can't say enough how grateful I am for this solve - you found almost every single step exactly as intended! This video absolutely made my day :) Thanks for all the amazing work you guys do in this channel and for inspiring me to try setting my own puzzles! And thank you to all the very kind comments. They mean a lot
Was set the intended method for the break in? Because I found that I could hunt the 19 pair with coloring when I realized the renban constriction for renban boxes that saw each other vertically or horizontally, got my break in that way and thought that was a really clever idea and it seemed so intentional.
@@magicmurloc The main idea for the break was how the 1s and 9s are restricted when they fall on opposing renban lines. SET was intended, but I tried to structure the 1s and 9s so they could also resolve some of the grid without using SET. Glad it worked in your solve :)
Simon: Our testers say it's brilliant, but extremely difficult. Video: *is over an hour long* Simon: Anyway, do have a go. Me: No, I don't think I will.
That moment when Simon closes his eyes to ponder and you just know at any second he will snap his fingers, scoot the chair all the way back and declare “I’ve got it!” Then drop a knowledge bomb. 😀
It always starts like this: t0: 《I haven't got the slightest clue what I am supposed to be looking for. No idea how anyone could solve this incredible sudoku! 》 (...ponders...) t0+10 s. 《...Erm...》Spots interesting column, box, pattern. 《Ah!》 t+13 s. =Snap= 《Got it, let's check that》 t+14 s. 《Yes, that works!》 t+16 s. Starts explanation. 《This is so mindbogglingly beautiful!》A well-structured, clear and very patient explanation follows t+60s.Finally fills in the digits Truly amazing how Simon combines incredibly quick thinking with huge patience, fine humour and great politeness towards others! Always an absolute treat to watch.
@@koenth2359 t+3 minutes: resolves a pair by using incredibly complex logic, instead of noticing one digit of the pair is ruled out by a placed digit in the row or column.
Geez Louise. At around 42:31 Simon goes into full-on brainiac mode. To be able to see all that in your head, to be able to juggle all of those moving parts and pieces by just closing your eyes and talking it out, goodness gracious that’s just elite.
Rules: 03:29 Let's get cracking: 05:34 And how about this video's Simarkisms?! Beautiful: 7x (03:12, 32:41, 33:33, 47:11, 49:09, 56:32, 1:00:18) Sorry: 6x (08:47, 10:59, 16:08, 22:05, 44:53, 45:29) Hang On: 6x (06:44, 10:49, 21:01, 25:07, 36:20, 43:45) Ridiculous: 5x (09:57, 49:12, 55:30, 57:59, 1:06:00) By sudoku: 5x (57:54, 58:32, 58:54, 59:28, 1:00:39) Brilliant: 3x (33:03, 33:23, 33:25) Apologies: 2x (12:57, 14:11) Secret: 2x (05:55, 05:57) The Answer is: 2x (47:30, 58:35) Clever: 2x (02:48, 03:12) I Have no Clue: 2x (35:03) Horrible Feeling: 2x (29:29, 37:36) Shouting: 2x (52:47, 54:13) Bobbins: 1x (14:11) Good Grief: 1x (32:53) Knowledge Bomb: 1x (12:07) What on Earth: 1x (34:55) Useless: 1x (13:56) Goodness: 1x (48:52) What a Puzzle: 1x (1:05:58) Stuck: 1x (03:18) Break the Puzzle: 1x (23:26) Fascinating: 1x (37:21) Incredible: 1x (13:52) Of All Things: 1x (57:54) Bizarre: 1x (33:03) Magnificent: 1x (02:06) FAQ: Q1: What is a Simarkism? A1: A Simarkism is something that Simon and Mark typically or frequently say. Q2: How do you do this so fast? A2: I'm not made of flesh and blood, but of sand ... Q3: Why don't you include 'XX' and 'YY'? A3: Probably it's already on the list ('Scooby-Doo' for example), but not mentioned in this video. But if you think it's not, tell me what you'd like me to include and there's a good chance I'll add it! Q4: You missed 'XX' at 'YY:ZZ'! A4: That could very well be the case! Human speech is hard to understand for computers like me, especially British sometimes! Point out the ones that I missed and maybe I'll learn! Q5: Could you turn these statistics into videos? A5: I've been playing around with the idea and I'm open to input as to what people would like to see. Let me know if you are interested in this and/or have suggestions.
Regarding 4-5-6: I tend to use the principle "two majorities intersect". Three out of four renban lines (a majority) have a 4, another majority have a 6, so there is at least one line with both a 4 and a 6. Next, three lines remain. Two of them (a majority) have a 4, and two of them (again a majority) have a 6, so at least one of the remaining three renban lines has both a 4 and a 6. Hence, at least two renban lines that are 4-5-6.
Thank you!! I got stuck at this part and went to his video for a little guidance but I couldn't quite see how it was *proven* that there had to be two 4-5-6 lines. I won't ever fill in anything if I don't understand why I am, so I stared a while longer not understanding what I was missing. This makes a lot of sense tho.
You are telling me... I solved it using a dash of set theory and a lot of Goodliffing and I don't think I can explain what I did beyond eliminating options and it filled itself in.
I have completed some of the hardest puzzles shown in this channel but I just couldn't do this one. I looked it for like 30 minutes and couldn't find a way to do it. I knew it had to be some kind of geometry trick but I'm just so bad with them. Even after Simon explaining it to me it took me a while to really understand it. Beautiful solve by Simon and I think he did it pretty fast even. You have to remember that Simon uses a lot of time to explain these. Simon prolly could have solved this in 30-45 minutes alone.
Brilliant puzzle, brilliant solve! Here's how I'd explain the situation with the 456s - you have four renban lines. At least three of them have a 4, and at least three of them have a 6. That means at most one is missing a four, and at most one is missing a six. Take out those two from the set of four, and you have two that can't be missing a 4 or a 6 - i.e. they must be 456.
Astounding. I haven't watched CtC for a few days, I found myself feeling ill-at-ease with a world that is largely gloomy, and now my mood has been rescued by watching this work of art. Order imposed on chaos and all is well. Thank you.
