The 2 in row 18 cannot be determined using logic. If you were to assume that it was in c9, it takes an incomprehensible number of further steps to find a contradiction. So it is down to the same old argument only to be found on this site (due to the fact that they have incorporated an option to use temporaries), that it is deemed to be logical to find a contradiction six steps down the line. 2D logic is a clever bit of deduction. This example is beyond 2D logic. There may well be one unique solution but it is a real stretch to claim that without temporaries that one could determine where the 2 in r18 goes logically. Try to imagine that you had a physical puzzle in front of you and a pencil. You should not need to guess or to use an eraser if it is logical.
Yes, fully logical. Tough, and needing to look at everything.
Robaharrison - if you needed a lot of steps to find a contradiction, then you were looking at the wrong bit! The most number of steps I ever needed to find a contradiction was about 3.
Thanks Baggy T and Mahkitah1, Good to know. I will give it another crack in that case. I am intrigued to know where this other place in the puzzle was? Maybe I did miss something? But it appeared to me at a specific point to rely on the assumption Teesea was talking about r18 c10. If I crack it, I will report back (as if anyone else cares haha)
Okay I 100% retract my original comment. Thanks again to Baggy T and Mahkitah1 for letting me know that there was another route. That was a really challenging puzzle requiring a lot of thought. In my defence, it helps to know that there definitely is a 100% logical way to solve it. If we knew that every puzzle on here could 100% be solved without temps then you would know to persevere every time. But the lesson learnt is not to be so quick in calling out a puzzle for not being logical. I get a slapped wrist for that. I shamefully didn't pay enough attention and missed another bit of 2D logic elsewhere.
A note to Littlebitocd: If you needed to use temps you didn't disprove anything. I had already solved the puzzle using temps. The whole point of solving a logic puzzle is to use logic. You could solve a rubiks cube by peeling off the stickers and putting them in their correct spots. The rewards of doing hanjie puzzles is in solving it without using temps.
Thank you for the comments. I did properly test it to be fully logical, without need for temps. Just needs good concentration and going back over things. Cheers.
(Hint:The 2 in the top row can't go anywhere right of col 11)
I did it twice to be sure.
Robaharrison - if you needed a lot of steps to find a contradiction, then you were looking at the wrong bit! The most number of steps I ever needed to find a contradiction was about 3.
Thanks for the challenge!
A note to Littlebitocd: If you needed to use temps you didn't disprove anything. I had already solved the puzzle using temps. The whole point of solving a logic puzzle is to use logic. You could solve a rubiks cube by peeling off the stickers and putting them in their correct spots. The rewards of doing hanjie puzzles is in solving it without using temps.
fully logical, and tough, just the way I like the puzzles ! thank you.