Heyacrazy: No DiagonalsHeyacrazy: CrossesStatue Park: FiveStatue Park: Knight's LinesStatue View: RaindropsStatue Park: Apollo 11Heyawake: An Introductory PuzzleHeyawacky: Ace of CupsHeyacrazy: CrossesHeyacrazy: ForksHeyacrazy: “LMI”Heyacrazy: Careening

Why isn't "I've" a proper response?

Why is the UK so keen to remove the "backstop" when their leadership seems to think that no border will be needed in Northern Ireland?

Uri tokenizer as a simple state machine

How do we calculate energy of food?

Tex Quotes(UVa 272)

Duplicate Files

How to gently end involvement with an online community?

Did anyone try to find the little box that held Professor Moriarty and his wife after the crash?

Is MOSFET active device?

Where can/should I, as a high schooler, publish a paper regarding the derivation of a formula?

Why is 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Bg5 almost never played?

Can a Rogue PC teach an NPC to perform Sneak Attack?

Nothing like a good ol' game of ModTen

Transposing from C to Cm?

Duplicate instruments in unison in an orchestra

Are the players on the same team as the DM?

What would make bones be of different colors?

Algorithms vs LP or MIP

Prevent use of CNAME Record for Untrusted Domain

What is the difference between "Grippe" and "Männergrippe"?

Was it ever possible to target a zone?

New Math Formula?

Why doesn't 'd /= d' throw a division by zero exception?

If two Lore Bards used the Cutting Words feature on an ability check or attack, would they stack?



Heyacrazy: No Diagonals


Heyacrazy: CrossesStatue Park: FiveStatue Park: Knight's LinesStatue View: RaindropsStatue Park: Apollo 11Heyawake: An Introductory PuzzleHeyawacky: Ace of CupsHeyacrazy: CrossesHeyacrazy: ForksHeyacrazy: “LMI”Heyacrazy: Careening






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








5












$begingroup$


This is a Heyacrazy puzzle.



Rules of Heyacrazy:




  • Shade some cells of the grid.


  • Shaded cells cannot be orthogonally adjacent; unshaded cells must be orthogonally connected.


  • When the puzzle is solved, you must not be able to draw a line segment that passes through two borders, and does not pass through any shaded cells or grid vertices.


For an example puzzle and its solution, see this question.




enter image description here



This happens to be the first Heyacrazy I wrote, to see if the genre was viable. Diagonal borders hadn't been added yet, but there are still a lot of interesting deductions - this puzzle is an attempt to show off several of the ones that would appear often.










share|improve this question









$endgroup$




















    5












    $begingroup$


    This is a Heyacrazy puzzle.



    Rules of Heyacrazy:




    • Shade some cells of the grid.


    • Shaded cells cannot be orthogonally adjacent; unshaded cells must be orthogonally connected.


    • When the puzzle is solved, you must not be able to draw a line segment that passes through two borders, and does not pass through any shaded cells or grid vertices.


    For an example puzzle and its solution, see this question.




    enter image description here



    This happens to be the first Heyacrazy I wrote, to see if the genre was viable. Diagonal borders hadn't been added yet, but there are still a lot of interesting deductions - this puzzle is an attempt to show off several of the ones that would appear often.










    share|improve this question









    $endgroup$
















      5












      5








      5





      $begingroup$


      This is a Heyacrazy puzzle.



      Rules of Heyacrazy:




      • Shade some cells of the grid.


      • Shaded cells cannot be orthogonally adjacent; unshaded cells must be orthogonally connected.


      • When the puzzle is solved, you must not be able to draw a line segment that passes through two borders, and does not pass through any shaded cells or grid vertices.


      For an example puzzle and its solution, see this question.




      enter image description here



      This happens to be the first Heyacrazy I wrote, to see if the genre was viable. Diagonal borders hadn't been added yet, but there are still a lot of interesting deductions - this puzzle is an attempt to show off several of the ones that would appear often.










      share|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      This is a Heyacrazy puzzle.



      Rules of Heyacrazy:




      • Shade some cells of the grid.


      • Shaded cells cannot be orthogonally adjacent; unshaded cells must be orthogonally connected.


      • When the puzzle is solved, you must not be able to draw a line segment that passes through two borders, and does not pass through any shaded cells or grid vertices.


