Simon doesn’t realize it, but at his virtual party, there are hundreds of thousands of us in his corner, all saying “Bobbins”, singing “That’s 3 in the corner”, reciting “Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo” and any manner of other Simonisms, happy as can be!
And I don't know about you, but I know a little sudoku secret that I can only share with you. Alle the digits in the rows, columns and squares add up to 45! Isn't that amazing?
Simon - how you got that first digit so cleanly is amazing. The 44 cage is probably my favourite clue of all time - it took me longer to appreciate ...
Wow, wow, wow. 2:06:30 for me this time. It took me a very long time to get to grips with the implications of the ruleset which initially seemed so very innocent. But proud to have persevered and got there eventually.
Hi, Newish to this channel. With much help of Simon I got through the last bit myself (the bit after the 179 box), took me over an hour. Then I watched Simon solve it way quicker. Beautiful puzzle, what a ride. Still thinking Woooooow, wow! fifteen minutes later and savouring the experience. Thank you!
Fantastic solve as always, and what a puzzle! For the try-fail approach to determine the sum (break-in), it could be formalised as follows: 1) R8C5 = 1 (as you showed) 2) R6C5 = yellow = S - 4 (as you showed) 3) R4C5 = 16 - S (rules) 4) R4C5 + R6C5 = (16 - S) + (S - 4) = 12 (simple math), so it is 5-7 or 4-8 or 3-9 5) R1C5 + R2C5 + S = 16 (top cage), with 4 digits excluding the 1. Only possibilities for the four digits: 2-3-5-6 or 2-3-4-7 6) You have to find the combination of 4) and 5) that does not share any digit: 5-7 and 4-8 would discard the two options of 5), so it must be 4-8, with S = 12 or S = 8 7) S=12 is not possible because of the 17 cages => S=8
Rules: 07:08 Let's Get Cracking: 08:42 Simon's time: 56m53s Puzzle Solved: 1:05:35 What about this video's Top Tier Simarkisms?! The Secret: 6x (12:39, 13:14, 13:21, 14:24, 25:31, 25:38) Bobbins: 1x (1:02:46) Goodliffing: 1x (23:01) Three In the Corner: 1x (1:05:01) Phistomefel: 1x (00:39) You Rotten Thing: 1x (1:05:03) And how about this video's Simarkisms?! Naughty: 22x (26:06, 26:09, 26:31, 26:53, 27:43, 27:53, 27:56, 28:00, 28:06, 31:18, 36:16, 36:22, 37:46, 42:29, 46:27, 46:29, 47:21, 48:41, 51:30, 51:59, 52:19, 52:21) Hang On: 17x (15:31, 22:18, 24:30, 24:53, 25:15, 27:33, 32:55, 36:53, 42:43, 43:37, 43:37, 44:33, 48:21, 55:43, 55:43, 58:36) Ah: 15x (15:41, 15:41, 22:46, 24:35, 25:04, 25:04, 25:23, 28:17, 33:31, 42:09, 42:09, 45:31, 1:00:37, 1:02:46, 1:04:13, 1:05:03) Sorry: 7x (06:46, 14:11, 31:26, 44:36, 45:01, 47:42, 57:25) Wow: 7x (34:03, 34:03, 46:52, 59:23, 1:00:58, 1:01:02, 1:04:20) Cake!: 7x (04:26, 06:15, 06:18, 06:24, 06:28, 06:35, 06:36) Beautiful: 6x (34:09, 45:52, 45:55, 46:02, 51:45, 1:06:25) Obviously: 4x (04:26, 52:50, 56:18, 56:37) Pencil Mark/mark: 4x (48:12, 48:15, 1:02:20, 1:04:39) Bother: 3x (10:51, 12:54, 28:17) Brilliant: 3x (02:28, 03:36, 06:58) By Sudoku: 3x (54:22, 57:10, 58:19) Deadly Pattern: 2x (1:03:19, 1:03:37) Stunning: 2x (00:24, 01:10) In Fact: 2x (29:41, 1:01:12) Good Grief: 1x (28:45) Goodness: 1x (44:55) The Answer is: 1x (1:01:08) Lovely: 1x (47:40) Fascinating: 1x (28:48) Extraordinary: 1x (00:43) First Digit: 1x (21:59) Going Mad: 1x (43:21) Gorgeous: 1x (59:11) Take a Bow: 1x (1:06:29) Come on Simon: 1x (53:31) Propitious: 1x (50:30) Have a Think: 1x (29:21) Uniqueness: 1x (1:03:32) Most popular number(>9), digit and colour this video: Eleven (32 mentions) One (85 mentions) Purple (63 mentions) Antithesis Battles: High (20) - Low (10) Lower (6) - Higher (0) Outside (2) - Inside (0) Column (19) - Row (11) FAQ: Q1: You missed something! A1: That could very well be the case! Human speech can be hard to understand for computers like me! Point out the ones that I missed and maybe I'll learn! Q2: Can you do this for another channel? A2: I've been thinking about that and wrote some code to make that possible. Let me know which channel you think would be a good fit!
