Talk:LITS

Rules

Am I missing something? I ask because it appears Nuruomino number 1 in Puzzle Box 7 has four valid solutions. - ZM

The missing rule is: "tetrominoes which have the same shapes must not touch each other." --Pitan 23:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah-HAH! I don't have the issue before me right now, but I believe that will resolve it. I also found a link that, through the magic of Babelfish, answers my next question: this random Java implementation notes that rotations and reflections are counted as the same tetromino for the purposes of that rule. Thanks - I'll plug it into the article. (I openly admit that I determined the original rules I posted by examination of the sample puzzle, not translating the printed instructions.) - ZM Zotmeister 18:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, that's how I got the basis of pretty much all of my rules ... until I eMailed Jimmy and company over at Nikoli and got them to clarify. I got most of them right, but I missed that particular rule as well with Nuruomino. Phil Bordelon 21:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

LITS

Nuruomino was renamed LITS in the last issue (#112) of Puzzle Communication Nikoli. Each letter of LITS represents a type of tetrominoes. --Pitan 07:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyone opposed to my moving the article? I assume not, but... - ZM Zotmeister 15:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Source of puzzles?

We ought to have some links to websites with LITS puzzles on. Does anybody know of any? The infoseek site appears to have only one puzzle, unless it just isn't working properly for me.... -- Smjg 01:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

NP-complete?

There is a link in the article to a presentation on how LITS is NP-complete. However, the presentation analyzes a version of LITS sans the "no two congruent tetrominoes may touch" rule, and hence isn't entirely relevant. Should this link therefore be deleted? GLmathgrant (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a head cold so my math may be off, but wouldn't the added constraint make it more likely to be NP-complete, so that if without it it is then with it it must also be? DreamGuy (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a mathematician, and I agree with GLmathgrant. The additional constraint makes the paper incorrect. It may or may not be easy to modify the construction in the paper so that it correctly matches the LITS constraints, but that would qualify as original research rather than referencing published results. At risk of prompting an edit war, I will proceed to remove the link. I recommend that a peer-reviewed reference using the full rules be found before adding a link back. 165.125.144.16 (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LITS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205125710/http://www.nikoli.co.jp/en/puzzles/lits/ to http://www.nikoli.co.jp/en/puzzles/lits/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)