Just to make sure everyone knows what we are talking about, here is a message from the archives: Excerpts from mail: 25-Apr-92 Description of Tangle, Part 2 by Chris Worrell@eql.caltec > Annotating Don.Woods diagram (which is in the correct orientation) > 2 3 > --------------------- > | @ # | > | @ # | > 1 |$$ @ # %%%%| 4 > | $ @ %#% | > | $ @ %% # | > | $ %@ # | > | $ %% @@# | > | %%% #@@ | > 4 |%%%% $ # @@@| 2 > | $ # | > | $ # | > --------------------- > 1 3 > > The duplicate piece in each tangle is: > 1 2 3 4 > Tangle 1 Blue Red Yellow Green > Tangle 2 Yellow Blue Green Red > Tangle 3 Green Yellow Blue Red > Tangle 4 Red Green Yellow Blue > > All 4 Tangles are the same puzzle, just colored differently. > Each has all 24 color permutations, plus a duplicate.
I had kind of hoped that the connectivity on the different puzzles was
different, instead of just the colors.
(Actually, the sequence I sent before was slightly wrong--here is the one I actually used. Using Don's format) >Don used the sequence: Dale used: > > 1 3 5 7 9 1 2 6 10 15 > 2 4 6 8 10 3 4 7 11 16 > 11 12 13 14 15 5 8 12 17 20 > 16 17 18 19 20 9 13 18 21 23 > 21 22 23 24 25 14 19 22 24 25 But yes, Don's fillpattern still gets more constraints in earlier--here is the number of constraints at each step Don's: 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 Mine: 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 As you can see, I had my 1's clustered more toward the beginning, which is non-optimal.
Assuming that there is only a change in color(and not in connectivity),
as was posted by Chris in april of 92, I would think modifying code to
attempt the 10x10 would be fairly simple...(seeing as my code went poof
sometime last year, when a disk crashed(not that it was
complicated))...wanna try?
(Thanks for the pointers to the Apr 92 discussion)
I agree with the concensus expressed in the archives that this puzzle is
inherently "not that great" because no non-brute-force method has been
found/seems to exist.
-Dale