That's a beautiful solve. Waaay above my sudoku skills, but explained so beautifully by Simon that everyone can understand how he solved it. I still wouldn't be able to do it myself, but loved how it all worked out in the end.
35:26 for me. I can’t be happier with that time, might be one of my best solves ever. I immediately realized how the puzzle was restricted and didn’t struggle too much to keep going at any point. Amazing logic, I loved every second of that solve.
just discovered this video, immediately clicked on the link, looked at it for a few seconds, put a 3 in the corner, went back to the video to hear simon sing, noticed the video is from before his ritual became a thing :D
Life's too short (less than a million years) for me to attempt this sudoku. Amazing puzzle, brilliant solve. Could almost see Simon's brain pulsating at one point.
This was a well earned win for you Simon, what a staggering display of brilliance! And what a puzzle, incredibly well set. I'm astonished at the intricate work that went into this. Very fun to watch c:
I've never been into sudoku, I stumbled across this channel by accident, and bought one of the apps. Your content convinced me that I will receive a good product which serves it's purpose rather then trying to trick me into microtransactions. And I didn't get disappointed. As soon as I finish all the puzzled I'll buy another app for sure. Keep up the good work.
I've watched hundreds of these now, and that's the longest Simon has ever genuinely paused to visualise something, and it was majestic. It shows how deep the logic behind this puzzle is. Wow.
I'm sorry you're having trouble with your apps being taken down, I spend so much of my time on those apps attempting (usually badly) to solve these beautiful puzzles! Fingers crossed they come back soon
I'm actually thinking whether it's a good idea to buy the apps if I can't solve most of the sudocus on this channel. What level of difficulty do they usually have if scaling to Simon's solving time on the channel?
@@QwDragon they go from easy to hard, I'm not great at the complex puzzles on the channel but I'm working my way through the classic sudoku app just fine! They're just taking more concentration as I go along
@@QwDragon I'd say most of them are easier but there are always 2 or 3 per group of 20 puzzles that are insanely hard. In the killer app there are 3 puzzles I just don't bother with ever. But I was terrified of the killer app at first and i bought it anyway just to support the channel. I pulled up the first puzzle and I'm like uggg I'll never get it........oh wait that's a 1/2 pair.......making that a 3/4 pair....etc.....etc.... Before I knew it I solved the puzzle!!! I didn't even bother to use the hints on that one. Since then I've gotten way better. I'm able to solve a lot of the complex puzzles where I couldn't even see the logic as described in the hints without actually using the hints now. (and no I don't have them memorized) These apps should actually make you better.
@@awilliams1701 have you solved the cube 6*6*6? I failed twice, then understood that one of the first steps (the same both times) was wrong and the third attempt is incomplete yet...
That "set" break in was way over my head, but both a stunningly beautiful puzzle and a stunningly beautiful solve. Thank you both Mimaamakim and Simon.
45:14, not including the long pause between sessions trying to figure this one out. Suffice to say, this one goes in my personal file of very special successful solves. Utterly astonishing!
I absolutely love how you spend half an hour thinking about 4-5-6, instead of just doing 1s and 9s in all the boxes. PS. The set theory part is very much optional, the 1-2-3 & 7-8-9 renbans mostly work themselves out without comparing blue and orange. A few pairs, and some more straightforward and fun logic gets you through the puzzle. Well, more straightforward, but it still takes a gorgeous hour to solve.
I tried it, got the sandwich clues immediately, but wasn't sure how to break in past that, watched as far as the break in (about 30-32 minutes into the video) paused the video, and did the rest myself pretty painlessly.
I had tried this puzzle once just to give up after finding the first 2 and 3. Then I tried the checkerboard puzzle (which I solved, but with lots of branching). Your solution to that puzzle inspired me to try this puzzle again, using patterns to try to reach some property that heavyly restricts the puzzle (not that I didn't tried to find a pattern before, but this time I knew that I must find this or nothing). After some time I found all the properties of the 12 lines and the 9 blue squares then I started to solve the puzzle. Whats is truly impressive for me is how you found those properties so quickly as you needed for solving the sudoku and how elegantly you solve these puzzles (I wish to be able to make half the mess I usually do with the notations, and I can't imagine reaching your level of elegance solving these problems).
52:00 "Right let's look at this, so, I know there's an eight in one of those two cells; So it's not possible that these rembant lines are a seven eight nine rembant line... which one of them is." This killed me. The layers of abstraction involved here is astronomical. Simon is legitimately astonishing. I'm both now and continually moved to dumbfoundedness by his sheer cogency, application and creativity with such incredibly difficult multivariate logic puzzles. The giant that he is is surely worthy of the title savant and moments like this continue to exemplify how much of an absolute joy it is to experience a mind such as his in action. Amazing. In the literal sense of the word
Usually I have no issues following Simon's logical pathway as he's so good at explaining is thought process while he's working it out. Had to really strain to grasp his logic here and I think I added a new wrinkle to my brain when I understood it. Humbling to know there's people smart enough to set these puzzles and people like Simon who actually manage to crack them.
Oddly, I never get the "this can't possibly solve" moments Simon gets. The fact that the video is uploaded gives me great confidence the answer is out there somewhere. If I didn't have that I can't imagine how many times I'd just quit.
Very beautiful! First solved it without using Set. Than after reading in the comments that there was a break-in with Set, I did it again, and found the Set: very satisfying! First time I did a puzzle twice! Hats off to the setter! (We want more :)
I finished in 75:08 minutes. Coming from the future, it is weird to not see pink renban lines. Regardless of that, this puzzle is supremely excellent. The pathway felt so good to discover. I think my favorite part was the break-in and deciding that r7c5 couldn't be a 19 as it breaks the renban possibility in rows 2 and 3 by forcing too many 19's onto it. This forced a 19 into r7c4, which is immediately disambiguated by the 2 in the corner of box 7. That was so cool to see. This puzzle had some fantastic geometry work. I very much enjoyed it. Great Puzzle!
