
This is a puzzle game like a mathematical book, based on logic and deduction. In this game, you don't need to beat the level, but need to prove it is beatable. Your goal is not to win, but to prove you can win.
Modeled estimate, not a reported figure. How we estimate →
Media

About
This is a puzzle game based on logic and deduction. In this game, you can learn and understand a brand new deduction system, and then take the axioms and rules of deduction as tools, to prove the propositions by entering the code.
Features:
Understand the axioms and rules of deduction (just like when you are reading a mathematical book)
Enter the code and prove the proposition (just like when you are solving a math problem)
"Q.E.D.", "Eureka!", and get into the next loop
Elements which might be frustrating:
No good artwork. (That's less important than the other three)
Amounts of text to read, and it requires a little comprehension of math. (Playing this game is virtually like reading a math book)
The only way to create a new proof step is entering the right code, which is not the core of the game essentially. (It's due to my limited programming ability)
No custom-corollary function. Only the axioms and rules of deduction are available. (Welcome to the CLASSIC deduction system)
If all of them are okay for you, then this game may be suitable for you.
FAQs:
Q: Which players are the game mainly for?
A: If you have some experience of reading math books and you are interested in logic, this game may be the one you like.
Q: Is it a hard game?
A: At the first, the difficulty of this game are mainly about the understanding the rules, and it's easy to work out the puzzle. But the problem will become very hard if you keep playing. Anyway, reading and comprehending themselves will form a part of difficulty.
Q: Are you inspired by something when designing this game?
A: This game is inspired by mathematical logic, mainly about natural deduction of statement calculus and first-order predicate calculus.
Q: How long does it take to beat the game?
A: About 20~40 hours.
Q: Is there any difference between this game and a mathematical exercise book?
A: Nothing. And I just let it be. If some players mind that, it's fine by me to use "the executable file" or "the exercise book" while talking with them, instead of "this game".
Genres
Stats
All-time low is the lowest price we've recorded for this game since we started tracking it.
Languages: Simplified Chinese, English
Engagement
Hours played at review time, across 40 reviews with recorded playtime.
Reviews
Themes across 40 recent reviews and how positive each mention is. A keyword signal, not full sentiment analysis.
positive critical· bar length = how often the theme comes up
Reviews
딱 수학 전공서적 읽고 연습문제 푸는 감성 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ open problem을 제시하면서 axiom이 약한 부분을 드러내 줘서 좋았다.
刚打到4-12,写了一大坨,大脑已停摆,抽空给个好评 本来想全打完再评价,只是steam会根据新发售游戏前几天的评价推送游戏,虽然确实如差评所说引用行数的手感很粪,但是实在不想看到这个游戏因为前面几条差评被埋没 前三章比较平淡,没有感到特别惊喜的关卡,但是第四章感觉玩到就回本了
第一章是个不错的新手教程[spoiler] [strike] 甚至有点小简单(?) [/strike] [/spoiler] 从第二章开始就上难度了,但可以搭配[url=https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1HCrPYsEwP/] [strike] 新手教程? [/strike] [/url]使用 是个很好的数学游戏,使我的大脑旋转...
玩到废寝忘食。仿佛梦回大学的期末季,在某个安静的深夜从定理X.1啃到定理X.15,并想尽办法用这些刚刚进入脑子的抽象知识来对付课后习题。 这大概就是属于数学人的浪漫吧。
全成就通关!!!这个游戏是一款相当优秀的逻辑推理类游戏。 在游玩前两章的时候,它带给我的感觉是一个编程类游戏,就像steam上其他的这类游戏一样。玩到3、4、5章时我不得不对它加上一个“不那么简便”的定语(无法引用已有结论使得每次证明都需要再三的重复同样的事情;当然在熟悉这个游戏的操作之后,繁琐的感觉会变得不那么明显)。 直到我玩到第五章的末尾,也就是5.24。(这可能会是剧透,也会不可避免的帮助过关)[spoiler]说实话,我在那里不得不借助于作者的提示才能过关,一开始我根本没有意识到作者竟然设计的是一个inconsistent theory!。这使我开始思考为什么会有这样一个设定,为什么会有人要设计一个实际上可以相当无聊的(一直使用inconsistency)通关的游戏。我想作者一开始的目标就根本不是这个,而在设计过程中发现了这个问题,于是在之后进行了一些程度上的修正。又或者作者是行家能手,并且是一个非常好的老师,他设计这个游戏的目的就是引导玩家学会一些逻辑上的知识。这使我意识到这个游戏并不同于任何一款steam上之前的编程类游戏(起码我玩过的都不具备这样的发人深省的内涵)[/spoiler]。 无论怎样,任何游玩这个游戏的,非从事数理逻辑相关专业的玩家,都完全可以把这个游戏当作是一次数学上的探索,就像上世纪伟大的数学家们所做的那样! 另外,我还有一点疑问@作者:在第6章对推理规则进行的修正似乎并不完整,因为我们的公理里就包含了变量x(1),x(2),...。尽管在可不可以过关这样一个structure里这样的修正可能(我并没有时间验证是不是真的正好)正好成立,但是一般来讲总能找到这个公理系统的一个model使得修正后的rule5.4还是不成立(游戏不就是想要脱离model吗?)。在这样一个系统中,实际上任何的generalization都不会被直接作为推理规则来允许(除非我们有另外的办法来证明它确实可以generalize)。我不知道作者是否是在解决了这个问题后才作出的这样的修正,不过有一个很简单的方法:在引入universal量词和rule5.6的前提下,把任何包含变量的公理都加上universal量词(这使得我们的公理系统真正成为了一个公理系统,它里面所有的公理都是sentences了!);我想这应该不会对游戏原来的证明过程造成什么严重影响,同时也完全严谨了! 最后提一点建议: 如果可能的话可以加上一个额外的“开放题”,不限制题目,在其中玩家可以任意证明命题,并且在游戏中可以引用其中的结论(就像作者自己也能对题目设置前提一样)。如果这有困难的话,至少也给个biconditional吧!游戏中后期的证明实在是太繁琐了!非专业的玩家不需要这样的数学练习,专业的玩家早就熟悉这样的过程,真的完全没必要复杂这些过程!
