Talk:24 game: Difference between revisions
→unsolvable solutions for the 24 game: Further exposition on digit reordering.
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→unsolvable solutions for the 24 game: Comments to Gerard and Paddy3118) |
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→unsolvable solutions for the 24 game: Further exposition on digit reordering.) |
||
Line 117:
:::Who said anything about REXX? Or even the actual task code? My point was: if say, 1678 is unsolvable, then so is 1687, 1768, 1786, 1867, 1876, 6178, 6187, 6718, 6781, 6817, 6871, 7168, 7186, 7618, 7681, 7816, 7861, 8167, 8176, 8617, 8671, 8716 & 8761, and there isn't any point in listing all of them '''unless the solver is only checking numbers with preserved order'''. Like I said, there is only a total of 495 unique combinations of 4 non-zero digits. Of those, 91 are unsolvable for 24. Even if you count all possible permutations of each combination, there are only 757 unsolvable "numbers". Not sure where you are getting the 1263 from. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 14:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
:::Some further exposition about digit reordering. OK, you say the REXX version preserves order because the instructions permit it but don't mandate it. But those instructions '''ARE FOR THE PLAYER, NOT THE PROGRAMMER'''. If the solver can't or won't handle digit reordering, you'll run into situation like this: you offer the player 1399, and she says: "Aha! I' am permitted to reorder digits so: (9 - 1) / 3) * 9 = 24". The REXX entry will say '''NOPE! INCORRECT, 1399 is UNSOLVABLE.''' (There ''are'' no solutions for those digits in that order.) The player is going to say "Are you f'n kidding me?" and go investigate some other language. If it is permitted, you must make allowances for it. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 15:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
:That being the case, there are only 495 unique combinations of 4 non-zero digits. This is ALL of them.
Line 165 ⟶ 167:
Hi guys, I checked Gerards results with one of the Python solvers and seems fine to me :-)<br>
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 11:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
:Really!? --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 14:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I got:
<pre> Gerards Stated UNsolvables: 0 solved, 91 unsolved
Line 171 ⟶ 176:
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 11:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
: Oh. Yeah, except that isn't the list Gerard posted, that was mine. Gerards list (which he has since deleted) had 2501 "unsolvable" numbers in it where '''at least''' 1744 of them were, in fact, solvable.
| |||