Very clever. Needless to say, Simon's approach was more elegant, but I didn't use SET, I just coloured 1s and 9s and eventually it all unfolded, somewhat to my surprise.
I used 1s and 9s as well. For a while, while watching the video, I was thinking that I took the scenic route. However, Simon didn't exactly take a quick route, either.
Oof, it took me 84 minutes and I found it very tough. Several "Aha" moments were needed, lots of hard thinking that was right on the limit of what I'm capable of. Happy just to get it done, now I'll watch how Simon did it...
Proud to have solved this one. Over many many hours. Did not at all touch on working out the quota of Renban lines like Simon did. I started with colouring in the potential 19 pairings instead. Fantastic puzzle
24:23 is the moment in this video where I began to vaguely appreciate the geometry and start to feel weirdly emotional about this puzzle. (Just watching, not solving... I know better than to attempt a puzzle like this myself!)
Marvelous puzzle - i spent half the time convinced it was broken, all the sweeter the victory after about 2 hours. And what a solve by Simon, too - using SET brilliantly formalizes what can otherwise be done with 19 coloring and noticing the "straight X cell renban can't stare directly at exactly the same X cell renban" property. I colored and eliminated and got the digits and appreciated the beauty of the puzzle, but i think i would've forever missed the finer point of this arrangement - that there always HAD to be exactly 4 renbans of this or that nature - i saw it coming, but not sure i would come up with a proof other than solving the puzzle. Thanks for the video.
Agreed, it was painful. He always forgets to do Sudoku! 😅 Though I can't hope to have the approach he has using geometry and set theory. He's too smart for his own good 😁
And then this 5 lingering in box 2, then the 9 in the same box :D He repeatedly refused to notice he had way too many pencil marks in the top-left renban-box. I guess it's a mark of a genius to step over some silly-simple stuff, being focused on cracking the mind-bogglingly difficult conundrums ;)
Mimaamakim is the first nontrivial word of Ps. 130, "Shir hamaalot, mimaamakim k'raticha Adonai", meaning "from the depths". Ps. 130 is chanted at the beginning of the morning service on High Holidays in the Ashkenazic Jewish tradition (not sure about Sephardic).
The 1 on the inequality was available very early on, as soon as you pencil-marked 1s in orange in box 9. At the 45 minute mark, where you're considering 456s, rather than work it all out in your head, you could have just worked it out on the puzzle, which is effectively what you did in the end. All you needed was to realise there had to be 2x456 and they had to be in the same orientation. What a stunning puzzle - one to ear-mark for a second book.
I can't believe I solved this!!! 108 minutes but usually anything set theory related is beyond me (and still is). I'm curious if anyone else solved this without that set theory break in?? I broke in using colouring for 1&9s, I used the same logic to work out that once a 1 or 9 was in one of the 3x3 sets, there couldn't be any in the sets orthogonal to it, and just from considering where those 1&9s could go I worked out their rough positions on the lines. With colouring on the 2&3s and 7&8s that accompanied them I was somehow also able to avoid that crazy logic that Simon was doing to work out the 4 unknown lines. I think it helped I realised 2s and 8s couldn't go on those extra ones, eg. an 8 is always accompanied by a 7, which would leave 2 cells in the set it 'pointed to' needing to be 9. The whole process was very slow, because there was so many little logical things like that, which weren't super obvious - such an incredible puzzle!! I was shocked to see Simon solve it so differently and in a way I never would have got on my own! When he started doing the set thing, I was thinking 'no Simon, this is a red herring' but it was a much more elegant and clever solve than mine! 😅
Yep. Simon's logic path did not occur to me at all. I also used coloring to restrict the 1s and 9s, then use the 2 and 3 in the corners and go from there.
Isn’t the whole idea of sudoku to be repetitive?! Put all the numbers 1-9 once in each row and column?! It’s how you get there that’s the fun part. Keep fighting the good fight, Simon. Loving the content
Took me just under an hour, I did a bit more colouring in of the potential 1s & 9s before spotting that there needed to be 4 each of 1/2/3 and 7/8/9. Didn't need to use the set theory beyond that, so did the 2nd half quite differently to the video, just some Goodliffing and then colouring in 7/8 pairs. At @39:00 in the video, there is a 7/8/9 in box 2/3 pointing at c1, which means r1c3 is 7 or 8, giving a 78 pair in c3. The c2 line is either 345 or 456, so r8c2 is 3 or 6. *edit* It's interesting the extra logic you notice when watching the video rather than trying to solve the puzzle yourself. At @51:30, Simon's proved there are 5 7s in the orange squares, which means there are 2 7s in the blue squares. There's only one way to place 2 7s in the remaining blue squares. Then we also need one more 3 in the blue squares, which is also forced. *edit again* which turns out to be the next step in the video.
Very proud to have done this only ten minutes longer than the video (meaning without explanation, intro, and outro, Simon's about twice as fast). But the important thing is that I worked steadily and never got stuck. Spotted 1's and 9;s as the crucial digits, did a little set theory and got what I needed from that (orange must have four 1's and four 9's). The rest was grinding away, only slightly different path from Simon. Compared to all the time I've spent hours and hours staring at a puzzle with a 60+ minute video, this was cake. A very difficult to chew but satisfying cake.
My comment here is actually for Botaku's Euclidean Sudoku, for lack of another place: Holy smokes, what a concept. It took a second attempt before catching on to the break-in, but I got it.
You may not have quantity three of the 4,5,6 renban variant. There... I word smithed it for you. 😄 Simon: Goes through logical steps to solve the puzzle, thinking about mod-3 and set theory. Comes up with brilliant deductions. Me: Pencil marks R5C8 and R6C3 with 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9... stares at the grid for 10 minutes... then gives up and watches Simon.
So why does every Sudoku variant need its own app to start with? If a puzzle uses multiple mechanics (e.g. chess and arrows), which app would you put it in?
