The statement is correct. When you aren't required to use a specific X-omino it is easy to fill any connected shape divisible by X with X-ominos. Only being required to use a specific X-omino causes problems but that is not the case with the quoted statement.
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 12:41:51 PM UTC+3, bigOnion wrote: > The analysis says that whenever you are left with a connected blank space > (not necessarily rectangular) whose size is divisible by X - then you can > fill it up with X-ominoes: > > " If a connected blank area of size M is a multiple of X, it can be > guaranteed that there is a way to place M/X X-ominoes to fill in the blank > area. " > > It also repeats later. > > It seems that what is actually used in the proof is the claim in the other > direction: if you can force a blank space to be of size not divisible by X > then you win (no way to fill the blank space). > > The claim as stated doesn't seem quite right actually. Consider the case of a > connected blank space of size 4 whose shape is of one blank space with three > other blank spaces around it (adjacent to it). Then obviously there is no way > to fill this space with 2 2-ominoes. > The claim in the analysis is not quite right. Maybe it can be right with more > restrictions and in a specific content, but not the way it is currently > claimed. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Code Jam" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/926eaf01-63b4-4280-881c-c390453ec6c2%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