@@bucherrabemittendrin9344 I normally don't expand the comments below inspiringsand123, but did for some reason today. And I just think it's a little fully that the first reply was talking about how incredible this is (which I agree) and then here you are calling out its mistake. Cheers!
@@chris5619I didn't want to call out anything or anybody as it is a very well programmed bot. Nothing I want or am able to hurt. I find this bot very, very helpful, especially when there are no pre-made bookmarks. I usually watch the videos several times and I use this comment to jump to the rules. That's why I post the bookmark directly under this comment, best place to find it again. It's not the first time, I do this, as bots can sometimes be wrong. My praise for the Programmer of this bot was posted over a year ago. So no judgmental statement but simple use of the comment.
@@bucherrabemittendrin9344 I very much appreciate corrections. This bot is a best effort, but will always be far from perfect, given the nature of what it's trying to do. Corrections will help others who use these comments to jump to timestamps, so adding corrections is better for everyone! If I happen to spot them, I might update the original post (like I did now), but I'm not monitoring this bot very closely lately, so don't expect too much in that area :) @chris5619 I think corrections are one of the most sincere compliments people can give, for it means that they care enough about the original post to reply and they know it will benifit others.
When I heard the name of the setter I though "another Super Mario Maker 2 creator?". It's so cool seeing creators that I've known for years of making levels are making sudoku puzzles, like Rubenscube and NoFeetMcGee. I've seen 3Good5You in the comment section. I hope more creators do this. And maybe some of the sudoku setters wants to buy the game and make puzzle levels.
I was surprised when Simon checked his answer and it said that it didn't include a solution, since it did when I solved. He added it since, as he said he would, which is wonderful. But I also just want to give a shoutout to @SvenCodes for this wonderful SudokuPad! I am always in awe at the way it works and all the new features added regularly! I haven't actually played a wordle on paper in forever at this point, and I can't really imagine ever solving one anywhere other than in this app. Even a classic.
The description displayed with this puzzle is different from that where Logic Masters Deutschland links to. You are right, that link already included the solution. Interestingly both the age and the solve counter (which increases pretty rapid now) do appear to be in sync.
At 22:02 algebra finds the 1 in r8c5. Call it z. X is the sum of the excluded digits. Yellow cell is y. Box 8 sums to 45 (secret). 45=x+y+44-x-y+z. Z=1. I got a little further than that and then gave up on this puzzle and came to watch the expert. Thank you.
49:37 If you look at it from the other direction there is some useful information to be had here - the positions of purple in boxes 7 and 9 means the purple digits in box 8 must be a pair in r7c4+6, which means r3+4c6 cannot be both purples, which means r4c7 IS low purple, which means r3+4c6 can be restricted to 156
I followed your every clue As you colored in purple and blue. For alone I was stuck Like a stick in the muck. Yes, it's tough to admit, but it's true. (Leaves: Six geese a laying Five golden rings -Ba dum bum bum- Four calling birds Three French hens Two turtle doves And a partridge in a pear tree)
I think much of the sum case analysis can be boiled down to "we run out of odd digits"... (also, the extra wing digit is more easily expressed as "sum minus 4")
It may be confirmation bias, but it seems like, in general, there are more threes in the corner in puzzles on this channel, than not. I'm pretty sure at least one setter has stated in the comments that they forced it, so at the very least, there is the normal distribution of 3s in the corner + 1. But I believe Simon has often wondered aloud in videos if setters do it on purpose. Anyway, when Simon got to the point near the end where 3 became impossible due to the >, I looked at the puzzle to see if a 3 could have been forced. Right at that point, at 1:04:45, it looks like if there was a < sign rather than the > sign in box 9, and also a < sign between the 24 pair in box 6, the puzzle would have been solvable with a 3 in the corner. I could be wrong though if that would have given too many options. I also don't know, and won't try to figure out, if the additional inequality sign would have made some of the earlier solving less enjoyable (but it doesn't seem like it).