Around 55:00 when you used blue cells to find place for 3 in the 5th box I was screaming for about 20 minutes for you to look at the box 9 and inequality sign and then try to put 1 in this box. I think that was the breakthrough that you’ve needed. It’s because there IS a 1 in box 9 in one of 4 orange cells. Therefore this 1 and 1 from the 3rd box would force 1 into one of the 4 remaining cell in box 6… BUT 1 cannot be in one of the orange cells in 6th box (beacuse that would force 3rd 123 triple in vertical orange cells) so it must be in one of white cells with inequality sign. Hope you understand what I mean, I’m not English native speaker 😌
Saying different sudoku apps are repetitive is like complaining Teach Yourself French, Teach Yourself Italian, Teach Yourself German, Teach Yourself Spanish, Teach Yourself Indonesian, and Teach Yourself Japanese are "repetitive" because they're all language apps. Now if they were complaining nori nori was repetitive, they'd have a point. Nori nori nori nori.
At 37:00 you can solve the bottom ranband quicker by looking at cells r8c3 and c4. They can only be 456. The first one cannot be 456 so it's either 3 or 7 but the seven is taken in the box, so you have the 3 :)
The puzzle is way easier, if you just do 3 rows and columns, instead of six, cause the number of 1s or 9s is immediately obvious. Then you just mirror the logic and after that its just a coloring competition. Cool puzzle, loved it
I honestly think the inequalities were just a bonus clue (and maybe not even planned). Really, it was the realization of the limited scope of corner values derived by the 32/33 corner that set the puzzle in motion. And yes, starting in that corner was needed, not with the 219 trio.
All sums of a number that add up to a number that can be divided 3, can be divided by 3 itself, so, (405 - the total of a Sudoku grid) sums up to 9, (9) can be divided by 3, so 405 can be divided by 3, this works for all numbers. Example (58291872) sums up to 42. (42) sums up to 6, (6) can be divided by 3, thus 58291872 can be divided by 3. Example 2 (665465454) sums up to 45, (45) sums up to 9, (9) can divided by 3, thus 665465454 can be divided by 3
Am I right in thinking based on the highlighting Simon deleted at 14:15, that R5C5 is divisible by 3, since the unhighlighted cells in R5 and C5 are both divisible by 3, and since they share a cell (r5c5) the shared cell must be divisible by 3?
I’ve thought about it, and I think I was wrong with my initial thought: Cos R5 could be (I don’t know what actual values are at time of writing) 4,1,7 and C5, could be 4,2,6 - in that case 4 is the shared digit but it’s not divisible by 3. But I’m still pretty sure that (@47:00) the sum of the blue cells in R5 and the sum of the blue cells in C5 are both divisible by 3
positively wonderful puzzle. was proud of my solve, but of course Simon's was about twelve times as elegant. totally unsurprised that it got a 4 minute denouement.
I think the problem with the apps is that whomever has reviewed the appeal possibly doesn't know enough about sudoku to realise that a grid with some lines on it can be two very different things.
can't say enough how grateful I am for this solve - you found almost every single step exactly as intended! This video absolutely made my day :) Thanks for all the amazing work you guys do in this channel and for inspiring me to try setting my own puzzles! And thank you to all the very kind comments. They mean a lot
amazing puzzle! does your username come from hebrew?
@@lowki4269 yup! The word can be found in Tehillim (Psalms) 130 and translates to 'from the depths'.
Was set the intended method for the break in? Because I found that I could hunt the 19 pair with coloring when I realized the renban constriction for renban boxes that saw each other vertically or horizontally, got my break in that way and thought that was a really clever idea and it seemed so intentional.
@@magicmurloc The main idea for the break was how the 1s and 9s are restricted when they fall on opposing renban lines. SET was intended, but I tried to structure the 1s and 9s so they could also resolve some of the grid without using SET. Glad it worked in your solve :)
@@mimaamakim2650 It's also the name of a song :)
Simon: Our testers say it's brilliant, but extremely difficult.
Video: *is over an hour long*
Simon: Anyway, do have a go.
Me: No, I don't think I will.
crazy to see that videos over an hour were considered the horribly hard ones back then 😂
Difficulty level: "quantum physics rules applied"
That moment when Simon closes his eyes to ponder and you just know at any second he will snap his fingers, scoot the chair all the way back and declare “I’ve got it!” Then drop a knowledge bomb. 😀
Or he has fallen asleep!
That was beautiful!
It always starts like this:
t0: 《I haven't got the slightest clue what I am supposed to be looking for. No idea how anyone could solve this incredible sudoku! 》 (...ponders...)
t0+10 s. 《...Erm...》Spots interesting column, box, pattern. 《Ah!》
t+13 s. =Snap= 《Got it, let's check that》
t+14 s. 《Yes, that works!》
t+16 s. Starts explanation. 《This is so mindbogglingly beautiful!》A well-structured, clear and very patient explanation follows
t+60s.Finally fills in the digits
Truly amazing how Simon combines incredibly quick thinking with huge patience, fine humour and great politeness towards others! Always an absolute treat to watch.
@@koenth2359 t+3 minutes: resolves a pair by using incredibly complex logic, instead of noticing one digit of the pair is ruled out by a placed digit in the row or column.
Or it becomes a "bobbins".
"We know - because I've just proved it in my brain" is going to be my new argument clincher.
Geez Louise. At around 42:31 Simon goes into full-on brainiac mode. To be able to see all that in your head, to be able to juggle all of those moving parts and pieces by just closing your eyes and talking it out, goodness gracious that’s just elite.
Rules: 03:29
Let's get cracking: 05:34
And how about this video's Simarkisms?!
