4 ms·
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,
by ISL 4y ago
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.
- SamBam 4y agoRabbit 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.
- fsckboy 4y ago> 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
- gcanyon 4y agoI 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.
- poppypetalmask 4y agoSeems 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