The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[999_Springs]

Could you be more explicit on the following two chains in your solution and what they eliminate?

Code: Select all


r5c2-7(-r5c4)-r5c789=7=hidden pair r46c7-7-r2c7=7=hidden pair r2c89=5=r2c5-5-r4c5-9-r5c4-4-r5c7-1-r5c8, no value for r5c9
hidden pair in c2
r8c2=8
3 is locked in c3b7
r2c7-7(-r7c7)-naked triple r456c7-1-r7c7-2(-r7c5)-r7c1-1(-r4c1)-r7c5-5-r4c5-9(-r5c4)-r4c1-8-r4c7-1-r5c7-4-r5c4-7, no place for 7 in b6


The first chain eliminates 7 from r5c2. It is completely identical to ttt's first move but written in a different way. (I could have started it r5c236-7-...)

The second chain eliminates 7 from r2c7. However, ttt describes a different chain for his second move which eliminates different candidates but with similar effects. I admire greatly the simplicity of his loop compared to mine.
Being completely unfamiliar with nrczt-notation, I describe my second step like this:
7r2c7 creates a triple of 148 in c7 => r7c7=2 => r7c1=1 and r7c5=5 => r4c5=9 (=>r5c4<>9) => r4c1=8 => r4c7=1 => r5c7=4 => r5c4=7 which crashes the puzzle because there is no place for 7 in b6.

[DonM]

ordinarily any puzzle roundabout ER= above 8.6-9.0 can't be solved without a net.

Puzzles upto SER 9.3 can be solved with nrczt-whips - no net is necessary.
And, if you put more complex components in the whips, then you can go much beyond SER 9.3.

I think you know that I was talking about the limits of typical manual solving as we know it on both major forums. I'd be interested in seeing an example of a manually solved ER=9.3 puzzle solved using nrczt-whips.

I don't know what "both" major forums are.
I've already given you references on the sudoku-factory forum, but you seem to be suffering from the NIH syndrome:

Concerning my rules, other human players use them daily and they combine them freely with other rules. See the sudoku-factory forum.

Let's just keep this real. This is a bare handful of people.

Well Denis, I suffer from a lot of syndromes. If NIH was one of them, it would be among the very least.

But, since logic is your thing, let's use logic as our guide. Above, you stated 'Puzzles upto SER 9.3 can be solved with nrczt-whips - no net is necessary.' as a reply to mine having to do with manual solving. It was an absolute, unqualified statement. Yet in my thread on 'Almost Sue De Coq', where I made 'qualified' statements, someone I know demanded concrete examples:

DonM,

You're saying SdC "may" be more frequent than it seems. If you want to raise interest in it, it's your job to prove this or at least to give a more convincing example.

[later in the thread:]
Very good, but where's the better example?

So here's the hardcore logic:
Since it is you who has set the standard as being that an example must be presented to you directly to prove a 'qualified' premise, how can what is nothing more than a reference to a forum, by your own standards, be considered as an adequate example to support your 'unqualified' premise?

[denis_berthier]

DonM, I've no time to waste in sterile bickerings with an immigrant from Eureka. There are tens of examples in the Sudoku-factory forum, section "tactiques": take any of the hard puzzles. As you've always refused to take these guys into consideration, I know you won't do it now.

[DonM]

DonM, I've no time to waste in sterile bickerings with an immigrant from Eureka. There are tens of examples in the Sudoku-factory forum, section "tactiques": take any of the hard puzzles. As you've always refused to take these guys into consideration, I know you won't do it now.

What have you got against immigrants? Where, purchance did you come from? Besides, I was posting on Player's forum under another name long before you arrived and thus, was actually an emigrant to Eureka.

In any event, I have, more than once, checked out the Sudoku-factory forum. I would have to be some sort of sudoku detective to find an example of an ER=9.3 puzzle solved using nrczt-whips. When asked to live up to demands you make of others, you revert to claims of 'sterile bickering' or 'slander'. Personally, I think it's a failure to apply logic...which is supposed to be your strength.

[Glyn]

denis_berthier A quick glance at Sudoku Factory reveals many solutions to puzzles of a high difficulty rating using techniques similar to here, albeit with a different notation. Also there are questions relating to your techniques by other solvers looking through your outputs.
I think the point that people wanted clarification on was that other solvers were using your techniques at Sudoku Factory. Could you point us to a few of these?

[eleven]

I think the point that people wanted clarification on was that other solvers were using your techniques at Sudoku Factory. Could you point us to a few of these?

To speak as a manual sover, i also would be interested in a good sample.
I once tried to understand a xxx- (dont remember the name) chain by Denis. It turned out, that, when developing the chain, one always has to look (only) back at further implications with the cells already visited, a kind of backlooking net.
But that wasn't my way to find chains. So i never tried to find out, what nrczt-whips are. I would need a good sample.