Beautiful: 7x (03:12, 32:41, 33:33, 47:11, 49:09, 56:32, 1:00:18)
Sorry: 6x (08:47, 10:59, 16:08, 22:05, 44:53, 45:29)
Hang On: 6x (06:44, 10:49, 21:01, 25:07, 36:20, 43:45)
Ridiculous: 5x (09:57, 49:12, 55:30, 57:59, 1:06:00)
By sudoku: 5x (57:54, 58:32, 58:54, 59:28, 1:00:39)
Brilliant: 3x (33:03, 33:23, 33:25)
Apologies: 2x (12:57, 14:11)
Secret: 2x (05:55, 05:57)
The Answer is: 2x (47:30, 58:35)
Clever: 2x (02:48, 03:12)
I Have no Clue: 2x (35:03)
Horrible Feeling: 2x (29:29, 37:36)
Shouting: 2x (52:47, 54:13)
Bobbins: 1x (14:11)
Good Grief: 1x (32:53)
Knowledge Bomb: 1x (12:07)
What on Earth: 1x (34:55)
Useless: 1x (13:56)
Goodness: 1x (48:52)
What a Puzzle: 1x (1:05:58)
Stuck: 1x (03:18)
Break the Puzzle: 1x (23:26)
Fascinating: 1x (37:21)
Incredible: 1x (13:52)
Of All Things: 1x (57:54)
Bizarre: 1x (33:03)
Magnificent: 1x (02:06)
FAQ:
Q1: What is a Simarkism?
A1: A Simarkism is something that Simon and Mark typically or frequently say.
Q2: How do you do this so fast?
A2: I'm not made of flesh and blood, but of sand ...
Q3: Why don't you include 'XX' and 'YY'?
A3: Probably it's already on the list ('Scooby-Doo' for example), but not mentioned in this video. But if you think it's not, tell me what you'd like me to include and there's a good chance I'll add it!
Q4: You missed 'XX' at 'YY:ZZ'!
A4: That could very well be the case! Human speech is hard to understand for computers like me, especially British sometimes! Point out the ones that I missed and maybe I'll learn!
Q5: Could you turn these statistics into videos?
A5: I've been playing around with the idea and I'm open to input as to what people would like to see. Let me know if you are interested in this and/or have suggestions.
Petition to add "I've got it!" to the list of Simarkisms :)
@@Guthix744 I second this petition!
Petition to add "I don't believe it!" to the list :) he said it a couple of times this video
good bot.
Bobbins is my personal favorite
Regarding 4-5-6: I tend to use the principle "two majorities intersect". Three out of four renban lines (a majority) have a 4, another majority have a 6, so there is at least one line with both a 4 and a 6. Next, three lines remain. Two of them (a majority) have a 4, and two of them (again a majority) have a 6, so at least one of the remaining three renban lines has both a 4 and a 6. Hence, at least two renban lines that are 4-5-6.
Thank you!! I got stuck at this part and went to his video for a little guidance but I couldn't quite see how it was *proven* that there had to be two 4-5-6 lines. I won't ever fill in anything if I don't understand why I am, so I stared a while longer not understanding what I was missing. This makes a lot of sense tho.
That was a mind bender and a half! Even with Simon's explanation my brain still feels like dropped pan of cooked spaghetti.
Ditto!
You are telling me...
I solved it using a dash of set theory and a lot of Goodliffing and I don't think I can explain what I did beyond eliminating options and it filled itself in.
It reminds me of a former worker at Bletchley Park explaining the decoding of Enigma to me...
I have completed some of the hardest puzzles shown in this channel but I just couldn't do this one. I looked it for like 30 minutes and couldn't find a way to do it. I knew it had to be some kind of geometry trick but I'm just so bad with them. Even after Simon explaining it to me it took me a while to really understand it. Beautiful solve by Simon and I think he did it pretty fast even. You have to remember that Simon uses a lot of time to explain these. Simon prolly could have solved this in 30-45 minutes alone.
Brilliant puzzle, brilliant solve!
Here's how I'd explain the situation with the 456s - you have four renban lines. At least three of them have a 4, and at least three of them have a 6. That means at most one is missing a four, and at most one is missing a six. Take out those two from the set of four, and you have two that can't be missing a 4 or a 6 - i.e. they must be 456.
Astounding. I haven't watched CtC for a few days, I found myself feeling ill-at-ease with a world that is largely gloomy, and now my mood has been rescued by watching this work of art. Order imposed on chaos and all is well. Thank you.
That's a beautiful solve. Waaay above my sudoku skills, but explained so beautifully by Simon that everyone can understand how he solved it. I still wouldn't be able to do it myself, but loved how it all worked out in the end.
35:26 for me. I can’t be happier with that time, might be one of my best solves ever. I immediately realized how the puzzle was restricted and didn’t struggle too much to keep going at any point. Amazing logic, I loved every second of that solve.
That is a seriously impressive time! Well done.
just discovered this video, immediately clicked on the link, looked at it for a few seconds, put a 3 in the corner, went back to the video to hear simon sing, noticed the video is from before his ritual became a thing :D
Life's too short (less than a million years) for me to attempt this sudoku. Amazing puzzle, brilliant solve. Could almost see Simon's brain pulsating at one point.
Simon, I have watched you solve at least 70 sudokus. I am confident that I have never seen you think harder. Well done!
I'd love to see one of my puzzles on your channel someday. The only thing standing in my way is that I don't know how to make them.
Here are some constructors talking about how to set sudokus. ua-cam.com/video/6b8fy6OZizU/v-deo.html
This was a well earned win for you Simon, what a staggering display of brilliance! And what a puzzle, incredibly well set. I'm astonished at the intricate work that went into this. Very fun to watch c:
Simon did a great solve, by taking the time to show the joy and beauty of the puzzle. This movie of a solve beats Netflix.
I've never been into sudoku, I stumbled across this channel by accident, and bought one of the apps. Your content convinced me that I will receive a good product which serves it's purpose rather then trying to trick me into microtransactions. And I didn't get disappointed. As soon as I finish all the puzzled I'll buy another app for sure. Keep up the good work.
I've watched hundreds of these now, and that's the longest Simon has ever genuinely paused to visualise something, and it was majestic. It shows how deep the logic behind this puzzle is. Wow.