      For an example puzzle and its solution, see this question.




      enter image description here



      This happens to be the first Heyacrazy I wrote, to see if the genre was viable. Diagonal borders hadn't been added yet, but there are still a lot of interesting deductions - this puzzle is an attempt to show off several of the ones that would appear often.







      logical-deduction grid-deduction






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 10 hours ago









      DeusoviDeusovi

      73.4k7 gold badges255 silver badges321 bronze badges




      73.4k7 gold badges255 silver badges321 bronze badges























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4













          $begingroup$

          Solution (rather laborious):




          Whenever we have one of those | patterns, at least one of the two cells it involves must be shaded. (Otherwise both of the ones on the other side have to be, and that won't do.) We'll use this a few times later. Obviously two diagonally-opposite cells of the + near the bottom right have to be shaded, and it's easy to see that whichever way around they go the two adjacent cells on the bottom are unshaded. Now, let's turn to the bottom left. Suppose the third cell in on the diagonal is shaded. Then its neighbours are unshaded, which gives us another shaded cell because of the T-shape, and now whether or not we shade the third cell on the bottom row the cell northwest of _that_one needs to be unshaded; that requires the cell to its left to be shaded and some other adjacent ones unshaded, giving the following configuration
          enter image description here

          which is impossible because we have a forbidden line. So that diagonal cell must be unshaded after all. Now, suppose the one southeast of it is shaded. Then the third row gives us two more necessarily-shaded cells, and once again an illegal configuration:
          enter image description here

          Suppose the cell to the right of the one we just unshaded is also unshaded. That requires the first and fourth cells in its row to be shaded, and we quickly get to the following impossible configuration:
          enter image description here

          So that cell is shaded, and now we can use a couple of T-shapes to infer the following.
          enter image description here

          Obviously either cell 2 or cell 4 of the bottom row is shaded. If we pick cell 4, we quickly get this impossible situation:
          enter image description here

          so it must be cell 2, which rapidly leads us here:
          enter image description here

          where I've also filled in another easy unshaded cell at the bottom right. That unshaded cell four down in the leftmost column implies that at least one of the cells to its north and easy is shaded, so the cell to its northeast is unshaded, and we can repeat the same logic to unshade the cell northeast of that. Now, look in the middle at the bottom. The two undecided cells in the middle of the second and fourth rows up can't both be unshaded, so the unshaded region here must "escape" rightward, which tells us which way around that + goes -- at which point we can also tell that it's the lower of the two cells I mentioned a moment ago that must be shaded. We're here:
          enter image description here

          Back to the top left. Look at the cell in row 3, column 2. Considering a couple of SW-NE (ish) lines shows that either the cell N or the cell W of it must be shaded, and likewise for the cells S and E; therefore the cells NW and SE of it are unshaded. Now, either the cell to the W or the cell to the S of that one is shaded, and it's easy to see that either of those requires the cells N and E both to be shaded, leading us here:
          enter image description here

          We must, again, have either the S or W cell, which means that some stuff at the NW needs to "escape" along the top edge, requiring the first and third cells on that edge to be unshaded. This finally tells us that it's the W cell (i.e., row 3, column 1) that was shaded. Following a few more easy implications we get this:
          enter image description here

          The cells N and E of the unshaded cell just right of centre can't both be unshaded, so the cell NE of that; we must then shade the cell S of that one, which in turn gives us another shaded cell NW of that. Here's the state of play now:
          enter image description here

          Either the cell above, or the cell below, the rightmost known-unshaded cell on the middle row must be shaded, which means that the rightmost cell of the middle row is also unshaded. At this point I don't see any easy way forward, so let's try something out and see where it goes. Either cell 5 or cell 6 of the second row must be shaded. I expect it will be cell 5, so let's try shading cell 6. That leads fairly quickly to this:
          enter image description here

          which is impossible because of a roughly-horizontal line near the top. So, indeed, cell 5 was shaded:
          enter image description here

          The cells N and E of the unshaded one in row 4, column 7, can't both be unshaded, so the cell to its NE (row 3, column 8) is unshaded. Now the cells S and E of that can't both be unshaded, so the cell SE of it is unshaded. If the cell above that were unshaded, then two nearby lines would require a pair of shaded cells "enclosing" a single unshaded one, which is impossible, so that cell is shaded:
          enter image description here

          giving us a couple more easy ones:
          enter image description here

          The second and third cells in column 7 can't both be unshaded, so the second cell in column 8 must be unshaded, so the cell above that must be shaded, which quickly takes us here:
          enter image description here

          and, finally, here:
          enter image description here







          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$














          • $begingroup$
            That's correct! There's a nicer way to break into the bottom left without needing to dive deep into any hypotheticals, though. (I've given it as a separate answer, in case you're curious.)
            $endgroup$
            – Deusovi
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Ah, yes, that's much nicer. I did have the feeling that I was missing a few lemmas for solving these...
            $endgroup$
            – Gareth McCaughan
            4 hours ago


















