-10-07 12:58 PM
Maybe it's easyer to understand if you think that a Joker can break any rules. If there is no battenburg sign and you know there is Joker in that 2x2 area, then it doesn't matter what the other digits are.
this is not completely correct. At least half of the battenburg should be respected. In the example, it is obvious that the Battenburg is either 3 or 5 from the top corner. Hovever, R2C1 and R2C2 should still be one even number and one odd number, with the even number located below the joker.
|
|
forcolin
Posts: 172
Country : ITALY | forcolin - 2017-10-08 10:17 PM
......, with the even number located below the joker.
sorry, it's the other way round. the ODD number should be located under the joker |
@ 2017-10-03 7:43 PM (#23436 - in reply to #23434) (#23436) Top