This game was nice (even though it was a bit inconvinient) until Chapter 1-4, and when I saw last proposition in Chapter 5, I was really hype about it. But sadly, it's proof was really disappointing for me. It would be really wonderful if definitions and structures this game had constructed in previous chapter collapsed by itself, but definitely it was not the case. I feel like this proposition is a joke and the game betrayed my expectations.
The idea of this game is very interesting, and it is evident that the developer has put in much effort into the game. However, the tutorial is just too bad. It is not the coding element which deters me from playing, but the quality of the tutorial. The arguments in the code are arbitrary and hard to follow. Since this is tutorial, by all means you may use more meaningful names to introduce arguments in a function. For instance, instead of rule2.1(n,k,m,p,q,r), by all means you can write rule2.1(step, target_vertex, key_number, path_to_get_the_key_number, path_to_modified, lock_position). It is extremely annoying to see (n, k, m, p, q, r) every time. Furthermore, based on the renamed arguments above, the sequence of arguments seems also quite arbitrary and not logical.
好玩,这里补充几个有用的小技巧。 1. 输入框可以接受多行文本,不需要一行一行输入。多行文本记得在每条命令的末尾加上英文分号。 2. 可以用-1来引用上一行产生的结果,-n也是同理,在写一些很常用的小组件的时候记得全部采用相对行数来实现。你可以用windows自带的记事本把这些常用的组件记下来。 3. 证明界面的行号是可以点开的,之后可以复制出这行的文本,或者是本题你输入的全部文本。如果你不想用记事本保存组件,那么到时候去之前写过的题目中找一找然后复制出来也是可以的。 4. 所有命令都有官方简写,可以开手册查看,不要耿直地在那里写axiom1和rule1.1了。 5. ctrl+enter的菜单很有用,记得打开确认一下里面有什么,建议勾上r31这类命令优化的选项。 6. 这游戏真不需要什么编程基础,要的只是读一读手册中这几条公理和推理规则怎么用。 可能的优化方向: 1. 需要一个题目纯享模式,或者书签之类的模式。每次切换页面需要从最顶上划拉下来很麻烦,总之就是希望能直接跳转到题目所在的地方。 2. 在证明中加入行标签机制,比如我可以输入#1来引用标签号为1的行,而非纯靠行数和-n这种相对行数来识别行。 3. 引理功能,允许玩家自定义组件,然后直接引用,避免重复工作。 4. 创意工坊。
偶遇逻辑游戏(并非偶遇,并非并非),开放题强如怪物,拼尽全力无法战胜 总体还是支持这款国产可以说是zach-like?的游戏 游玩体验仿佛是被打断了手脚,透过放大镜细品教材的前十几页,后台挂机一题做一天 前三章本章考验你代码熟练度,画个各rule的小图会很有帮助, 第四章打破思维定势证明一些看起来显然的东西 第五章深切体会到了什么叫逻辑是世界的脚手架 第六章彩蛋兼收尾,剩余的点子再加上查漏补缺 建议玩家把常用的代码以模块的形式,找个txt保存一下,能省很多事 缺点也是十分明显,作者自认为习题集,但再稍微包装一下总是更好的。代码几乎没有对推理正向的帮助,草稿完再翻译成代码更有性价比,然而后期一堆括号依然看得头疼。假设里的东西既然不能用,就很需要一个隐藏选项只显示嵌套外的信息 另外捉个可能的小虫,第五章operand第二个示例是否应是operand(operand(step(3),2))
一个测评视频,看了前3分钟买了,两章下来完全合乎期待 建议稍微优化操作,例如空格启动输入新步骤时,仍然需要手点一下输入框,诸如此类小细节,不过无伤大雅 解密图论佳作,玩起来有种马造的设计感(
Related
Related
Trends
Concurrent players on Steam, sampled daily since tracking started.
Momentum
Pace estimated from the game's recent review growth (our daily snapshots) at its own sales-per-review ratio — a momentum signal, not booked sales.
Audience
Estimated from the language of this game's reviews — a proxy for where players are, not official Steam demographics.
Related
| 7 Days to Die | $425.3M | 403.5K | 87% | $44.99 |
| Euro Truck Simulator 2 | $421.6M | 932.1K | 97% | $19.99 |
| Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord | $309.8M | 293.9K | 88% | $49.99 |
| Palworld | $279.6M | 445.8K | 94% | $20.99 |
| Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 | $263.7M | 178K | 95% | $47.99 |
| The Forest | $254.8M | 678.5K | 96% | $19.99 |
Related
| SIGNAL: Uncharted Lands | $4.3K | 54 | 98% | $4.99 |
| Backmooms | $4.3K | 143 | 83% | $1.33 |
| Whisker Waters | $4.3K | 70 | 46% | $2.99 |
| Owl Watch | $4.3K | 135 | 81% | $1.99 |
| 溢爱~fragile love | $4.3K | 124 | 88% | $1.99 |
| Mussoumano: Ataque dos Haters | $4.3K | 62 | 65% | $4.99 |