          2













          $begingroup$

          Gareth has already given an answer, but the intended way to break into the puzzle is much less circuitous:




          An important fact about Heyacrazy puzzles in general: an open wall (one that is unshaded on both sides) can never see two adjacent segments of a wall. This is because it would force both cells on the opposite side of the wall to be shaded, but those two cells are adjacent.


          So, consider the walls marked in blue here.

          enter image description here

          One of the cells marked "A" must be shaded, because otherwise the horizontal line would be an open wall that sees the 2-tall wall immediately to its left (and force both Bs to be shaded).


          So one of the cells marked "B" is unshaded, and so is the A of the same color (since both are next to the shaded A). If the other B was unshaded, then there would be an open wall that sees the 2-tall wall to the left of the Bs:

          enter image description here

          And therefore one of the Bs is shaded too.


          The exact same logic applies for the Cs: one C and B of the same color are unshaded, and so the other C must be shaded to prevent an open wall from seeing a 2-long wall.


          So an A, B, and C of the same color are all shaded. If it's the blues, the two walls in the bottom row can see each other. So it must be the green A, B, and C that are all shaded.

          enter image description here


          Then D and E are unshaded (to allow the bottom corner to reach the outside), then F is shaded, then G is unshaded, and you're halfway through Gareth's answer without needing to use any extensive case-bashing.







          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$

















            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "559"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f87365%2fheyacrazy-no-diagonals%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            4













            $begingroup$

            Solution (rather laborious):




            Whenever we have one of those | patterns, at least one of the two cells it involves must be shaded. (Otherwise both of the ones on the other side have to be, and that won't do.) We'll use this a few times later. Obviously two diagonally-opposite cells of the + near the bottom right have to be shaded, and it's easy to see that whichever way around they go the two adjacent cells on the bottom are unshaded. Now, let's turn to the bottom left. Suppose the third cell in on the diagonal is shaded. Then its neighbours are unshaded, which gives us another shaded cell because of the T-shape, and now whether or not we shade the third cell on the bottom row the cell northwest of _that_one needs to be unshaded; that requires the cell to its left to be shaded and some other adjacent ones unshaded, giving the following configuration
            enter image description here

            which is impossible because we have a forbidden line. So that diagonal cell must be unshaded after all. Now, suppose the one southeast of it is shaded. Then the third row gives us two more necessarily-shaded cells, and once again an illegal configuration:
            enter image description here

            Suppose the cell to the right of the one we just unshaded is also unshaded. That requires the first and fourth cells in its row to be shaded, and we quickly get to the following impossible configuration:
            enter image description here

            So that cell is shaded, and now we can use a couple of T-shapes to infer the following.
            enter image description here

            Obviously either cell 2 or cell 4 of the bottom row is shaded. If we pick cell 4, we quickly get this impossible situation:
            enter image description here

            so it must be cell 2, which rapidly leads us here:
            enter image description here

            where I've also filled in another easy unshaded cell at the bottom right. That unshaded cell four down in the leftmost column implies that at least one of the cells to its north and easy is shaded, so the cell to its northeast is unshaded, and we can repeat the same logic to unshade the cell northeast of that. Now, look in the middle at the bottom. The two undecided cells in the middle of the second and fourth rows up can't both be unshaded, so the unshaded region here must "escape" rightward, which tells us which way around that + goes -- at which point we can also tell that it's the lower of the two cells I mentioned a moment ago that must be shaded. We're here:
            enter image description here

            Back to the top left. Look at the cell in row 3, column 2. Considering a couple of SW-NE (ish) lines shows that either the cell N or the cell W of it must be shaded, and likewise for the cells S and E; therefore the cells NW and SE of it are unshaded. Now, either the cell to the W or the cell to the S of that one is shaded, and it's easy to see that either of those requires the cells N and E both to be shaded, leading us here:
            enter image description here

