almost-almost-locked sets -- and around we go

Advanced methods and approaches for solving Sudoku puzzles

almost-almost-locked sets -- and around we go

Postby Bob Hanson » Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:10 pm

Sorry for the storm of threads. I just have to get this out of me.

FINALLY, in my original posting I suggested that "m" (the difference
between the number of candidates and the number of cells) could be
greater than 1, but then I retracted that. Now I put it in again.

Consider the simple cell

{168}

I suggest that that's "almost almost locked." If it were "16" or "18" or "68"
it would be almost locked. This is almost that.

If forcing 2 weak links to an almost-locked set causes a logical
inconsistency, then I suggest that passing 3 weak links to an
almost-almost-locked set also forces a logical inconsistency.

That is, in general, we might say a set of cells is "(almost)m-locked"
where m=1 is bennys's idea. But m could be larger. {168} would be
an example of an (almost)2-locked set.

How could that play into logical testing?
Well, all you need is something like this:

Code: Select all
           1....1
          /     \\
 2*...2--A       B==6
  6       \     //  .
   \       8....8   .
    \               .
     ---------------6

The starred 2 can be eliminated.
Having it TRUE would force both A1 and A8 TRUE, but
they are weakly linked to B, which by themselves would
force B to be 6. But we have an end-around here -- very
common in Sudoku -- via a short 3D chain consisting of
a conjugate pair and a 2-valued cell.

Now, the fact is, in all Sudoku the solution is right there. One simply
needs to find it. Like a maze for which we (presumably) know that there
is an exit and a way to it. I can write a very simple program to solve
a maze. The rule is this: always turn left. The result, of course, is a lot of
backtracking (literally). But you get out of the maze.

The same is true for Sudoku. If you don't want to use backtracking,
though, there are tricks. We call them methods. I suggest that if you
look at any Sudoku puzzle, all cells will be (almost)n-locked. (That's
pretty obvious, of course.) The logic is all there, too, though. SOME
route like this will indicate that ALL non-solution candidates can be
eliminated. The entire thing could be stated in terms of
(almost)n-locked sets.

At some point I hope to introduce almost-locked sets in Sudoku Assistant.
(http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr/sudoku). It's not terribly difficult --
the machinery is all there to find them -- but I've spent far too long on this
thought already. Someday....
Bob Hanson
 
Posts: 75
Joined: 04 December 2005

Postby bennys » Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:01 pm

First regarding almost almost locked I thought about it but couldn't find in English good name for the m (something like liberty level maybe?)

Second i don't think it will solve all puzzles because it could be that you will not find a cell that will create "immediate" contradiction even in terms of sets.
bennys
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 28 September 2005

Postby Bob Hanson » Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:17 pm

m might be thought of as the "degrees of freedom" or "candidate excess"

Since trial and error ultimately solves all Sudoku, and since this method constitutes digging "deeper" into the trial and error cycle, I think it's conceivable that it really sums up all standard methods. I'm certain that adding to Sudoku Assistant, which finds ALL basic forced-logic conditions and then iterates through trial and error will go farther faster with this addition. I'd almost make a bet that it can be proven that all standard methods can be expressed in this format, and if you add (almost)n, that gives the depth as well. What's left?
Bob Hanson
 
Posts: 75
Joined: 04 December 2005

Postby bennys » Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:32 pm

I like degrees of freedom.
The problem with trial and error is that you could pick lets say 4 in some cell but when you will try all the forced moves even 'sets forced' it could be that you will get stuck and will need to pick values again.
bennys
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 28 September 2005

Postby rubylips » Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:17 am

I've used overspill in my source code. It's not as scientific as degrees of freedom but has the advantage that it's just a single word.
rubylips
 
Posts: 149
Joined: 01 November 2005

Postby Bob Hanson » Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:27 am

bennys wrote:I like degrees of freedom.
The problem with trial and error is that you could pick lets say 4 in some cell but when you will try all the forced moves even 'sets forced' it could be that you will get stuck and will need to pick values again.


right, but in principle (only) one could imagine continuing to increase m higher and higher. maybe not....
Bob Hanson
 
Posts: 75
Joined: 04 December 2005


Return to Advanced solving techniques