I'm sorry you're having trouble with your apps being taken down, I spend so much of my time on those apps attempting (usually badly) to solve these beautiful puzzles! Fingers crossed they come back soon
I'm actually thinking whether it's a good idea to buy the apps if I can't solve most of the sudocus on this channel. What level of difficulty do they usually have if scaling to Simon's solving time on the channel?
@@QwDragon they go from easy to hard, I'm not great at the complex puzzles on the channel but I'm working my way through the classic sudoku app just fine! They're just taking more concentration as I go along
@@QwDragon I'd say most of them are easier but there are always 2 or 3 per group of 20 puzzles that are insanely hard. In the killer app there are 3 puzzles I just don't bother with ever. But I was terrified of the killer app at first and i bought it anyway just to support the channel. I pulled up the first puzzle and I'm like uggg I'll never get it........oh wait that's a 1/2 pair.......making that a 3/4 pair....etc.....etc.... Before I knew it I solved the puzzle!!! I didn't even bother to use the hints on that one. Since then I've gotten way better. I'm able to solve a lot of the complex puzzles where I couldn't even see the logic as described in the hints without actually using the hints now. (and no I don't have them memorized) These apps should actually make you better.
@@awilliams1701 have you solved the cube 6*6*6? I failed twice, then understood that one of the first steps (the same both times) was wrong and the third attempt is incomplete yet...
I solved this one a while back when it first posted in discord. Absolutely brilliant puzzle!
Such a beautiful solve by Simon. Out of my league for sure.
WOW!! What a puzzle, Mimaamakim! And what a solve, Simon!
Just wanted to drop the point that Mi'ma'amakim is Hebrew for "from the depths".
Also the opening of Psalm 130 an an album and song by Idan Raichel
That "set" break in was way over my head, but both a stunningly beautiful puzzle and a stunningly beautiful solve. Thank you both Mimaamakim and Simon.
try my break-in using just basic sudoku: ua-cam.com/video/a8lm2ufZIm4/v-deo.html. It should be easier to understand
@@rockniu Your proof is beautiful too, and like you say much more accessible, thank you.
45:14, not including the long pause between sessions trying to figure this one out. Suffice to say, this one goes in my personal file of very special successful solves.
Utterly astonishing!
I always like when you explain the logic cause it helps me understand too, no need to apologize for that.
I absolutely love how you spend half an hour thinking about 4-5-6, instead of just doing 1s and 9s in all the boxes.
PS. The set theory part is very much optional, the 1-2-3 & 7-8-9 renbans mostly work themselves out without comparing blue and orange. A few pairs, and some more straightforward and fun logic gets you through the puzzle. Well, more straightforward, but it still takes a gorgeous hour to solve.
Over an hour for Simon means I'm not going to complete this one on my own 😂
I tried it, got the sandwich clues immediately, but wasn't sure how to break in past that, watched as far as the break in (about 30-32 minutes into the video) paused the video, and did the rest myself pretty painlessly.
After letting Simon handle the break-in, I finished in 43mins. It played to my strengths: basic sudoku! :D
Completely stumped me. I had to watch a good half hour before I could take off on my own. Even then it was a tough one. Great puzzle!
I had tried this puzzle once just to give up after finding the first 2 and 3. Then I tried the checkerboard puzzle (which I solved, but with lots of branching). Your solution to that puzzle inspired me to try this puzzle again, using patterns to try to reach some property that heavyly restricts the puzzle (not that I didn't tried to find a pattern before, but this time I knew that I must find this or nothing). After some time I found all the properties of the 12 lines and the 9 blue squares then I started to solve the puzzle. Whats is truly impressive for me is how you found those properties so quickly as you needed for solving the sudoku and how elegantly you solve these puzzles (I wish to be able to make half the mess I usually do with the notations, and I can't imagine reaching your level of elegance solving these problems).
It took me so much more to get a break-in, I think over an hour at least, but I managed to fully solve this puzzle after all, in 130 minutes total...
I loved that puzzle, that was really enjoyable to watch. Excellent job Simon, loved the logic behind the whole thing.
Watching Simon think is one of my favourite things.
Ditto! 😄
When the dog bites! When the bee stings!
@@stevenape377 when I’m feeling sad. I simply remember my favourite things and then I don’t feel ….. so sad!
52:00 "Right let's look at this, so, I know there's an eight in one of those two cells; So it's not possible that these rembant lines are a seven eight nine rembant line... which one of them is."
This killed me. The layers of abstraction involved here is astronomical. Simon is legitimately astonishing. I'm both now and continually moved to dumbfoundedness by his sheer cogency, application and creativity with such incredibly difficult multivariate logic puzzles.
The giant that he is is surely worthy of the title savant and moments like this continue to exemplify how much of an absolute joy it is to experience a mind such as his in action.
Amazing. In the literal sense of the word
Usually I have no issues following Simon's logical pathway as he's so good at explaining is thought process while he's working it out. Had to really strain to grasp his logic here and I think I added a new wrinkle to my brain when I understood it. Humbling to know there's people smart enough to set these puzzles and people like Simon who actually manage to crack them.
Oddly, I never get the "this can't possibly solve" moments Simon gets. The fact that the video is uploaded gives me great confidence the answer is out there somewhere. If I didn't have that I can't imagine how many times I'd just quit.
Very beautiful! First solved it without using Set. Than after reading in the comments that there was a break-in with Set, I did it again, and found the Set: very satisfying! First time I did a puzzle twice! Hats off to the setter! (We want more :)
42:42 finish. I focused on the 1s and 9s early, allowing me to quickly place the 1 in box 6 (which definitely helped a lot). Loved this puzzle!
I finished in 75:08 minutes. Coming from the future, it is weird to not see pink renban lines. Regardless of that, this puzzle is supremely excellent. The pathway felt so good to discover. I think my favorite part was the break-in and deciding that r7c5 couldn't be a 19 as it breaks the renban possibility in rows 2 and 3 by forcing too many 19's onto it. This forced a 19 into r7c4, which is immediately disambiguated by the 2 in the corner of box 7. That was so cool to see. This puzzle had some fantastic geometry work. I very much enjoyed it. Great Puzzle!
