Show HN: I may have created a new type of puzzle

Re:Show HN: I may have created a new type of puzzle by ISL on Sunday September 18, 2022 @01:40PM (#32889572)

I inferred rules that turned out not to be true:

1) I thought that, obviously, rabbits and dogs couldn't occupy the same space, lest the dog attack the rabbit, causing a lose-condition

2) I assumed that only one animal could occupy a node.

The game, until the last move, is winnable with those extra rules.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: I may have created a new type of puzzle by gcanyon on Sunday September 18, 2022 @05:34PM (#32891700)

I didn't necessarily think of those as rules, but I nevertheless solved the puzzle (until the end) without contradicting them. I only noticed maybe halfway to the solution that there is only one carrot, so obviously the rabbits have to pile up to solve it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: I may have created a new type of puzzle by SamBam on Sunday September 18, 2022 @04:31PM (#32891222)

Rabbit and dog never need to occupy the same space.

But yes, I never thought about rule 2 until I got the dog and one rabbit in place and hadn't won.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: I may have created a new type of puzzle by fsckboy on Sunday September 18, 2022 @04:56PM (#32891436)

> I thought that, obviously, rabbits and dogs couldn't occupy the same space

farmer, fox, chicken, and grain, and only three of them can fit in the rowboat

foxes eat chickens and chickens eat grain would be a nice type of constraint OP could add to the puzzles

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: I may have created a new type of puzzle by poppypetalmask on Sunday September 18, 2022 @08:09PM (#32892735)

Seems to me a good comparison between inductive and deductive reasoning. - with a simple logic puzzle like this, both are fairly comparable - especially when some adults (me included) start with the wrong assumption, like two can't be in one node, which will slow down the process

[ Parent | on HN ]