tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post6205066629897936769..comments2023-06-19T04:35:06.263-07:00Comments on Skeptic's Play: Remove the squaresmillerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-23263645564294226622010-05-24T05:46:33.321-07:002010-05-24T05:46:33.321-07:00Yes, that's basically the way I thought too to...Yes, that's basically the way I thought too to prove 9 is minimal. Now I was trying to find all the minimal solutions (excluding simmetries and rotations).SCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-40115003570912100972010-05-24T04:06:39.248-07:002010-05-24T04:06:39.248-07:00I can confirm that all my sol'ns removed 9 mat...I can confirm that all my sol'ns removed 9 matches. I believe that is the minimum.<br /><br />The structure consists of 16 small squares, each of which must lose a match to cease being a square. The most efficient way to do this is to consider the structure as consisting of 8 pairs of squares and then remove the central match from each.<br /><br />There are many ways of "tiling" the structure with these double squares, but the outer 4x4 square will always remain intact.<br /><br />Therefore, you have to remove at least one more match (altho' it could be more) to fulfil the puzzle's requirement.<br /><br />Since I have found several different 9-match sol'ns, that is the minimum.<br /><br />I should add, that if you use the above tiling to solve the puzzle, the best you can do is 10 matches.Secret Squïrrelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-91806807402089467402010-05-23T23:04:23.406-07:002010-05-23T23:04:23.406-07:00Okay. I have also found a 9 solution. To not spoil...Okay. I have also found a 9 solution. To not spoil directly I give it in binary form:<br />111,1010,1101,10100,10101,10111,11110,11111,100001<br />I'm interested in the proof.Eduardhttp://baumannatmcnet.chnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-79138372484884772112010-05-23T14:40:06.715-07:002010-05-23T14:40:06.715-07:00I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, so I&#...I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, so I'll just send an e-mail.SCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-71698871615177794832010-05-23T13:05:47.944-07:002010-05-23T13:05:47.944-07:00You can just list the numbers of the removed match...You can just list the numbers of the removed matches. Or, if you want it private, you can e-mail me at skepticsplay at gmail dot com.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-71900484264226150292010-05-23T09:58:04.821-07:002010-05-23T09:58:04.821-07:00Actually, I think I can prove the minimal solution...Actually, I think I can prove the minimal solution is 9 (if I'm not missing a square... :P). How should I send you my answer?SCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-48819574103238240592010-05-23T05:37:42.346-07:002010-05-23T05:37:42.346-07:00Finding solutions with 10 dropped matches seems ea...Finding solutions with 10 dropped matches seems easy. Should we prove that 10 is best?Eduardhttp://baumannatmcnet.chnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-90609151352614261682010-05-23T02:18:59.044-07:002010-05-23T02:18:59.044-07:00I think I have found several minimal solutions, al...I think I have found several minimal solutions, all made from the same "tiles".Secret Squïrrelnoreply@blogger.com