            We must, again, have either the S or W cell, which means that some stuff at the NW needs to "escape" along the top edge, requiring the first and third cells on that edge to be unshaded. This finally tells us that it's the W cell (i.e., row 3, column 1) that was shaded. Following a few more easy implications we get this:
            enter image description here

            The cells N and E of the unshaded cell just right of centre can't both be unshaded, so the cell NE of that; we must then shade the cell S of that one, which in turn gives us another shaded cell NW of that. Here's the state of play now:
            enter image description here

            Either the cell above, or the cell below, the rightmost known-unshaded cell on the middle row must be shaded, which means that the rightmost cell of the middle row is also unshaded. At this point I don't see any easy way forward, so let's try something out and see where it goes. Either cell 5 or cell 6 of the second row must be shaded. I expect it will be cell 5, so let's try shading cell 6. That leads fairly quickly to this:
            enter image description here

            which is impossible because of a roughly-horizontal line near the top. So, indeed, cell 5 was shaded:
            enter image description here

            The cells N and E of the unshaded one in row 4, column 7, can't both be unshaded, so the cell to its NE (row 3, column 8) is unshaded. Now the cells S and E of that can't both be unshaded, so the cell SE of it is unshaded. If the cell above that were unshaded, then two nearby lines would require a pair of shaded cells "enclosing" a single unshaded one, which is impossible, so that cell is shaded:
            enter image description here

            giving us a couple more easy ones:
            enter image description here

            The second and third cells in column 7 can't both be unshaded, so the second cell in column 8 must be unshaded, so the cell above that must be shaded, which quickly takes us here:
            enter image description here

            and, finally, here:
            enter image description here







            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$














            • $begingroup$
              That's correct! There's a nicer way to break into the bottom left without needing to dive deep into any hypotheticals, though. (I've given it as a separate answer, in case you're curious.)
              $endgroup$
              – Deusovi
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              Ah, yes, that's much nicer. I did have the feeling that I was missing a few lemmas for solving these...
              $endgroup$
              – Gareth McCaughan
              4 hours ago















            4













            $begingroup$

            Solution (rather laborious):




            Whenever we have one of those | patterns, at least one of the two cells it involves must be shaded. (Otherwise both of the ones on the other side have to be, and that won't do.) We'll use this a few times later. Obviously two diagonally-opposite cells of the + near the bottom right have to be shaded, and it's easy to see that whichever way around they go the two adjacent cells on the bottom are unshaded. Now, let's turn to the bottom left. Suppose the third cell in on the diagonal is shaded. Then its neighbours are unshaded, which gives us another shaded cell because of the T-shape, and now whether or not we shade the third cell on the bottom row the cell northwest of _that_one needs to be unshaded; that requires the cell to its left to be shaded and some other adjacent ones unshaded, giving the following configuration
            enter image description here

            which is impossible because we have a forbidden line. So that diagonal cell must be unshaded after all. Now, suppose the one southeast of it is shaded. Then the third row gives us two more necessarily-shaded cells, and once again an illegal configuration:
            enter image description here

            Suppose the cell to the right of the one we just unshaded is also unshaded. That requires the first and fourth cells in its row to be shaded, and we quickly get to the following impossible configuration:
            enter image description here

            So that cell is shaded, and now we can use a couple of T-shapes to infer the following.
            enter image description here

            Obviously either cell 2 or cell 4 of the bottom row is shaded. If we pick cell 4, we quickly get this impossible situation:
            enter image description here

            so it must be cell 2, which rapidly leads us here:
            enter image description here

            where I've also filled in another easy unshaded cell at the bottom right. That unshaded cell four down in the leftmost column implies that at least one of the cells to its north and easy is shaded, so the cell to its northeast is unshaded, and we can repeat the same logic to unshade the cell northeast of that. Now, look in the middle at the bottom. The two undecided cells in the middle of the second and fourth rows up can't both be unshaded, so the unshaded region here must "escape" rightward, which tells us which way around that + goes -- at which point we can also tell that it's the lower of the two cells I mentioned a moment ago that must be shaded. We're here:
            enter image description here

            Back to the top left. Look at the cell in row 3, column 2. Considering a couple of SW-NE (ish) lines shows that either the cell N or the cell W of it must be shaded, and likewise for the cells S and E; therefore the cells NW and SE of it are unshaded. Now, either the cell to the W or the cell to the S of that one is shaded, and it's easy to see that either of those requires the cells N and E both to be shaded, leading us here:
            enter image description here