Definitely one of the densest puzzles to be featured on this channel. Quite a best puzzle, and nice solve!
Very clever. Needless to say, Simon's approach was more elegant, but I didn't use SET, I just coloured 1s and 9s and eventually it all unfolded, somewhat to my surprise.
I used 1s and 9s as well. For a while, while watching the video, I was thinking that I took the scenic route. However, Simon didn't exactly take a quick route, either.
Oof, it took me 84 minutes and I found it very tough. Several "Aha" moments were needed, lots of hard thinking that was right on the limit of what I'm capable of. Happy just to get it done, now I'll watch how Simon did it...
Proud to have solved this one. Over many many hours. Did not at all touch on working out the quota of Renban lines like Simon did. I started with colouring in the potential 19 pairings instead. Fantastic puzzle
Amazing puzzle and solve. Great fun watching!
The moment at 25:01 is why I keep coming back to this channel. What a puzzle and what a solve
24:23 is the moment in this video where I began to vaguely appreciate the geometry and start to feel weirdly emotional about this puzzle. (Just watching, not solving... I know better than to attempt a puzzle like this myself!)
Marvelous puzzle - i spent half the time convinced it was broken, all the sweeter the victory after about 2 hours. And what a solve by Simon, too - using SET brilliantly formalizes what can otherwise be done with 19 coloring and noticing the "straight X cell renban can't stare directly at exactly the same X cell renban" property. I colored and eliminated and got the digits and appreciated the beauty of the puzzle, but i think i would've forever missed the finer point of this arrangement - that there always HAD to be exactly 4 renbans of this or that nature - i saw it coming, but not sure i would come up with a proof other than solving the puzzle. Thanks for the video.
Fantastic solve! Well done.
Simon: We know it’s true because I just proved it in my brain.
what magic, be more than proud Simon, that was awesome. thank you.
"What's the absolute maximum size of a sandwich?" I don't know, I'll have to ask my friend Dagwood...
At what point does a sandwich become a Scooby snack?
Don't worry, this was one of the most interesting sudoku solve video I've ever seen!
Those two blue 7s were difficult to watch. Simon missed the pair of 7s he had literally just entered into box 2 that forced a 7 into r9c5.
Yes, that was painful. It is as if he forgets the classic sudoku parts of these alternative variants.
Agreed, it was painful. He always forgets to do Sudoku! 😅 Though I can't hope to have the approach he has using geometry and set theory. He's too smart for his own good 😁
And then this 5 lingering in box 2, then the 9 in the same box :D He repeatedly refused to notice he had way too many pencil marks in the top-left renban-box. I guess it's a mark of a genius to step over some silly-simple stuff, being focused on cracking the mind-bogglingly difficult conundrums ;)
I don't understand any of this at all. But when Simon says, "We know that because I just proved it in my brain," I trust him completely.
Most difficult puzzle I've been able to solve on my own without watching Simon's or Mark's solve.
Mimaamakim is the first nontrivial word of Ps. 130, "Shir hamaalot, mimaamakim k'raticha Adonai", meaning "from the depths". Ps. 130 is chanted at the beginning of the morning service on High Holidays in the Ashkenazic Jewish tradition (not sure about Sephardic).
The 1 on the inequality was available very early on, as soon as you pencil-marked 1s in orange in box 9.
At the 45 minute mark, where you're considering 456s, rather than work it all out in your head, you could have just worked it out on the puzzle, which is effectively what you did in the end. All you needed was to realise there had to be 2x456 and they had to be in the same orientation.
What a stunning puzzle - one to ear-mark for a second book.
Only quite proud - that was bloody amazing 👏
I can't believe I solved this!!! 108 minutes but usually anything set theory related is beyond me (and still is). I'm curious if anyone else solved this without that set theory break in?? I broke in using colouring for 1&9s, I used the same logic to work out that once a 1 or 9 was in one of the 3x3 sets, there couldn't be any in the sets orthogonal to it, and just from considering where those 1&9s could go I worked out their rough positions on the lines. With colouring on the 2&3s and 7&8s that accompanied them I was somehow also able to avoid that crazy logic that Simon was doing to work out the 4 unknown lines. I think it helped I realised 2s and 8s couldn't go on those extra ones, eg. an 8 is always accompanied by a 7, which would leave 2 cells in the set it 'pointed to' needing to be 9. The whole process was very slow, because there was so many little logical things like that, which weren't super obvious - such an incredible puzzle!! I was shocked to see Simon solve it so differently and in a way I never would have got on my own! When he started doing the set thing, I was thinking 'no Simon, this is a red herring' but it was a much more elegant and clever solve than mine! 😅
Yep. Simon's logic path did not occur to me at all. I also used coloring to restrict the 1s and 9s, then use the 2 and 3 in the corners and go from there.
Yes, I didn't use SET either. I think it would have helped though.
He got through the hard bits very well, and then his brain seemed to go to sleep.
Well I guess we need more Mimaamakim puzzles featured! Woah
another nice gem where sudokuing just works (and not many bifurc)
Isn’t the whole idea of sudoku to be repetitive?! Put all the numbers 1-9 once in each row and column?! It’s how you get there that’s the fun part. Keep fighting the good fight, Simon. Loving the content
There are certainly puzzle games that are _way_ more repetitive than the CTC apps.
At 30:33, you can limit 9s a bit more by noting the 1/9 pair in column one, thus meaning that 9 is restricted to the first and second cells in box 1.
Took me just under an hour, I did a bit more colouring in of the potential 1s & 9s before spotting that there needed to be 4 each of 1/2/3 and 7/8/9. Didn't need to use the set theory beyond that, so did the 2nd half quite differently to the video, just some Goodliffing and then colouring in 7/8 pairs. At @39:00 in the video, there is a 7/8/9 in box 2/3 pointing at c1, which means r1c3 is 7 or 8, giving a 78 pair in c3. The c2 line is either 345 or 456, so r8c2 is 3 or 6. *edit* It's interesting the extra logic you notice when watching the video rather than trying to solve the puzzle yourself. At @51:30, Simon's proved there are 5 7s in the orange squares, which means there are 2 7s in the blue squares. There's only one way to place 2 7s in the remaining blue squares. Then we also need one more 3 in the blue squares, which is also forced. *edit again* which turns out to be the next step in the video.