When I heard the rule about the > symbol, I thought about if it would be possible to have a puzzle where there are enough of them and white dots so you can solve the puzzle. I'm not a setter though.
Simon's inability to not see the purples in box 8 is borderline hilarious. EDIT: As is his ability to spot the deadly pattern uniqueness thing, but not see that 2 can't ever be bigger than 3 or 5....
It took me ages but I went through the ordeal and loved it all. It just took me 4 times as much as Simon but... I feel this was quite a complex one. But oh so satisfying to get through.
49:52 c8 and c9 have a sort of double purple swing right? So box 8 has purple each side of the nine. So r5c7 must be purple? Edit: 59:17 he figured that it couldn’t be one with a 17 pair
Wow wee that was a clever puzzle. I'm not sure exactly how I got through it. There were some lovely deductions to be made - I loved the 28 cage too - but some of it was a bit of a blur.
I had solved a new Sudoku, which was tested by the folk who Use the Discord Server from CTC many years ago Hardly anybody knew him, so I sent much kudos to him Just the next fantastic setter, Icy of the Overflow 😄 (with apologies to Banjo Paterson)
That was tricky! I enjoyed it though. The inequality signs ended up doing exactly what i thought they would - not that that's an amazing prediction or anything!
If you plot the things me and Simon find interesting as a Venn diagram then that intersection would definitely be orange and blue at the same time (the most color blind friendly colors). Superb solve, thank you!
Bottom right box sums to 45. The number added to both boxes must equal or be less than the sum of numbers not in those boxes. Right? Edit: he found it out at 26:00. He just actually put it to use.
I am not convinced by the break-in logic. It assumes that the 3 digits that are not in cages in boxes 7 and 9 are the same (and hence in row 9 of box 8). Consider - that there is 1 digit which is not in any cage - lets say X. Then there are 3 digits outside the cages in box 7, and another 3 in box 9, all of which include X. X must be in row 9, box 8 because of many reasons - including this, and because those are the only 3 boxes in row 9 that are not in a cage. I think there is some more working to be done, which tells us that there are exactly 2 digits which are not in any cage. And that these 2 digits are in these 3 cells. But since the total in the cages in box 7 and 9 is the same, the 3 digits that are not in the cages are the same, and we can then go with Simon's logic.
Great comment. 44 cage mostly in box 8 is probably the answer. If x is a single digit, it is 7, 8, or 9. 6 cells summing to 44-x without x is impossible. If X=7, 44-7=37, but 986543 sums to 35. If x=8, 44-8=36, but 976543 sums to 34. And if x=9, 44-9 is 35, but 876543 sums to 33.
The 44 is the sum of the green digits, plus the value of the naughty digits. The sum of all digits in sudoku is 45, so we know that 1 is missing from both the green cells and isn't one of the naughty digits. Then that tells us the 44 must be the sum of 8 digits (2-9), 6 of them being in the green cells, leaving 2 digits to make up the naughty digits.
The secret has been spoiled for so many people now... it's over. We will never again be the only ones who knew the hidden secret that the triangular number for nine is 45.
The usage of purple and blue is not colorblind friendly at all. purple is made up of red and blue, but for most colorblind people the red part of purple is almost undetectable unless the purple cell is ajdacent to a true blue cell. And for some it is completely undectable, which means that they see purple and blue as the same color. Now they have to rely on brightness in order to distinguish between purple and blue, but the brightness is so close to be the same that even a black line between the cells makes it almost impossible to tell that they have different brightness. Simon, if your strive to make colorblind friendly color choices, then please listen to people that are colorblin like me.
YES!! They talk about colorblind friendly all the time and will frequently mention avoiding red/green or yellow/orange or other combinations but for some reason it seems completely foreign to Simon the concept that blue and purple are hard to distinguish. Like in this puzzle he will very frequently use blue and purple among his first 3 or 4 choices, or in this case the ONLY two colors he was using! I beg you Simon, please avoid blue/purple when possible. If you have to use 6 or more colors then I have no objections, you're not going to find 8 colors where I won't have some issues, but there are so many times where these combinations could be avoided! Using red/yellow/blue/green as your first 4 colors all the time, would be a great standard to adopt. Blue/orange as e.g. odd/even is fine as well but just please make blue/purple a very last resort, it would be immensely helpful to a great many of us!
