Obviously the Allied Occupation one is from WPC2005; where's Polyominous from? Phil Bordelon 5 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
Allied Occupation is actually from a few years ago (I can check). When I added Allied Occupation, I added Polyominous practically out of reflex. The name Polyominous is from the same place the name Islands in the Stream for Nurikabe and Quadrum Quandary for Sudoku/Number Place is from; frankly, I'm surprised no one's asked about the others. As far as I know, the only entity that publishes those puzzles under those titles is myself. This admittedly doesn't meet the United States Patent and Trademark Office definition of "published", since I'm not selling my compositions at this time, but as an attempt in my ongoing campaign to localize Nikoli's puzzles, consider it an idiosyncracy that I feel compelled to add my carefully-devised pun of a title to the articles. (I've only published one Where is Black Cells so far, and that was quite recently, hence why I haven't added the Echolocation title to the list for that one.) Suffice it to say that until such time that I may get around to trademarking these titles and publishing books of their puzzles, the references may be deleted. Quadrum Quandary already vanished from the Sudoku article, and though the reference may have been fitting and even amusing, I haven't tried to reinstate it. - ZM Zotmeister 5 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)
I personally don't care. If someone else comes around and deletes it, that's their prerogative, but I'm not going to be the one to do it. Phil Bordelon 5 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)
Allied Occupation appeared in the 8th WPC, held in 1999. Other years may also be possible. - ZM Zotmeister 6 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)
I want to see that. - ZM Zotmeister 5 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)
Found it. Puzzle #21, Penpa Mix. Phil Bordelon 5 July 2005 22:18 (UTC)
What a coincidence: I'd ordered that book (among others) not long ago, and it just arrived yesterday (the same day you posted that). I know what I'll be looking forward to... - ZM Zotmeister 6 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)
It's only a "21-omino", but there's an implication of a somewhat different variety in my Puzzle 15 you may be interested in. Warning: this one is quite tricky in some parts. - ZM Zotmeister 19:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's worth having a page that steps through the solution of your sample puzzle? I solved the vast majority of it pretty snappily, but the bottom-left corner ended up being some trial-and-error. Just a thought ... Phil Bordelon 6 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)
In the article, where it says the strategies can be used in combination, sometimes one of those techniques can be combined with itself, just from different points of reference. In this case, considering two domains in tandem can reveal they limit each other. Spoiler: The '6' in the bottom-left corner must expand up, right, or both; a single cell either up or right forces the '4' diagonally up from it to go up or right. This means the '4' in the center column would cause an overload if it connected with the adjacent '4's; drawing in the resultant borders, the solution follows quickly. - ZM Zotmeister 6 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)
Ugh. Obvious in retrospect, like any good puzzle. Dunno how I missed that ... Thanks. Phil Bordelon 6 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)
Okay, I get to this position easily. I can solve the upper portion from here. However, I'm not seeing the solution in the lower-left corner.
2 2 3 1 3 2 2
2 2 3 3 1 3 <== 3
4 4 3 3 <== 2
4 4 3 3 4 4 <== 1
6 1 3 4 4 <== 0
a b c d e f g h i
If pair of '4's are not connected to either of the nearby '4' cells then there is no place to connect them.
If '4' is put at e2 then b1 is continued with a1-a3 then b2/b3 must be '2' which connects with the other '2' cells which isn't allowed.
If '4' is put at e2 then b1 is continued with b0-d0 then e0 must be '1' with connects with the other '1' which isn't allowed.
If '4' is put at b2 then e1 is continued with c0-e0 then that leaves spaces e2-g2 + e3 (four spaces) with '4' which isn't allowed.
I'm either not getting to this position correctly, or I'm not seeing the 'obvious' solution from this position. Val42 (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
