MorteZ, yes I know well what logical means. :) This is fully logical and you don't even need to use temporaries! It is just a bit harder than some hanjies.
Fun fact: if you combine all ambiguous dots of my all hanjies, there are 2 ambiguous dots! I really care about making hanjies logical. In some of them you do need to use temporaries, but they are logical. I have trashed multiple hanjies just because they have (more than my personal limit of 2) ambiguous dots. :'D.
This puzzle is definitely logical. It can be determined without the need to guess / use temporaries. I am interested to hear your definition as to me the following is a contradiction "In some of them you do need to use temporaries, but they are logical." If it cannot be solved without using temporaries then surely it is not logical? Take away the temporary mode and it should make no difference as it can be solved using logic alone. I remember someone arguing about if a computer could determine the unique solution it is logical even if the number of steps required to envisage were to be beyond the human mind. I think that concept is a real stretch. But I suppose there is a grey area in what is deemed to be the maximum number of steps to be imagined before it is beyond reason to deem it logical. What I do know is that in all the hundreds of hanjies I solved before the internet (specifically this site) made temporaries a possibility, I never came across a hanjie that required more than maybe 2 steps of 2D logic. I definitely enjoy a more challenging puzzle that requires some 2D logic but I am not a fan of using temps. To me that is cheating and misses the point of doing a logic puzzle in the first place.
Maybe my definition for "need to usage of temporaries" is loser than yours since I'm not yet very advanced in 2d logics. So if I need to use some temporaries to decide that some ares definitely have/not have dots, for me it is "needs to use some temporaries" and for you it is just some 2d logics. :)
I never trust just computer in solving hanjie. Usually, I just solve them by myself. Sometimes like 20 times to make it logical. :D
I don't see temporaries as cheating (but I use them only if I can not solve hanjie without it), but maybe my mind will change after I have become better solver than I'm currently. :) I do think that if temporaries needs to be used, right place to use them should not be too hard to find...which makes me now think that maybe that kind of parts are actually solvable also using bit more advanced 2d logics than I'm capable of using currently. :'D.
Robaharrison, have you tried solving one of Mystifiers harder puzzles? :) Because they are definitly logical (at least as far as I've seen), but solving some of those without temporaries? Sorry, but my brain at least cannot retain that many possibilities at once before finding (or not finding) a contradiction...
Oh, and I think that was me you mentioned with only a computer being able to solve some fully logical puzzles. Basically, it's the mathematical definition of what logic is. If you can theoretically pursue each and every possibility, and are then able to eliminate all but one, that one possibility is the only logical conclusion. I agree though that taking a puzzle to such an extreme wouldn't really be fun anymore, at least to me.
Back to the discussion about temporaries though: using temporaries really is just another way of looking at any row where, say, you have 25 fields, and a twenty to fill in. You and I can immediatly see that the inner 15 aquares are filled - but try to explain it to a person who's never done a picross before: if you'd fill in the twenty from the top, the midlle 15 are filled, and if you fill it in from the bottom, the middle is also filled. So no matter where the 20 ends up being, it must always fill the middle 15. And that's really not different from your brain using temporaries to arrive at a conlusion.
Personally, I end up using temporaries quite often (more than I really need to even). If you don't like using temporaries or prefer giving your brain more of a workout by forcing it to remember the temoraries in your mind, that's absolutly valid, too. At the end of the day, we are all here to enjoy solving logic puzzles.
Love all the chatter guys - this puzzle is obviously going to be a challenge - I confess I read the comments first - if they are mostly negative then I move on. And I agree with Littlebitocd - WELL DONE MORTEZ - apologising is very much a dying art and it takes spine and intestinal fortitude to do so.
Thank you guys, well I made a huge mistake and I had poor judgment, there is no shame in apologizing (ofc there is shame in poor judgment) and by trash, I meant the puzzle only not the creator. I guess without the bottom 6's (which was totally new technique for me), the puzzle was unsolvable logically. however it was a perfect puzzle and that made me do some more of Zantedeschia's puzzles, and I found them all nice and logical. thanks for the effort. good luck, have fun.
