This puzzle was for once doable, once I got the heads-up with the P-ring. It might have occurred to me on my own. At least exactly the number of vacancies matched the number of digits needing placing. The rest of the puzzle was straightforward. I hope that you don't mind my skipping the proof. I've seen two proofs enough times.
I'm going to paste below an answer I wrote up for a similar question: The inability for the vast majority of people to ascertain ahead of time when SET will be useful is the reason it's rarely used unless it's an intended technique by the setter of the puzzle. It's then up to the setter to try to telegraph it. Ways setters might telegraph it: - Use one of the commonly known named SETs, like the Phisto ring, the checkerboard, or Aad's SET, and make sure plenty of clues are placed in suspicious locations for these SETs - For classics, transform the puzzle so that the SET involves easy to remember groupings, like 1234 vs 56879 or even vs odd. Also transform it so that the rows/cols involved form a visually obvious pattern, such as clustering all the givens into a square, or every other row/column so they form a grid. - Put SET in the title of the puzzle As for finding SET in random, computer-generated puzzles or puzzles not specifically designed to have a SET in mind, if the puzzle seems to have a large number of fish or almost-fish then you might want to see if there's a more general SET that will save you time rather than applying all those fish.
What a great puzzle! My best time for an advanced puzzle.
This puzzle was for once doable, once I got the heads-up with the P-ring. It might have occurred to me on my own. At least exactly the number of vacancies matched the number of digits needing placing. The rest of the puzzle was straightforward.
I hope that you don't mind my skipping the proof. I've seen two proofs enough times.
The first time I’ve completed a puzzle with this technique without having to watch the video first! 😊
How can one decide to go for set equivalence for solving a particular puzzle,
I'm going to paste below an answer I wrote up for a similar question:
The inability for the vast majority of people to ascertain ahead of time when SET will be useful is the reason it's rarely used unless it's an intended technique by the setter of the puzzle. It's then up to the setter to try to telegraph it.
Ways setters might telegraph it:
- Use one of the commonly known named SETs, like the Phisto ring, the checkerboard, or Aad's SET, and make sure plenty of clues are placed in suspicious locations for these SETs
- For classics, transform the puzzle so that the SET involves easy to remember groupings, like 1234 vs 56879 or even vs odd. Also transform it so that the rows/cols involved form a visually obvious pattern, such as clustering all the givens into a square, or every other row/column so they form a grid.
- Put SET in the title of the puzzle
As for finding SET in random, computer-generated puzzles or puzzles not specifically designed to have a SET in mind, if the puzzle seems to have a large number of fish or almost-fish then you might want to see if there's a more general SET that will save you time rather than applying all those fish.
kind comment