Spoiler:
Thou you were actually on the right path. Proving that you were is the difficult part of course
Frankly it's plausible that we're thinking of the same replication rule and I'm just dogshit at explaining itIn post 278, DeathRowKitty wrote: I'm kinda confused tbh because from the clarification it seemed as though this was a version in which the answer was rather trivially that you can't always kill the hydra rather than the usual hydras in which the answer was what implosion said and the intended solutionuses ordinals. And that seemed weird because I wasn't sure who the intended audience could possibly be. People who already knew enough to know how and why the hydra would normally get slain but who would get tripped up by a trivial version in which none of that applied?? But then if invisibility was on the right track I assume the answer is the usual expected thing, in which case I think I still don't understand the regeneration rule for this one
pedit: started making this post before the previous one was made so it doesn't take that post into account
Now that I've seen your diagram and looked back at what you said previously, it seems that actually I just can't read perfectly clear explanations. Oops! Thanks for the clarificationIn post 279, biancospino wrote:Frankly it's plausible that we're thinking of the same replication rule and I'm just dogshit at explaining itIn post 278, DeathRowKitty wrote: I'm kinda confused tbh because from the clarification it seemed as though this was a version in which the answer was rather trivially that you can't always kill the hydra rather than the usual hydras in which the answer was what implosion said and the intended solutionuses ordinals. And that seemed weird because I wasn't sure who the intended audience could possibly be. People who already knew enough to know how and why the hydra would normally get slain but who would get tripped up by a trivial version in which none of that applied?? But then if invisibility was on the right track I assume the answer is the usual expected thing, in which case I think I still don't understand the regeneration rule for this one
pedit: started making this post before the previous one was made so it doesn't take that post into account
8 | 9 | 6 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 4 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 6 | 3 | 4 | |||||
5 | 3 | 7 | ||||||
4 | 8 | |||||||
1 | 3 | 5 | ||||||
6 | 3 | 9 | 5 | |||||
3 | 1 | 4 | ||||||
2 | 6 | 1 |
That is correct
1 | 7 | 5 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7 | 1 | 6 | ||||||
3 | 8 | 2 | 9 | |||||
3 | 2 | 5 | 1 | |||||
5 | 6 | 4 | 2 | |||||
4 | 6 | 5 | 3 | |||||
8 | 3 | 5 | ||||||
2 | 1 | 8 |
In post 287, Aisa wrote:Spoiler: sudoku
I will continue to edit this until either I finish it or I get home
I got home first. Maybe I will finish this tomorrow. Maybe it will be incomplete forever.
In post 286, StrangerCoug wrote: Or, if you prefer a different kind of puzzle, have a cryptoquote to solve:
AQUM ITW PMTOJ JN FM AQXMK, TOK ZVYQNWQJG PVWJ FM CMBJ TAQXM. NOM PVWJ OMXMY, UNY ISTJMXMY YMTWNO, JVYO SQW FTZC NO AQUM. —MAMTONY YNNWMXMAJ
That is correctIn post 289, Something_Smart wrote:In post 286, StrangerCoug wrote: Or, if you prefer a different kind of puzzle, have a cryptoquote to solve:
AQUM ITW PMTOJ JN FM AQXMK, TOK ZVYQNWQJG PVWJ FM CMBJ TAQXM. NOM PVWJ OMXMY, UNY ISTJMXMY YMTWNO, JVYO SQW FTZC NO AQUM. —MAMTONY YNNWMXMAJSpoiler:
That works. I think it's the slowest strategy I know of, but speed was only required in one variant so it is 100% valid in the base variant. Testing it once it took about 3 million days, which is about 8,000 years. Testing it 100 times and taking an average is rather slow, but still seems to take on average around 3 million, but it seems to have a pretty high variability and I'd need more tests to be certain. I'm too lazy to calculate/estimate the expected value of number of days it will take by hand. There's a relatively simple modification you can make to make it take around 80,000-100,000 days, or about
Yes, there are. But this one is efficient, even if it's slow.In post 295, tris wrote: probably much more efficient ways of doing that