            We must, again, have either the S or W cell, which means that some stuff at the NW needs to "escape" along the top edge, requiring the first and third cells on that edge to be unshaded. This finally tells us that it's the W cell (i.e., row 3, column 1) that was shaded. Following a few more easy implications we get this:
            enter image description here

            The cells N and E of the unshaded cell just right of centre can't both be unshaded, so the cell NE of that; we must then shade the cell S of that one, which in turn gives us another shaded cell NW of that. Here's the state of play now:
            enter image description here

            Either the cell above, or the cell below, the rightmost known-unshaded cell on the middle row must be shaded, which means that the rightmost cell of the middle row is also unshaded. At this point I don't see any easy way forward, so let's try something out and see where it goes. Either cell 5 or cell 6 of the second row must be shaded. I expect it will be cell 5, so let's try shading cell 6. That leads fairly quickly to this:
            enter image description here

            which is impossible because of a roughly-horizontal line near the top. So, indeed, cell 5 was shaded:
            enter image description here

            The cells N and E of the unshaded one in row 4, column 7, can't both be unshaded, so the cell to its NE (row 3, column 8) is unshaded. Now the cells S and E of that can't both be unshaded, so the cell SE of it is unshaded. If the cell above that were unshaded, then two nearby lines would require a pair of shaded cells "enclosing" a single unshaded one, which is impossible, so that cell is shaded:
            enter image description here

            giving us a couple more easy ones:
            enter image description here

            The second and third cells in column 7 can't both be unshaded, so the second cell in column 8 must be unshaded, so the cell above that must be shaded, which quickly takes us here:
            enter image description here

            and, finally, here:
            enter image description here







            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$














            • $begingroup$
              That's correct! There's a nicer way to break into the bottom left without needing to dive deep into any hypotheticals, though. (I've given it as a separate answer, in case you're curious.)
              $endgroup$
              – Deusovi
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              Ah, yes, that's much nicer. I did have the feeling that I was missing a few lemmas for solving these...
              $endgroup$
              – Gareth McCaughan
              4 hours ago













            4














            4










            4







            $begingroup$

            Solution (rather laborious):




            Whenever we have one of those | patterns, at least one of the two cells it involves must be shaded. (Otherwise both of the ones on the other side have to be, and that won't do.) We'll use this a few times later. Obviously two diagonally-opposite cells of the + near the bottom right have to be shaded, and it's easy to see that whichever way around they go the two adjacent cells on the bottom are unshaded. Now, let's turn to the bottom left. Suppose the third cell in on the diagonal is shaded. Then its neighbours are unshaded, which gives us another shaded cell because of the T-shape, and now whether or not we shade the third cell on the bottom row the cell northwest of _that_one needs to be unshaded; that requires the cell to its left to be shaded and some other adjacent ones unshaded, giving the following configuration
            enter image description here

            which is impossible because we have a forbidden line. So that diagonal cell must be unshaded after all. Now, suppose the one southeast of it is shaded. Then the third row gives us two more necessarily-shaded cells, and once again an illegal configuration:
            enter image description here

            Suppose the cell to the right of the one we just unshaded is also unshaded. That requires the first and fourth cells in its row to be shaded, and we quickly get to the following impossible configuration:
            enter image description here

            So that cell is shaded, and now we can use a couple of T-shapes to infer the following.
            enter image description here

            Obviously either cell 2 or cell 4 of the bottom row is shaded. If we pick cell 4, we quickly get this impossible situation:
            enter image description here

            so it must be cell 2, which rapidly leads us here:
            enter image description here

            where I've also filled in another easy unshaded cell at the bottom right. That unshaded cell four down in the leftmost column implies that at least one of the cells to its north and easy is shaded, so the cell to its northeast is unshaded, and we can repeat the same logic to unshade the cell northeast of that. Now, look in the middle at the bottom. The two undecided cells in the middle of the second and fourth rows up can't both be unshaded, so the unshaded region here must "escape" rightward, which tells us which way around that + goes -- at which point we can also tell that it's the lower of the two cells I mentioned a moment ago that must be shaded. We're here:
            enter image description here

            Back to the top left. Look at the cell in row 3, column 2. Considering a couple of SW-NE (ish) lines shows that either the cell N or the cell W of it must be shaded, and likewise for the cells S and E; therefore the cells NW and SE of it are unshaded. Now, either the cell to the W or the cell to the S of that one is shaded, and it's easy to see that either of those requires the cells N and E both to be shaded, leading us here:
            enter image description here

