Micro 641: Confirmed Guilties (Game Over)

[callforjudgement]

1234ABCDE
=========
AAA141114: Broken (If 1 is Town, {A,B,C,D} so 4 is Town and E is scum, which is impossible)

I produced this list for the previous run of the setup ages ago.
Looking at the first example, we have that if 1 is town, then 4, B, C, D are the scum. But 2 and 3 are claiming a guilty on A for some reason. So something's clearly gone wrong at some point in the process.

Sorry for accidentally ruining your game with a PM I sent in 2012. I can confirm that there's no typo in the example from what I sent, so something must have gone wrong at my end, either with the searching program or with the way I translated the results for the thread.

[callforjudgement]

1234ABCDE
=========
AAB433443: This is not a legal setup. What I presume you mean is:

Ugh. The list was generated by computer, it doesn't make typos.

My current guess as to what happened is that the algorithm is right but it made mistakes in the output code, giving players the wrong names. (The presence of any illegal setups should have been a huge red flag that something was wrong.) I can confirm that the illegal setup was in the original PM.

[callforjudgement]

Actually, I just found my original notes in the program.

It produced its output in a different format, and it's possible I made mistakes translating it into the one seen here. It looks like it also only identified candidates for non-brokenness that I had to filter by hand. Now I'm intrigued to see if I can make a more automated version to remove the possibility of human error (especially as the format it was using was fairly unintuitive).

[callforjudgement]

I just ran the program again and used a more automated way to produce the output.

@BTD6_maker

: care to check the following setups for me?

Code: Select all

1234ABCDE
=========

AAA324433
ABBB11441
ABB114441

AA4324433
ABBB14441

ABCB14331
ABCC12421

AAA344433

AA4344433
AAA334433
AAAA44433

ABCC12421
ABCB12331

ABCC12221
ABBB14331
ABB113441

AA4A34433

If there are any problems here, there's something wrong with the program.
Otherwise, I guess 2012-me was either overconfident or having a bad day.

[callforjudgement]

OK. So it seems that back in 2012 I tried to change the numbers round manually to use 1s and 2s in preference to 3s and 4s and screwed up.
I guess if we agree that this list is unbroken, it's the one we can use in the future (with duplicates removed). It wouldn't surprise me if many of the list entries were conceptually identical and the program didn't notice.