Clam Diggers Puzzle 182 Book 1

[Soren2407]

Hi.
I'm coming across some consistent problems solving a number of puzzles in Book 1. Mainly it's when there are no true relationships and I've done all the parallel, skewed eliminations and psuedo pair relationships. For eg, this puzzle I've attached. I know I must be missing the same thing in all these puzzles. I know it must have something to do with Monday being either 8.49 or 9.34 and maybe 9.34 being Tuesday, but I wish there was some way I could figure it out properly from looking at the grid rather than guessing ( which I know isnt required) I've looked at the tutorial online but with the transitive explanations, it shows a true relationship to work from. Can anyone please tell me what I am missing from my photo? Hopefully I've at least put the clues in correctly lol

[zenobia43]

Clue 7 says that Marvin won't be clamming during the lowest low tide. Would the lowest low tide be -2.40 ft.?

Also, Clue 6 says that the 9:33 am low tide can only be paired with Tuesday or the 2.33 ft. low tide drop.

If we state the 9:33 am low tide part of Clue 6 a bit differently, it would be: The 9:33 am low tide can only be paired with Tuesday or the weekdays associated with the 2.33 ft. low tide drop.

Looking at your grid, which weekdays are pairing candidates with (can be associated with) the 2.33 ft. tide drop?
The clue says that Tuesday can be paired, but the only other possible days have to be indirectly associated through the 2.33 ft. tide drop.
Then, which weekdays cannot be associated with the 2.33 drop and therefore cannot be associated with the 9:33 am low tide?

[Soren2407]

Ok thank you !! So I fixed the lowest tide to be -2.40 which solved clue 2. I’ve looked at weekdays that are not Tuesday and that can be -.2.33 and I only eliminate Thursday. And im assuming I can eliminate Thursday for Marvin also. This is as far as I get ! I’m really sorry. I can actually solve most of these but my brain needs to be trained on these ones …

[Soren2407]

Made some more conclusions but this is as far as I get

[zenobia43]

Clue 6 will help you again.

Clue 6 states that Tuesday must be paired with either 9:34 am or Marvin. Your newly established true relationships show that Marvin is paired with 8:49 am.

Restating the Tuesday part of clue 6: Tuesday must be paired with either 9:34 am or, indirectly, the times (time) associated with Marvin.
Tuesday must be paired with either 9:34 am or 8:49 am.

But it's even easier than mining another exclusion from clue 6.

In your grid, look at Charlie and 6:30 am. Could the true relationships for those two ever be in the same row?

In your grid, which clam diggers can still be paired with 6:30 am?

[Soren2407]

Omg thank you! As soon as I make Monday and Tuesday either 8.49 or 9.34 it changes so Charlie can’t be Monday which means I use the parallel elimination to put a false relationship between Charlie and 6.30 which just made everything work out! So it seems I haven’t been splitting those transitive relationships up to test. So appreciative

[zenobia43]

Yes - those "Of this thing and that thing, one is this other thing, and the other is this other thing." clues are real gold mines for exclusions.

And you can't just process them once. You must revisit all four parts to test for the indirect exclusions as you add things to the grid.

Suppose we had this clue:

Of a category A thing and a category B thing, one is a category C thing, and the other is a category D thing.

Note that we have all four categories in the clue.

Process the A, B, C, and D parts of the clue separately testing for indirect exclusions.

E.g. A can be C and any other C category thing not excluded by D. (I shortened things up by eliminating some words. I'm sure you are following these shortcuts by now.)

Then process the B, C, and D parts the same way. When you get a puzzle that does not have any positive relationships when you get stuck, there is a good chance that this type of clue hasn't been sufficiently mined for exclusions. After processing hundreds of these clues, you might start seeing the patterns visually in your grid, and you won't have to mechanically test all four parts of the clue.

The other clue pattern that will slow you down is chains of "greater than/less than" clues. The key here is to recognize the chains quickly. A simple chain might be: A is less than B and B is less than C. A cannot be paired with C. That's a real simple example. In the larger puzzles, the puzzle creation machine has put together some really interesting chains.

[Soren2407]

Ok but what about when i have A is either one thing or another in the same category. So in this one Scott is either manufacturing or pharmaceuticals. If there are no true relationships I should be mining for exclusions? That’s when I get stuck now. Where to look for exclusions. Unless I’ve done something wrong.

[zenobia43]

Vol 1, puzzle 97 needs the correction described in the March 17, 2021 post by PuzzleBaron. Make the other Volume 1 corrections also described in that post.

https://forum.puzzlebaron.com/forum/puzzle-baron/logic-puzzles/22078-hints-for-first-puzzle-baron-s-logic-puzzles-book-2010?p=24982#post24982

[Soren2407]

I have the version with that clue added and I’m still stuck !

[zenobia43]

You're almost there !

Clue 4 says that Derrick's share value is one row above Brett's. That's what you have in your grid.

Those two investors are locked together in two adjacent rows. They are either going to be in rows 1 and 2, or rows 2 and 3.

Can any other investor have a share value of $1.00?

While we're looking at your grid, let's look at another similar situation. It probably won't break this thing loose, but let's practice on it anyway.

Could technology ever be paired with $1.50?

Now the best one. This is one of those interesting "greater than/less than" chain examples I mentioned in a previous post.

We already looked at the consequences of Derrick and Brett's share value rows being locked together.

Clue 2 says that Brett's row is exactly one row above GGML.

But wait, we know from your grid that GGML is already paired with another investor. That means we have another pair of investors that have their rows locked together.

That leaves Scott with fewer possible share values.

Scott has to be paired with manufacturing or pharmaceuticals, and those two choices must be "pairable" with Scott's remaining share values.

[Soren2407]

You’re a wonder! Ok so you had me all the way until the end. I worked out ok Leslie and ggml are linked so that meant I could eliminate Scott from $1.25. I used parallel elimination for technology as you said. So then I’m left with .75 and 1.50 for Scott’s value possibilities. I could not for the life of me work out how to use that for elimination like you’ve worded before. Instead I saw that $1.25 could not be HOPN (parallel elimination ) and everything worked out. Yay! I mean if you have the time can you please explain the Scott pharma and manufacturing scenario with the last 2 remaining values .75 and 1.50? This is how I read it. Either scott or ( whoever has else has .75 or 1.50 ) is manufacturing or pharma. So then manufacturing must be Scott and anyone else but Connor so then I mark an x for Connor and manufacturing? I really do appreciate the explanations but I understand if I’ve used up my chances lol.

[zenobia43]

"Scott has to be paired with manufacturing or pharmaceuticals, and those two choices must be "pairable" with Scott's remaining share values."

From your grid, Scott, at this point, can only have share values in the first and fourth rows.

Have a look at the remaining share value possibilities for manufacturing or pharmaceuticals.

One of those two sectors has negative relations (Xs) in the first and fourth rows. That would make it impossible for Scott and that sector to have true relations (green circles) in the same row.

[Soren2407]

Ah I see! So I complicated it . Thank you so much again