            We must, again, have either the S or W cell, which means that some stuff at the NW needs to "escape" along the top edge, requiring the first and third cells on that edge to be unshaded. This finally tells us that it's the W cell (i.e., row 3, column 1) that was shaded. Following a few more easy implications we get this:
            enter image description here

            The cells N and E of the unshaded cell just right of centre can't both be unshaded, so the cell NE of that; we must then shade the cell S of that one, which in turn gives us another shaded cell NW of that. Here's the state of play now:
            enter image description here

            Either the cell above, or the cell below, the rightmost known-unshaded cell on the middle row must be shaded, which means that the rightmost cell of the middle row is also unshaded. At this point I don't see any easy way forward, so let's try something out and see where it goes. Either cell 5 or cell 6 of the second row must be shaded. I expect it will be cell 5, so let's try shading cell 6. That leads fairly quickly to this:
            enter image description here

            which is impossible because of a roughly-horizontal line near the top. So, indeed, cell 5 was shaded:
            enter image description here

            The cells N and E of the unshaded one in row 4, column 7, can't both be unshaded, so the cell to its NE (row 3, column 8) is unshaded. Now the cells S and E of that can't both be unshaded, so the cell SE of it is unshaded. If the cell above that were unshaded, then two nearby lines would require a pair of shaded cells "enclosing" a single unshaded one, which is impossible, so that cell is shaded:
            enter image description here

            giving us a couple more easy ones:
            enter image description here

            The second and third cells in column 7 can't both be unshaded, so the second cell in column 8 must be unshaded, so the cell above that must be shaded, which quickly takes us here:
            enter image description here

            and, finally, here:
            enter image description here







            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            Solution (rather laborious):




            Whenever we have one of those | patterns, at least one of the two cells it involves must be shaded. (Otherwise both of the ones on the other side have to be, and that won't do.) We'll use this a few times later. Obviously two diagonally-opposite cells of the + near the bottom right have to be shaded, and it's easy to see that whichever way around they go the two adjacent cells on the bottom are unshaded. Now, let's turn to the bottom left. Suppose the third cell in on the diagonal is shaded. Then its neighbours are unshaded, which gives us another shaded cell because of the T-shape, and now whether or not we shade the third cell on the bottom row the cell northwest of _that_one needs to be unshaded; that requires the cell to its left to be shaded and some other adjacent ones unshaded, giving the following configuration
            enter image description here

            which is impossible because we have a forbidden line. So that diagonal cell must be unshaded after all. Now, suppose the one southeast of it is shaded. Then the third row gives us two more necessarily-shaded cells, and once again an illegal configuration:
            enter image description here

            Suppose the cell to the right of the one we just unshaded is also unshaded. That requires the first and fourth cells in its row to be shaded, and we quickly get to the following impossible configuration:
            enter image description here

            So that cell is shaded, and now we can use a couple of T-shapes to infer the following.
            enter image description here

            Obviously either cell 2 or cell 4 of the bottom row is shaded. If we pick cell 4, we quickly get this impossible situation:
            enter image description here

            so it must be cell 2, which rapidly leads us here:
            enter image description here

            where I've also filled in another easy unshaded cell at the bottom right. That unshaded cell four down in the leftmost column implies that at least one of the cells to its north and easy is shaded, so the cell to its northeast is unshaded, and we can repeat the same logic to unshade the cell northeast of that. Now, look in the middle at the bottom. The two undecided cells in the middle of the second and fourth rows up can't both be unshaded, so the unshaded region here must "escape" rightward, which tells us which way around that + goes -- at which point we can also tell that it's the lower of the two cells I mentioned a moment ago that must be shaded. We're here:
            enter image description here

            Back to the top left. Look at the cell in row 3, column 2. Considering a couple of SW-NE (ish) lines shows that either the cell N or the cell W of it must be shaded, and likewise for the cells S and E; therefore the cells NW and SE of it are unshaded. Now, either the cell to the W or the cell to the S of that one is shaded, and it's easy to see that either of those requires the cells N and E both to be shaded, leading us here:
            enter image description here

            We must, again, have either the S or W cell, which means that some stuff at the NW needs to "escape" along the top edge, requiring the first and third cells on that edge to be unshaded. This finally tells us that it's the W cell (i.e., row 3, column 1) that was shaded. Following a few more easy implications we get this:
            enter image description here