[denis_berthier]

What have you got against immigrants?

You know very well that the problem is Eureka, not immigrants. But such distortion is typical of your Eureka-like behaviour.

Where, purchance did you come from?

I came from 18 months discovering Sudoku, setting up a clear conceptual framework, discovering new rules, and writing a book; and then I wasted a few months on Eureka, which I've definitively left a year ago, because of the heinous atmosphere.

I've known you there and I know you reject in advance anything I write. So why would I waste my time with you?

[denis_berthier]

A quick glance at Sudoku Factory reveals many solutions to puzzles of a high difficulty rating using techniques similar to here, albeit with a different notation.

These techniques are freely mixed with my rules.

I think the point that people wanted clarification on was that other solvers were using your techniques at Sudoku Factory. Could you point us to a few of these?

To get an idea of how human solvers use my rules there, you can look at Caravail's solution of puzzle Extra 274 Hard, SER 9.1, here http://www.sudoku-factory.com/forumsudoku/viewtopic.php?t=934

The notation is awful, but Caravail has adopted my "#" symbol for the additional candidates.
Unfortunately, sometimes he uses it also for <> in the eliminations. But it is not too hard to know the difference.
See also abi's solution of "Extra 269 Hard" here: http://www.sudoku-factory.com/forumsudoku/viewtopic.php?t=914

You can also find many other examples in the "Extra xxx Hard" series.
As I already said, these rules are used in free combination with other rules. And some whips have patterns inserted in them. Thus, you'll get examples not only of the simplest whips but also of the most elaborate ones.

Notice that all the "Extra xxx Hard" puzzles can be solved with nrczt-whips only. I'ven't published all my solutions but I can.
For other nrczt-whips only solution of puzzles at SER upto 9.3 and some 9.4, look at the "fully supersymmetric chains" thread and at my web pages (where I've recently posted the resolution paths for the hardest of the top1485).

[RW]

To get an idea of how human solvers use my rules there, you can look at Caravail's solution of puzzle Extra 274 Hard, SER 9.1, here http://www.sudoku-factory.com/forumsudoku/viewtopic.php?t=934

The notation is awful, but Caravail has adopted my "#" symbol for the additional candidates.[/url]

The solution, the techniques used and the notation looks strikingly similar to this solution that he posted before you even joined that forum. Perhaps you can explain how you introducing your rules has changed his way of solving and what is the difference between his current solutions and those he posted before he knew anything about your rules?

RW

[denis_berthier]

The solution, the techniques used and the notation looks strikingly similar to this solution that he posted before you even joined that forum. Perhaps you can explain how you introducing your rules has changed his way of solving and what is the difference between his current solutions and those he posted before he knew anything about your rules?
RW

The solution you're mentioning is dated 28 Oct. 2007.
It is based on using the t-extension, expressed by the # symbol.
My book, where the t-extension is introduced for the first time, is dated May 2007.
The t-extension has also been disucssed extensively on this forun and on Eureka since June 2007.
Happy?

[RW]

The solution, the techniques used and the notation looks strikingly similar to this solution that he posted before you even joined that forum. Perhaps you can explain how you introducing your rules has changed his way of solving and what is the difference between his current solutions and those he posted before he knew anything about your rules?
RW

The solution you're mentioning is dated 28 Oct. 2007.
It is based on using the t-extension, expressed by the # symbol.
My book, where the t-extension is introduced for the first time, is dated May 2007.
The t-extension has also been disucssed extensively on this forun and on Eureka since June 2007.
Happy?

Sorry Denis, but this time you take it too far! You know just as well as I do that neither caravail nor abi have been influenced the slightest by your rules. Both have been posting similar solutions since before you joined that forum. When you joined and started your 6 pages long thread discussing your book and it's techniques, neither of them showed the slightest interest and neither ever replied in that thread. If they had read your book and had based their solving techniques on your rules, at least a "bonjour, I've read your book" would have been expected. Since then, abi has never replied to any of the threads where you present your techniques and caravail has replied once to translate one of your simple chains to their forum notation in september 2008. At the end of this post he added "is this correct", which hardly would have been necessary if he had studied your works and used your rules for more than a year.

Either you show me a thread where one of the mentioned people says "thanks Denis, I finally understand how to solve a sudoku" or "hey, I found this ncrxtwz-whip", or then you take back your ridiculous false claims that these people are capable of solving hard sudokus thanks to your rules.

