The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[swaatacba]

This is continuation of the series of posts that I have published. In this case the description of the model is fairly detailed. Sadly it illustrates how handling spatially oriented, non-numeric data (the Sudoku puzzle) can get very long winded. Despite that, I found it an interesting exercise.

https://swaatacba.blogspot.com/2019/06/sudoku-naked-multiples-in-excel.html

[SpAce]

Just one slightly off-topic comment about your expert recommendations:

The concept of naked pairs, triples, quods etc and how they operate in Sudoku is best explained by experts. I suggest Hodoku or Kristanix. The web sites address the issues from slightly different perspectives but both are very clear.

Hodoku is an awesome source, of course, even probably the best there is, but I don't see any reason to recommend the other one. I'd never heard of it before but it seems pretty awful, definitely not improving anything Hodoku has to say (even on this minor topic).

On other topics it's getting even funny. For example, its "Block/Block Interaction" is actually depicting a Franken X-Wing which is a pretty complicated way to describe a simple claiming (line\box interaction) -- though practicable as a spotting aid. Its Swordfish example is outright incorrect in many ways. First, it's claiming "some puzzles can only be solved with it" (almost never true about any single technique), two, it's depicting a Jellyfish (instead of a Swordfish), three, it's claiming it needs to be a chain (not true). Definitely not an expert source!

[swaatacba]

Hodoku is an awesome source, of course, even probably the best there is, but I don't see any reason to recommend the other one.

I agree that Kristanix is eccentric. Your criticisms are certainly cogent, but, if everybody simply ignored arguments that we did not like, we would miss out on some fundamental truths.

That is certainly true of my modelling approach in Excel, even if it adds very little to our understanding of Sudoku.

[SpAce]

I agree that Kristanix is eccentric. Your criticisms are certainly cogent, but, if everybody simply ignored arguments that we did not like, we would miss out on some fundamental truths.

I fully agree, which is why I didn't ignore anything. I investigated with an open mind, didn't I? In fact, I was hoping to see a site with some novel ideas about presenting sudoku techniques (though unlikely at this stage), but I can't say I did. Instead I saw a source with very little information, and even that containing several mistakes (not to mention non-standard terminology) that would confuse newcomers. To me it revealed a lack of understanding of certain fundamentals instead of a different but valid point of view. That's why I didn't see why you chose to mention it next to Hodoku. There are several sites that actually do complement the information on Hodoku with additional techniques, completely different solving paradigms, more intuitive presentations, or bits of missing insights -- though none besting it as a whole, imho. I just didn't see any such value-add here, but you're welcome to point out what I possibly missed.

Like I said, I fully agree with the principle, though. When I'm learning a new subject I try to digest as many different sources as possible because it usually gives a more complete picture and deeper understanding than just one, even if that one happens to be the best in general. Even incorrect or poorly presented information is sometimes a good teacher -- as long as you have the ability to eventually judge it to be so. When you habitually browse several sources, you also develop skills to recognize useful ones (and their opposites) quite quickly. Some of the best sources for developing expert skills can be quite unwelcoming in appearance, while some attractive presentations can teach complete falsehoods.

That is certainly true of my modelling approach in Excel, even if it adds very little to our understanding of Sudoku.

Sure, I didn't say anything about that. I'm not one to dismiss ideas just because they're different from the norm or what I personally prefer. In fact, I welcome them. Keep working on yours, and you may discover something that others haven't. At least one of the gurus on this site (David P Bird) has used Excel almost exclusively and very effectively, so it's certainly an approach that can work.

[swaatacba]

Perhaps, I should confess that I began looking a Sudoku (about 10 years ago) as vehicle for promoting my company software which was built in Excel. I have now retired so the promotional element has disappeared.

The techniques for solving Sudoku appear fully developed, modelling them in a vehicle like a spreadsheet have not.

The spreadsheet environment can be designed to do two things both get the right answer and demonstrate why you have got the right answer. To my chagrin, the demonstration element is often ignored or deemed to be superfluous. I tend to reverse the logic and ask a question. Why are you using a spreadsheet if it is not to demonstrate the validity of your logic, especially, since there are other products (like databases) which could do the job more effectively and without the need to expose your logic.

I tend to use expert sources to improve my understanding of the logic processes in Sudoku and hence make a better fist of demonstrating them