            The cells N and E of the unshaded cell just right of centre can't both be unshaded, so the cell NE of that; we must then shade the cell S of that one, which in turn gives us another shaded cell NW of that. Here's the state of play now:
            enter image description here

            Either the cell above, or the cell below, the rightmost known-unshaded cell on the middle row must be shaded, which means that the rightmost cell of the middle row is also unshaded. At this point I don't see any easy way forward, so let's try something out and see where it goes. Either cell 5 or cell 6 of the second row must be shaded. I expect it will be cell 5, so let's try shading cell 6. That leads fairly quickly to this:
            enter image description here

            which is impossible because of a roughly-horizontal line near the top. So, indeed, cell 5 was shaded:
            enter image description here

            The cells N and E of the unshaded one in row 4, column 7, can't both be unshaded, so the cell to its NE (row 3, column 8) is unshaded. Now the cells S and E of that can't both be unshaded, so the cell SE of it is unshaded. If the cell above that were unshaded, then two nearby lines would require a pair of shaded cells "enclosing" a single unshaded one, which is impossible, so that cell is shaded:
            enter image description here

            giving us a couple more easy ones:
            enter image description here

            The second and third cells in column 7 can't both be unshaded, so the second cell in column 8 must be unshaded, so the cell above that must be shaded, which quickly takes us here:
            enter image description here

            and, finally, here:
            enter image description here








            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 8 hours ago









            Gareth McCaughanGareth McCaughan

            79.8k3 gold badges202 silver badges308 bronze badges




            79.8k3 gold badges202 silver badges308 bronze badges














            • $begingroup$
              That's correct! There's a nicer way to break into the bottom left without needing to dive deep into any hypotheticals, though. (I've given it as a separate answer, in case you're curious.)
              $endgroup$
              – Deusovi
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              Ah, yes, that's much nicer. I did have the feeling that I was missing a few lemmas for solving these...
              $endgroup$
              – Gareth McCaughan
              4 hours ago
















            • $begingroup$
              That's correct! There's a nicer way to break into the bottom left without needing to dive deep into any hypotheticals, though. (I've given it as a separate answer, in case you're curious.)
              $endgroup$
              – Deusovi
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              Ah, yes, that's much nicer. I did have the feeling that I was missing a few lemmas for solving these...
              $endgroup$
              – Gareth McCaughan
              4 hours ago















            $begingroup$
            That's correct! There's a nicer way to break into the bottom left without needing to dive deep into any hypotheticals, though. (I've given it as a separate answer, in case you're curious.)
            $endgroup$
            – Deusovi
            4 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            That's correct! There's a nicer way to break into the bottom left without needing to dive deep into any hypotheticals, though. (I've given it as a separate answer, in case you're curious.)
            $endgroup$
            – Deusovi
            4 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            Ah, yes, that's much nicer. I did have the feeling that I was missing a few lemmas for solving these...
            $endgroup$
            – Gareth McCaughan
            4 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Ah, yes, that's much nicer. I did have the feeling that I was missing a few lemmas for solving these...
            $endgroup$
            – Gareth McCaughan
            4 hours ago













            2













            $begingroup$

            Gareth has already given an answer, but the intended way to break into the puzzle is much less circuitous:




            An important fact about Heyacrazy puzzles in general: an open wall (one that is unshaded on both sides) can never see two adjacent segments of a wall. This is because it would force both cells on the opposite side of the wall to be shaded, but those two cells are adjacent.


            So, consider the walls marked in blue here.

            enter image description here

            One of the cells marked "A" must be shaded, because otherwise the horizontal line would be an open wall that sees the 2-tall wall immediately to its left (and force both Bs to be shaded).


            So one of the cells marked "B" is unshaded, and so is the A of the same color (since both are next to the shaded A). If the other B was unshaded, then there would be an open wall that sees the 2-tall wall to the left of the Bs:

            enter image description here

            And therefore one of the Bs is shaded too.


            The exact same logic applies for the Cs: one C and B of the same color are unshaded, and so the other C must be shaded to prevent an open wall from seeing a 2-long wall.


            So an A, B, and C of the same color are all shaded. If it's the blues, the two walls in the bottom row can see each other. So it must be the green A, B, and C that are all shaded.

            enter image description here


            Then D and E are unshaded (to allow the bottom corner to reach the outside), then F is shaded, then G is unshaded, and you're halfway through Gareth's answer without needing to use any extensive case-bashing.







