Message #1461

From: Brandon Enright <bmenrigh@ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: slicing up MagicTile puzzles without triangle vertex figures
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:05:49 +0000

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:33:06 -0000
"Matthew" <damienturtle@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

[…]
> Another is to use the "fudging" concept (see
> http://www.shapeways.com/model/204721/futtminx.html?gid=ug13603 for
> one example, though the idea is a little different here) started by
> Oscar van Deventer to tweak the geometry and remove small pieces if
> so desired, if any ideas from this are implemented.

Speaking for my own aesthetics, I don’t think fudging has much of a
place in the world of computer puzzling. Cuts that require pieces to
be fudged to eliminate the infinite cascade of pieces bug me.

On the topic of fudging though, there was a long rambling discussion
about fudging, what it is, etc here:

http://www.twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=20105

Most of the interesting discussions revolve around the posts by user
‘wwwmwww’ (Carl). Woven in with the fudging discussion is a debate
about what it means for a puzzle to be "deep-cut" which I don’t think
was resolved.

The interesting animations don’t start until about mid-way through page
2.

In short though, fudging is a messy, seemingly non-mathematical trick
to make cuts that shouldn’t work actually work. Considering how many
great puzzles there are that do work, I think we shouldn’t focus too
much energy on fudging puzzles that wouldn’t work right otherwise.

> No doubt people
> like Brandon and Nan will have no problems with these small pieces
> though.

I’m flattered. I think people like Nan and Andrey are in a class of
their own.

Best regards,

Brandon

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk1sDj0ACgkQqaGPzAsl94Lk8wCgjPjufJfnMDS23VnGY3MTPXjg
YwkAoIgmvaB8EuulWMq564iL4+jgpMa1
=ErjC
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–