Sierpinski Network

[Deluchie]

How do you change the "n" value? Its probably so simple but I don't know how :/

 

[cubernya]

Look at the bottom of the page

 

[aaronb]

See the previous posts for qq's parity fix/explanation. It happens on the odd-iterations (1,3,5).

Thank you; don't know how I missed that.

n=4

150.79

Edit: 118.44

Edit2: 106.49

Edit3: 76.00

 

[Deluchie]

Wow, that would've been a good thing to do..... :fp

 

[Meep]

n=6 is broken now...

As in, it doesn't stop the timer when it's solved?

 

[qqwref]

As in, it doesn't stop the timer when it's solved?

As in, there's something wrong with the graphics:

 

[Meep]

As in, there's something wrong with the graphics:

That's really strange, it's not happening to me. Did you try clearing your cache? It might be trying to load the images from the old version, 'Cause I did away with hidden big pink circles in the newer one.

Edit: Other people I sent it to seem to see it properly too

 

[qqwref]

Ah, alright. It works now, thanks.

Solved n=6 in 322.92 I have an easier time hitting the dots than I did in the last version.

 

[Meep]

Ah, alright. It works now, thanks.

Solved n=6 in 322.92 I have an easier time hitting the dots than I did in the last version.

I also made it only check for the solved state on each click instead of each loop, so that probably made it much more responsive (it was negligible on the lower iterations).

 

[Stefan]

474.83 for level 6 (and now I'll probably never want to do this again, I'm just glad I didn't have parity)

Just once more to see how much all the level 4 practice helped...

Spoiler

575.94, dammit.

Though I'm guessing the first time was actually longer, because of the timer issue

 

[Julian]

Uh, just solved level 6, the timer says 86978.86 :/

 

[qqwref]

This might be useful to someone I plan to memorize it soon. In case it's not obvious, the solutions are to click on the red-dotted nodes.

 

[RCTACameron]

On n=1:

0.90, (0.01), (2.09), 0.01, 0.45 = 0.45
1.55, 1.59, 0.90, (0.01), (2.09), 0.01, 0.45, 1.79, 0.38, 1.11, 1.65, 1.15 = 1.06
Btw, 0.01 is actually meant to be 0.

This is fun.

 

[Stefan]

Challenge: Find the smallest non-empty click-pattern that does nothing.

 

[whauk]

made from qq's pictures, a graph showing every possible move on n=1

(sry for my paint skills)

@stefan: click two times at the same spot? (too easy but i dont see a problem)

 

[Stefan]

No, with click-pattern I meant something like qq's patterns, i.e., a subset of the nodes (not clicking a node twice).

Edit: And with "smallest", I originally meant smallest number of nodes, though I'd also be interested in smallest "diameter".

 

[qqwref]

n=1, lots of misclicks (By the way, you can enter in a 0 as 0.001; that shouldn't affect the times too much.)

0.39, (1.76), (0.00), 0.20, 0.00 => 0.20
(0.00), 0.20, 0.00, (0.83), 0.69, 0.36, 0.00, 0.69, 0.64, 0.46, 0.38, 0.37 => 0.38
0.62 avg100


Stefan: I'm pretty sure this is it:

 

[Stefan]

Ah yes, that looks very small. I just tried it myself and re-invented the top third of your parity fix (three arcs). Should've thought of yours, so obvious now...

 

[vcuber13]

Sierpinski is spelled wrong on the page

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

Wow, these are a huge pain on a trackpad.

Got through n = 3 until I realized I had parity. Haha, screw that.