            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



















              2













              $begingroup$

              Gareth has already given an answer, but the intended way to break into the puzzle is much less circuitous:




              An important fact about Heyacrazy puzzles in general: an open wall (one that is unshaded on both sides) can never see two adjacent segments of a wall. This is because it would force both cells on the opposite side of the wall to be shaded, but those two cells are adjacent.


              So, consider the walls marked in blue here.

              enter image description here

              One of the cells marked "A" must be shaded, because otherwise the horizontal line would be an open wall that sees the 2-tall wall immediately to its left (and force both Bs to be shaded).


              So one of the cells marked "B" is unshaded, and so is the A of the same color (since both are next to the shaded A). If the other B was unshaded, then there would be an open wall that sees the 2-tall wall to the left of the Bs:

              enter image description here

              And therefore one of the Bs is shaded too.


              The exact same logic applies for the Cs: one C and B of the same color are unshaded, and so the other C must be shaded to prevent an open wall from seeing a 2-long wall.


              So an A, B, and C of the same color are all shaded. If it's the blues, the two walls in the bottom row can see each other. So it must be the green A, B, and C that are all shaded.

              enter image description here


              Then D and E are unshaded (to allow the bottom corner to reach the outside), then F is shaded, then G is unshaded, and you're halfway through Gareth's answer without needing to use any extensive case-bashing.







              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                2














                2










                2







                $begingroup$

                Gareth has already given an answer, but the intended way to break into the puzzle is much less circuitous:




                An important fact about Heyacrazy puzzles in general: an open wall (one that is unshaded on both sides) can never see two adjacent segments of a wall. This is because it would force both cells on the opposite side of the wall to be shaded, but those two cells are adjacent.


                So, consider the walls marked in blue here.

                enter image description here

                One of the cells marked "A" must be shaded, because otherwise the horizontal line would be an open wall that sees the 2-tall wall immediately to its left (and force both Bs to be shaded).


                So one of the cells marked "B" is unshaded, and so is the A of the same color (since both are next to the shaded A). If the other B was unshaded, then there would be an open wall that sees the 2-tall wall to the left of the Bs:

                enter image description here

                And therefore one of the Bs is shaded too.


                The exact same logic applies for the Cs: one C and B of the same color are unshaded, and so the other C must be shaded to prevent an open wall from seeing a 2-long wall.


                So an A, B, and C of the same color are all shaded. If it's the blues, the two walls in the bottom row can see each other. So it must be the green A, B, and C that are all shaded.

                enter image description here


                Then D and E are unshaded (to allow the bottom corner to reach the outside), then F is shaded, then G is unshaded, and you're halfway through Gareth's answer without needing to use any extensive case-bashing.







                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                Gareth has already given an answer, but the intended way to break into the puzzle is much less circuitous:




                An important fact about Heyacrazy puzzles in general: an open wall (one that is unshaded on both sides) can never see two adjacent segments of a wall. This is because it would force both cells on the opposite side of the wall to be shaded, but those two cells are adjacent.


                So, consider the walls marked in blue here.

                enter image description here

                One of the cells marked "A" must be shaded, because otherwise the horizontal line would be an open wall that sees the 2-tall wall immediately to its left (and force both Bs to be shaded).


                So one of the cells marked "B" is unshaded, and so is the A of the same color (since both are next to the shaded A). If the other B was unshaded, then there would be an open wall that sees the 2-tall wall to the left of the Bs:

                enter image description here

                And therefore one of the Bs is shaded too.


                The exact same logic applies for the Cs: one C and B of the same color are unshaded, and so the other C must be shaded to prevent an open wall from seeing a 2-long wall.


                So an A, B, and C of the same color are all shaded. If it's the blues, the two walls in the bottom row can see each other. So it must be the green A, B, and C that are all shaded.

                enter image description here


                Then D and E are unshaded (to allow the bottom corner to reach the outside), then F is shaded, then G is unshaded, and you're halfway through Gareth's answer without needing to use any extensive case-bashing.








                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 4 hours ago









                DeusoviDeusovi

                73.4k7 gold badges255 silver badges321 bronze badges




                73.4k7 gold badges255 silver badges321 bronze badges






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Puzzling Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f87365%2fheyacrazy-no-diagonals%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                    Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                    199年 目錄 大件事 到箇年出世嗰人 到箇年死嗰人 節慶、風俗習慣 導覽選單