SudokuSolver Forum

OAK (Over-Algebraic-Killer)

Over: more candidates allowed than the row length
Algebraic: cage totals do not have to be sums: note some of us were creating these before KenKen hit the English speaking streets
Killer: a debased way of saying samunamupure (noting of course that sudoku is a debased way of saying number place)

This is a basic Ken-Ken 6*6 however instead of the candidates being 1 to 6 they are a set of six numbers from 0 to 9 and part of the puzzle is, of course, to derive which six.

In the puzzles below cages without a sign are sum cages this is the JSudoku convention. I will make it fully clear in future puzzles.
In these puzzles all cage totals will have a determined sign.
OAK 1

This is easy-peasy to get you going.

Although I did not intend it, this is solvable limited-operator as Simon and Tarek have done - a better puzzle this way. It might be solvable no-operator but I'll leave that for another day.



OAK 2

This one is harder. Note I allow a certain element of T&E in eliminating candidates.



[size=120]If you wish to work on a solver use the first six rows and columns of a 12*12 Latin square.
As Simon points out you can do it on 10*10, but then the 10*10 does not have a valid solution. This is more important when creating the puzzle as you can use JSudoku to check that your approach is valid.[/size]

Edited following Simon's post.

Does this imply the second puzzle the values are ranged from 0 to 11?

I used a 10*10 Latin square with values 0 to 9 to solve the first puzzle. Is the second puzzle using the same range or a larger range (like it is not difficult enough).





Before I try the second puzzle, I need to clarify two points:

1: Are repeats allowed within cages? (There aren't any in the first puzzle, but I know repeats are allowed in kenken.)

2: If the operator is subtract or divide in 3-cell cages, do we subtract/divide the 2 small values from the largest values?

Simon

Numbers are 0-9 but I had some problems (probably fingers) when I tried it on 10*10.

Yes repeats are allowed

Yes triplet subtract/divide is two smallest from largest (does largest have to be the first digit? - I will state). I intend to only use doublets for know.

I'm going to post about five of them. Let me know what you think of them as a puzzle type when you've tried them.

Maurice

I am afraid I will have to give up on #2. I cannot even verify if the puzzle has a unique solution without extensive trial-and-error, and it is not my thing to repeatedly use a lot of trial-and-error.

Perhaps HATMAN will kindly offer us some spoilers/hints later but for now I don't think there are enough clues to even get started.

Some information I gathered on the puzzle:

Cage combinations:

1(2)=1-(2)={01/12/23/34/45/56/67/78/89}
2-(2)={02/13/24/35/46/57/68/79}
4(2)={04/13/ 15/26/37/48/59/ 14/28}
7-(2)={07/18/29}
5(3)={005/014/023/113/122/ 049/139/229/038/128/027/117/016 /115}
6(3)={006/015/024/033/114/123/ 039/129/028/118/017 /116/123}
17(3)={089/179/188/269/278/359/368/377/449/458/467/557/566}
18(3)={099/189/279/288/369/378/459/468/477/558/567 /129/136/233}
19(3)={199/289/379/388/469/478/559/568/577/667}
24x(3)={138/146/226/234}

As one can see apart from the 7-(2) and the 24x(3), all other cages have so many possibilities so it is not possible to do systematic trial-and-error, especially the 5(3), 6(3) and the 18(3). I think it is a bit inhuman for a puzzle to require solvers to consider so many different possibilities in so many cages.

Even if we try out the 3x4=12 combinations of these 2 cages to identify which one(s) out of the 12 can lead to a valid solution, it is not a fun process and it does not guarantee real progress.

Other bits and pieces I can gather include the fact that the set of 6 values must include 1 or 2 (from the 24x(3) cage), and must include 8 or 9 (from the 19(3) & 17(3) together, or max sum for these 2 cages =4+5+6+7+6+7 =35 <36 =17+19). Also the second largest value must be at least 6 (or max sum for the 2 cages =3+4+5+9+5+9 =35 <36 = 17+19). So the 2 largest values must be from {6,7,8,9} and {1,2} must be one of the smaller values.

Perhaps if I can glance at the final solution I might spot the logic to solve this without (too much) trial-and-error, or (not unlikely) I might found that there were actually alternative solutions overlooked by HATMAN?

Thanks Maurice,

I managed to solve Puzzle#1 with difficulty . After looking at Simon's spoiler, I discovered where I made the mistake that made things difficultfor me . I don't think I'll try solving any more today.

The algebric Killer highlights that "Zero cages" and "Zero Killers" terms should be revised .

The wildcard "*" (Star) sounds about right so that you can use "Star cages" & "Star Killers" in both Sum cages & Algebric cages .

tarek

Simon

Apologies for my labeling oversight - see above.

I do not intend to do these with no-operator until well down the track.

Maurice

Gee HATMAN to think all the way along I thought they were unknown-operator cages!

Plus I solved #1 treating all those cages as unknown-operator!!!

Yes please include the + sign for all + cages in the future.


By the way, as a matter of fact, yours are not the very first in this genre. Motris posted a 7x7 "mystery kenken" many months ago in here.

You can also find many of his (great) kenken puzzles with this link. Note in his kenken puzzles cages without operators means unknown-operator! I thought that was the "industry standard".


I'll try to solve your #2 later, now that I know it is not as evil as I thought.

Well if Motris has been doing them they are likely to be worth pursuing so I will continue with them.

On the name, when Ken-kens first came out I found them to easy and started doing them without the operators and posted them on the players forum (and the other one) as no-operator. If you look back at Motris’s early posts on Ken-kens he comments that we were doing them this way in Europe. However if the standard has migrated to the more understandable unknown-operator I’ll go along with it.

Tarek

The name was started by Mike-Japan long ago - revision is probably a good idea.
*cages (non-repeat - unknown total) this seems a reasonable usage.
Star killer is not so clear - perhaps empty killer? However star killer has a nice ring to it.

Maurice

HATMAN

By "standard" I mean the practice that when you omit the operator symbols the operators can be anything, in contrast to your assumption that without symbols by default it means they are "add cages".

By all means please use any naming convention convenient to you. "No-operator" is better than "unknown-operator" because it is 5 letters shorter. Even better we can use "no-op" or "noop", even fewer letters to type.

Talking about names, motris seems to call his puzzles "TomTom" instead of "KenKen". Do you know why?


Here is a solution I found for #2. Haven't managed to prove it is the unique one yet.