Like MorteZ, I once really struggled with understanding how people found puzzles like this "logical", then I came across a comment that explained to me how this "2-D logic" works, and now I use it for many of the hard ones! If it wasn't for this site, I'd still be really struggling with this type of logic puzzle.
I also want to add that I really love the community on this site. The vast majority are really encouraging with an attitude of wanting to learn and be better. I have seen a number of comments which were made in frustration, but the awesomeness of the community allowed so many of those people to learn rather than be rejected. If people could delete/edit those comments, that aspect would be lost.
As such, the number of comment sections where people are asking for tips and advice is simply fantastic. I love this site for the incredible attitude of the community: it really is a great place to come and relax after a hard day's work!
Thanks to all of you! :)
(I'll get back to making my own puzzles soon - just a lot going on work-wise for me at the moment!)
Trudiehorse - This puzzle is completely logical. You might need to check up some tips and techniques... Not too long ago, I would also have found a puzzle like this illogical and would not have been able to complete it.
It uses what a lot of people on this site call "2-D logic".
Don't make a statement claiming a puzzle is illogical unless you are VERY sure, especially when so many other comments claim it is logical... myself included, and I am certainly not the best solver on this site!
trash.
Vero* you are welcome!
Just think MorteZ thinks 'logical' means 'easy'.
Work out where the bottom 6 goes and it falls into place.
Maybe my definition for "need to usage of temporaries" is loser than yours since I'm not yet very advanced in 2d logics. So if I need to use some temporaries to decide that some ares definitely have/not have dots, for me it is "needs to use some temporaries" and for you it is just some 2d logics. :)
I never trust just computer in solving hanjie. Usually, I just solve them by myself. Sometimes like 20 times to make it logical. :D
I don't see temporaries as cheating (but I use them only if I can not solve hanjie without it), but maybe my mind will change after I have become better solver than I'm currently. :) I do think that if temporaries needs to be used, right place to use them should not be too hard to find...which makes me now think that maybe that kind of parts are actually solvable also using bit more advanced 2d logics than I'm capable of using currently. :'D.
Because they are definitly logical (at least as far as I've seen), but solving some of those without temporaries? Sorry, but my brain at least cannot retain that many possibilities at once before finding (or not finding) a contradiction...
Oh, and I think that was me you mentioned with only a computer being able to solve some fully logical puzzles. Basically, it's the mathematical definition of what logic is. If you can theoretically pursue each and every possibility, and are then able to eliminate all but one, that one possibility is the only logical conclusion. I agree though that taking a puzzle to such an extreme wouldn't really be fun anymore, at least to me.
Back to the discussion about temporaries though: using temporaries really is just another way of looking at any row where, say, you have 25 fields, and a twenty to fill in. You and I can immediatly see that the inner 15 aquares are filled - but try to explain it to a person who's never done a picross before: if you'd fill in the twenty from the top, the midlle 15 are filled, and if you fill it in from the bottom, the middle is also filled. So no matter where the 20 ends up being, it must always fill the middle 15. And that's really not different from your brain using temporaries to arrive at a conlusion.
Personally, I end up using temporaries quite often (more than I really need to even). If you don't like using temporaries or prefer giving your brain more of a workout by forcing it to remember the temoraries in your mind, that's absolutly valid, too. At the end of the day, we are all here to enjoy solving logic puzzles.
I guess without the bottom 6's (which was totally new technique for me), the puzzle was unsolvable logically.
however it was a perfect puzzle and that made me do some more of Zantedeschia's puzzles, and I found them all nice and logical. thanks for the effort.
good luck, have fun.
Like MorteZ, I once really struggled with understanding how people found puzzles like this "logical", then I came across a comment that explained to me how this "2-D logic" works, and now I use it for many of the hard ones! If it wasn't for this site, I'd still be really struggling with this type of logic puzzle.
As such, the number of comment sections where people are asking for tips and advice is simply fantastic. I love this site for the incredible attitude of the community: it really is a great place to come and relax after a hard day's work!
Thanks to all of you! :)
(I'll get back to making my own puzzles soon - just a lot going on work-wise for me at the moment!)
It uses what a lot of people on this site call "2-D logic".
Don't make a statement claiming a puzzle is illogical unless you are VERY sure, especially when so many other comments claim it is logical... myself included, and I am certainly not the best solver on this site!