I can't believe he said "It's giving" 😂 26:20
Very proud to have done this only ten minutes longer than the video (meaning without explanation, intro, and outro, Simon's about twice as fast). But the important thing is that I worked steadily and never got stuck. Spotted 1's and 9;s as the crucial digits, did a little set theory and got what I needed from that (orange must have four 1's and four 9's). The rest was grinding away, only slightly different path from Simon. Compared to all the time I've spent hours and hours staring at a puzzle with a 60+ minute video, this was cake. A very difficult to chew but satisfying cake.
geez at 42:49 that's the face of a man whose mind exploded
" I just proved it in my brain"
This is how I failed maths.
I feel like when UA-camrs were created they gave this guy all of the intelligence and there was none left over for the other UA-camrs.
My comment here is actually for Botaku's Euclidean Sudoku, for lack of another place: Holy smokes, what a concept. It took a second attempt before catching on to the break-in, but I got it.
Wonderful puzzle
This is the first time I've beaten Simon to realising the crucial bit of logic. (He still executed on it faster.)
"You can't have three remband lines of 4, 5, 6" would probably be the clearest way of saying that. :p
Simon wondering in The Realm of Logic and then suddenly: “why’s that six there?”
I got a 2 and a 3 and then felt like my brain was going to melt so started watching the video. 😂
You may not have quantity three of the 4,5,6 renban variant. There... I word smithed it for you. 😄
Simon: Goes through logical steps to solve the puzzle, thinking about mod-3 and set theory. Comes up with brilliant deductions.
Me: Pencil marks R5C8 and R6C3 with 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9... stares at the grid for 10 minutes... then gives up and watches Simon.
So why does every Sudoku variant need its own app to start with? If a puzzle uses multiple mechanics (e.g. chess and arrows), which app would you put it in?
Around 55:00 when you used blue cells to find place for 3 in the 5th box I was screaming for about 20 minutes for you to look at the box 9 and inequality sign and then try to put 1 in this box. I think that was the breakthrough that you’ve needed. It’s because there IS a 1 in box 9 in one of 4 orange cells. Therefore this 1 and 1 from the 3rd box would force 1 into one of the 4 remaining cell in box 6… BUT 1 cannot be in one of the orange cells in 6th box (beacuse that would force 3rd 123 triple in vertical orange cells) so it must be in one of white cells with inequality sign. Hope you understand what I mean, I’m not English native speaker 😌
Simon would have finished this puzzle in under an hour if only Maverick had flown by the window today. 🛩️
15:56 for those that understood "There's gonna have to be (4) 1's in in the oranges"
skip to 20:35
Prolly never try to solve any of these but thanks to these vids I’m able to beat expert on the Sudoku app I have
Stunningly good puzzle! Truly original idea; I love the logic here, just a marvel to take apart. 89:59 for me.
Saying different sudoku apps are repetitive is like complaining Teach Yourself French, Teach Yourself Italian, Teach Yourself German, Teach Yourself Spanish, Teach Yourself Indonesian, and Teach Yourself Japanese are "repetitive" because they're all language apps. Now if they were complaining nori nori was repetitive, they'd have a point. Nori nori nori nori.
hear hear!
At 37:00 you can solve the bottom ranband quicker by looking at cells r8c3 and c4. They can only be 456. The first one cannot be 456 so it's either 3 or 7 but the seven is taken in the box, so you have the 3 :)
The puzzle is way easier, if you just do 3 rows and columns, instead of six, cause the number of 1s or 9s is immediately obvious. Then you just mirror the logic and after that its just a coloring competition. Cool puzzle, loved it
I enjoyed this solution 👌.
Thankyou that was great.. I took way to long 80mins as made two mistakes but great lesson in thinking outside the box 😀
"We know...because I just proved it in my brain" - lovely
I honestly think the inequalities were just a bonus clue (and maybe not even planned). Really, it was the realization of the limited scope of corner values derived by the 32/33 corner that set the puzzle in motion. And yes, starting in that corner was needed, not with the 219 trio.
Simon “the whole sudoku grid is divisible by three”
me “I’m already lost”
All sums of a number that add up to a number that can be divided 3, can be divided by 3 itself, so, (405 - the total of a Sudoku grid) sums up to 9, (9) can be divided by 3, so 405 can be divided by 3, this works for all numbers.
Example (58291872) sums up to 42. (42) sums up to 6, (6) can be divided by 3, thus 58291872 can be divided by 3.
Example 2 (665465454) sums up to 45, (45) sums up to 9, (9) can divided by 3, thus 665465454 can be divided by 3
Amazing video.
amazing puzzle and solve
Am I right in thinking based on the highlighting Simon deleted at 14:15, that R5C5 is divisible by 3, since the unhighlighted cells in R5 and C5 are both divisible by 3, and since they share a cell (r5c5) the shared cell must be divisible by 3?
I’ve thought about it, and I think I was wrong with my initial thought:
Cos R5 could be (I don’t know what actual values are at time of writing) 4,1,7 and C5, could be 4,2,6 - in that case 4 is the shared digit but it’s not divisible by 3. But I’m still pretty sure that (@47:00) the sum of the blue cells in R5 and the sum of the blue cells in C5 are both divisible by 3
positively wonderful puzzle. was proud of my solve, but of course Simon's was about twelve times as elegant. totally unsurprised that it got a 4 minute denouement.
I think the problem with the apps is that whomever has reviewed the appeal possibly doesn't know enough about sudoku to realise that a grid with some lines on it can be two very different things.
I can physically feel a IQ-barrier in my brain which blocks me from following your train of thought at some point