But that doesn't rhyme with "me". :( However, when I just "sang" it in my head, to get one syllable instead of two, I decided to change it up a bit from "that's seven in the corner" to "that's Sven in the corner", and since Sven has created this amazing software, I don't mind it that much.
@@BeheadedKamikaze One: I don't completely agree since Simon even saw that 6 was impossible while going over the rules. 7 minimum was very noticeable from the one digit 16 cage. And 11 max was pretty obvious soon after from the three cell 17 cage. TWO: Anyone remember "The Fourth Killer" which included a rule that there are "four yellow killer cages"... OK, so I'm still bitter that I didn't even figure that out, lol.
I figured out that the naughty digits were two numbers that added to one of {7,8,9}, found the blue/yellow triples in boxes 7, 8 and 9, and placed the 1 in box 8 ... at that point, my enthusiasm for iterating through a load of calculations over and over to find a combination that didn't break ran out and I decided it was time to watch the video instead! Very clever solve, although given his knowledge of The Secret™, I'm surprised Simon didn't turn his attention to the 44 cage a little earlier.
Finished in 70:07. Tough break-in what with all the possibilities that the cages could be. Had to go through the possibilities of the 2 digits outside the cages 1 by 1 from both digits adding to 7 until 11. And essentially see what broke. There probably was a more elegant way of figuring out which digits had to be outside, but I can't really think of what it could be. Tough puzzle though fun!
I'm 20 minutes into it, maybe it will be clear later, but why does Simon believe, that all digits in the 44 cage have to be different from each other? The digit in the other box can definitely be the same as one of the two digits each in the left or right column...
Because that's one of the requirements of a cage clue: "Digits may not repeat in a cage". (It's a standard part of the cage rules, and some puzzles include cages without totals so that it's the only rule that applies to that particular cage.)
@@BrooksMoses I remember, that these digits being unique was a rule explicitly given in other puzzles. But you're probably right, that it is an implicit rule!
110:00. Loooong solve time. But, I spent like 40 minutes not seeing the logic, not wanting to just pick digits in the 16 cages, ended up looking at the video and see Simon just did that. Was able to go from there, just slow.
No clue as to my actual solve time but the clock says 169:38. Quickly recognized the limitations on the mystery number being made up of two digits and the 1 in box 8. It then took awhile to reduce the mystery number from the obvious 7-11 to it's actual value. Then did coloring on the pair that could show up in the cages. I'd not been giving the 25 cage much love since it was very middly. Once I looked at it though everything fell apart. Only peeked at Simon's solve once to make sure my logic in deducing the mystery number was correct. Lots of beautiful logic but not easy.
There is so much to admire in this solve, Simon. I enjoyed every moment of the video. I will say that your audio is slightly out of sync (and has been in at least one other video lately) which is quite disconcerting. I like to watch you, not only the puzzle, because your reactions are part of the pleasure of these videos.
this was brutal. 139m28s for me. i got the 1 pretty quickly... the rest was so so much effort, requiring a notepad to work through possibilities of each killer cage. i had started off with XY letters for the out-of-box pair... but later on i realized i probably should have used two colours for the in/out groupings like simon did. i ended up using one colour for the in-box pair and that made the path easier to find.
damn! i got as far as the missing total, but did something incredibly convoluted with the bottom three boxes to find what i thought were the particular digits, and wound up with four cells in the left column that could only contain three digits among them
9:01 16-Cage and 17-Cage X = Digit in 16-Cage Y = Sum of Digits, that are in no Cage max(X) = 9 => min(Y) = 7 X = Digits in 17-Cage Y = Sum of Digits, that are in no Cage min(X) = 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 => max(Y) = 11 15:35 44-Cage X = Six Digits in the 44-Cage 8 different Digits are needed to sum to 44 Y = Two Digits, that are in no Cage Missing Digit for the Sum: 1 Therefore 1 is included in a Cage, but not in the 44-Cage. Y is exactly the sum of 2 Digits.
Why does Simon seem to think that blue and purple are the easiest coulours to be distinguished by colour-blind people ? He almost always pick this couple as a first choice...
