[Retros] StrateGems 49 (Jan-Mar 2010)
kevinjbegley at gmail.com
Tue Jan 5 17:26:27 EST 2010
I see your point, Joost...
...and it is a good one.
However, the analysis is rather nuanced... mine is a technical point...
I don't want to debate it too much, given that it would be improper to
delve into an unpublished solution here (given that SG actually has
active solvers), but I nevertheless claim there are 3 variants (and 3
solutions is probably the wrong wording).
On 1/5/10, Joost de Heer <joost at sanguis.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Op 5-1-2010 23:00, Kevin Begley schreef:
> > R0154 seems to have been slightly misprinted...
> > It should read "3 variants" or "3 unique variants" but not
> > "3.1.1..." (which, I believe, implies 3 solutions).
> The printed text says '3 sols.'.
> 3.1.1... is a numerical representation of the solution tree (solution tree
> starts with 3 branches, each of these has 1 level-2 sub-branch, each level-2
> sub-branch has one level-3 sub-branch, etc). So IMO, this notation is
> correct even with AP problems (the solution tree has 3 starting branches,
> each of which is validated in a later sub-branch). The notation doesn't
> imply that all solutions are possible at the same time in the
> Retros mailing list
> Retros at janko.at
More information about the Retros