Comments

7 responses to “bwahahahaha…”

1. 2006/09/04

   Mel

   re: bwahahahaha…

   There are too many spaces filled in. One clue is enough to solve this puzzle.

   Reply
2. 2006/09/04

   Jander

   re: bwahahahaha…

   If we’re being pedantic, it’s not a true sudoku, since the range of numbers must be a square, eg 1, 1-4, 1-9, 0x0-0xF etc.

   Reply
3. 2006/09/04

   alecm

   re: bwahahahaha…

   er, am i missing something? if 0x00 to 0x0f is permitted, why not to 0x01 ?

   Reply
4. 2006/09/05

   Jander

   re: bwahahahaha…

   Sudoku is, as you know a square of squares. Each minor square contains a ‘square’ number of numbers, the usual being 9 squares of 9 numbers (1-9). Kids versions have 4 squares of 4 numbers (1-4). Geek versions use hex, so 16 squares of 16 numbers (0x0 – 0xF). Binary doesn’t work as 0 & 1 only give you 2 numbers which isn’t a square (of a whole number beforethe pedants kick in). The next one down is unary which will give the incredibly boring 1 square of 1 number – [1].

   Reply
5. 2006/09/05

   alecm

   re: bwahahahaha…

   so the other two numbers aren’t 10 and 11 ? 😎

   Reply
6. 2006/09/05

   brand

   re: bwahahahaha…

   Interesting (mis)conceptions about Sudoku. First of all, there’s no requirement for a minumum number of hints, so the binary version above could be considered an easier puzzle, while the one Mel suggests would be a harder version.

   Second, Jander’s comment is not strictly correct as one variant of Sudoku is a 6×6 grid filled with 2×3 sub-grids and using the numerals 1-6. These can also be built along a range of easy-to-hard (although not as hard as a 9×9). I’ve seen these in both books by Wayne Gould and the USA Today puzzle page.

   Reply
7. 2006/09/08

   Jander

   re: bwahahahaha…

   Fair point. That then means the binary sudoku is valid if seen as a 2×1 grid of 1×2 sub-grid.

   Reply