Quote from: mahmood1356 on Today at 12:40:13 AM

Quote from: Virtuose on Today at 12:27:28 AM

Quote from: mahmood1356 on Today at 12:24:06 AM

Quote from: Virtuose on Today at 12:20:05 AM

Sure, you’re right if your filter is absolutely reliable, you can skip entire ranges like 444... that violate the rule, which does save a lot of computation.
But remember, this only works if you’re certain the filter will always hold true for any future puzzle. Otherwise, you risk missing possible solutions.

I also stated the same theory in previous posts, but it was useless and not accepted by users.

It's not a theory, it's just basic logic, if a whole range violates a strict filter, it can be skipped, no need to generate or check those keys at all.
People who reject this are just ignoring the fundamentals. Filtering entire subranges is standard practice, not some controversial idea.

So why does everyone take sides on this rule and consider it useless at the very beginning of the discussion in the forum, causing the discussion to be fruitless and not continue its process?

Because most people in the forums don’t actually test the math or the practical consequences, they just repeat assumptions, often without understanding the implications.
Many dismiss any filter rule as "useless" without even considering its impact on the actual keyspace or the logic behind it. That kills meaningful discussion before it even begins.

If more people reasoned with facts and data, not just opinions, debates would be more productive Wink