News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The 17x17 problem solved by philh on Sunday February 12, 2012 @08:51PM (#3583825)
Oh, I read AND but was doing OR. My mistake.

> Still I suspect the solution would hit the wall because e.g. sets would be too big therefore the program would take actual ages to run, but one can surely hope?

I suspect something will go wrong, and this seems to me the obvious place for it to fail. But I expect it to fail mostly based on "if it was that easy, someone would probably have noticed", not because I have any particular insight into the problem.

Re:The 17x17 problem solved by guard-of-terra on Sunday February 12, 2012 @08:57PM (#3583844)
I have a same gut feeling, but one of my professors told us how the discoveries are being made:

Everybody know that some thing is impossible to do. But one person who didn't know that accidentally does it.

Right now I have one type-1 set having 36 numbers in it. The first numbers are 7, 25 and 42. I like it.