Interesting what is considered logical; to me, it is a unique solution that can be arrived at by deduction.
In this one, it is necessary to use temps on one of two paths which will shortly break down or lead to the solution at which point, you either validate or erase temporaries and know with confidence that it is the other one.
Many players have their own definition of what makes a puzzle logical on this website. No matter how much the term is debated and different definitions suggested, it seems to me that 'logical' really just reflects what a player desires from a puzzle.
For me, I enjoy the challenge of temps for puzzles tested by the designer. This puzzle was enjoyable and has one unique solution. Thank you!
It is not possible to redefine the word "logical". It is not subjective. Your definition is lacking a vital piece of information 'a unique solution that can be arrived at by deduction without the need to guess'. Only on this site do people continue to confuse guessing with logic. When you do a sudoku in the paper and you find that one square is either a 3 or a 5, do you proceed and guess it is a 3 and then 10 minutes later discover that it is in fact a 5 and erase half of the puzzle and continue? No, you use logic in the first place to determine which it is. It does not constitute some new form of logic guessing it is a 3. The only difference here is that the makers of this website created a function called temporary mode that makes it possible to guess and then once you have found the contradiction, can then delete the temps at ease and continue. Before the internet, I did hundreds of hanjie puzzles with a pencil and funnily enough never once was it necessary to guess (even for a 50 50 square). As an aside, 2D logic is not guessing. It is possible to see a contradiction without using temps.
In this puzzle, it is fairly easy to make an assumption as to where a black square goes (R1 C19 or C23) but it simply cannot be argued that this can be determined using logic. If you decided to try to put the black square in R1 C23, it doesn't lead to a contradiction (break down). It is obvious that this is not the correct position but that is not using logic. There are similar assumptions required later which are similarly easy to assume. But they cannot be determined using logic.
Strigoli, I admire your positivity and think it is commendable the praise you always give to authors! I think you are correct that authors should be encouraged not ridiculed for a poor attempt (this puzzle is certainly not poor). The puzzle was enjoyable with a nice image, it is only the logic, temps debate that frustrates me.
Thoroughly enjoyable and a good level of difficulty for my personal liking. Thank you so much for putting your time and effort into the pastimes of others. It's of particular benefit during these trying times and I certainly appreciate the work of all the compilers.
The thing is, if it has a unique solution then it is possible to logically deduce. It may be beyond the ability of a human brain to look enough steps into the process to see the contradiction without temporaries, but that does not make it illogical.
That's a lovely bear. And it took me ages and ages. Redoing temps over and over again. I was getting really frustrated. I gave up a couple of times and came back a few days later. I hate leaving a puzzle unsolved. And eventually it all went into place. Thank you for the challenge.
In this one, it is necessary to use temps on one of two paths which will shortly break down or lead to the solution at which point, you either validate or erase temporaries and know with confidence that it is the other one.
For me, I enjoy the challenge of temps for puzzles tested by the designer. This puzzle was enjoyable and has one unique solution. Thank you!
In this puzzle, it is fairly easy to make an assumption as to where a black square goes (R1 C19 or C23) but it simply cannot be argued that this can be determined using logic. If you decided to try to put the black square in R1 C23, it doesn't lead to a contradiction (break down). It is obvious that this is not the correct position but that is not using logic. There are similar assumptions required later which are similarly easy to assume. But they cannot be determined using logic.
Strigoli, I admire your positivity and think it is commendable the praise you always give to authors! I think you are correct that authors should be encouraged not ridiculed for a poor attempt (this puzzle is certainly not poor). The puzzle was enjoyable with a nice image, it is only the logic, temps debate that frustrates me.