RW

[denis_berthier]

The solution, the techniques used and the notation looks strikingly similar to this solution that he posted before you even joined that forum. Perhaps you can explain how you introducing your rules has changed his way of solving and what is the difference between his current solutions and those he posted before he knew anything about your rules?
RW

The solution you're mentioning is dated 28 Oct. 2007.
It is based on using the t-extension, expressed by the # symbol.
My book, where the t-extension is introduced for the first time, is dated May 2007.
The t-extension has also been disucssed extensively on this forun and on Eureka since June 2007.
Happy?

Sorry Denis, but this time you take it too far! You know just as well as I do that neither caravail nor abi have been influenced the slightest by your rules. Both have been posting similar solutions since before you joined that forum.

I don't know who is taking it too far.
Do you suppose French people are too stupid to read English forums?
They knew my rules much before I joined the French forum if only because papyg had explicitly introduced them to Sudoku-factory on 26 July 2007, much before I knew its existence.

Such repeated and deliberately false insinuations are insulting and I formally ask Glyn to do his job as a moderator.

Either you show me a thread where one of the mentioned people says "thanks Denis, I finally understand how to solve a sudoku" or "hey, I found this ncrxtwz-whip", or then you take back your ridiculous false claims that these people are capable of solving hard sudokus thanks to your rules.

You like it or no: they do use my rules.

[RW]

Do you suppose French people are too stupid to read English forums?

Do you suppose people here are too stupid to check the background to your claims just because you direct us to a French forum?

They knew my rules much before I joined the French forum if only because papyg had explicitly introduced them to Sudoku-factory on 26 July 2007, much before I knew its existence.

From what I can see, they were posting similar solutions prior to that. Your rules have been introduced here as well, but you still can't claim that anyone who uses something remotely similar is using your rules.

Such repeated and deliberately false insinuations are insulting and I formally ask Glyn to do his job as a moderator.

I have given you very good reasons to why I doubt your word on this one, based on factual information (since you seem to like that word) which I can find in the forum you directed us too. You have shown us none of that. Your argumentation, as usual, goes like this:

You like it or no: they do use my rules.

Denis, I'm sure what they are doing could be described by your rules. But that is entirely different from them using your rules. Just because Newton described the theory of gravity, it doesn't mean that the apple falls thanks to him. Every single elimination you have ever made can also be described by the solving techniques I have developed for myself, but I still don't claim that you are using my techniques. If you could just lighten up a bit on your attitude and stop portraying yourself as some kind of Messiah who comes here to save the world from the sin of T&E and false logic, then I'm sure your rules would be taken a lot more seriously as well.

RW

[denis_berthier]

They knew my rules much before I joined the French forum if only because papyg had explicitly introduced them to Sudoku-factory on 26 July 2007, much before I knew its existence.

From what I can see, they were posting similar solutions prior to that.

ONCE MORE, YOU'RE PROVIDING DELIBERATELY FALSE INFORMATION. TO KEEP FACTUAL, WHERE DO YOU SEE THAT?

All the factual information is available here:
http://www.sudoku-factory.com/forumsudoku/viewtopic.php?t=676&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=f39b18e1eb07730e40954bf983ea43f8

Anyone can see the people there discussing how the xyt-chain rule can be interpreted, such as: "can the t-candidates be eliminated?" Certainly a proof that they knew the rule before?
They also discuss how to adapt their notation to take the t-candidates into account and they finally decide to use my # notation.

[DonM]

You know very well that the problem is Eureka, not immigrants. But such distortion is typical of your Eureka-like behaviour.

Where, purchance did you come from?

I came from 18 months discovering Sudoku, setting up a clear conceptual framework, discovering new rules, and writing a book; and then I wasted a few months on Eureka, which I've definitively left a year ago, because of the heinous atmosphere.

I've known you there and I know you reject in advance anything I write. So why would I waste my time with you?

Let's cut to the chase here Denis. The thing about internet forums is that one's record, good or bad, is set down for everyone to see. When it comes to Eureka, no one spent more time than I helping direct it from dissension back to the subject of healthy solving and discussion of same.

Likewise, the record will show that rather than my rejecting everything that you write, I have called some of your work here and at Eureka 'brilliant if not ingenious'. I don't use those terms lightly. The problem is two-fold: First, you work is heavy on the theory and mathematical and relies totally on computer solver output for examples. That's not the problem- make no mistake, as I've said more than once, your methods are original and have value & obviously a number of people are interested in that subject, all the more power to you and to them. The problem is that you often, directly or indirectly extrapolate your data to relate to human solving and make statements to the effect without anything to remotely prove that application, other than broad references to another forum. That is what I call you on, pure and simple.

The second problem: It is inconsistent to rail against someone who is merely asking you to meet the demands you make of others for examples, proof, precision and perfection when at the same time you are calling points that others are making 'absurd' and 'nonsense'.