StrmCkr wrote:I did mean it actually, from the links I sent you in the past regarding the direction muti colour was advancing befor it was renendered obsolete but its premises was their to be equivalent to gem and 3d MEd.
which is the definitions for. Muti colouring I use as it could use muti digits. But I don't have implemented in my Solver as that remains short chains and over sets.(nor was the advanced styles implemented into any solver that I know)
Yes, I remember those discussions, but my point is still the same. Whatever the prehistoric definitions of those techniques might have been, it's mostly irrelevant today. I value your input in explaining the history of various techniques, and I find it interesting, but when discussing current techniques it just confuses people if obsolete or subjective definitions are used as if they were current and popular.
Most prominent sources are in full agreement about what's Simple Coloring, Multi-Coloring, 3D-Medusa, and GEM -- and they're all distinct and easily recognizable coloring techniques by those definitions. Using those crystal-clear definitions makes communication much easier because then there's no ambiguity about what is actually meant. It's just about keeping things simple for current users, even if the history is more complex.
Of course the same idea of multi-coloring can be used for multiple digits as well, but then it shouldn't be called just Multi-Coloring (which is a named and well-known single-digit technique). Similarly, even if non-conjugate links were at some point discussed in the context of 3D Medusa, they shouldn't be included under that name now (as they're covered by GEM, or similar extensions). Names stop having any meaning if they're mixed at will to mean anything.
