Luke451 wrote:Quick work,
aran! I guess what's extreme to one might be trivial to another. If it's not too tedious for you, I have several questions, and I'm only half way through your path!
- Code: Select all
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| 6 145 15 | 158 2 3 | 59 4589 7 |
| 27 9 135 | 1578 145 1578 | 235 6 12348 |
| 27 1345 8 | 9 1456 1567 | 235 2345 1234 |
|----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
| 9 27 4 | 1367 8 167 | 1237 237 5 |
| 3 8 57 | 2 15 4 | 179 79 6 |
| 1 257 6 | 357 9 57 | 8 2347 234 |
|----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
| 8 137 1379 | 156 1356 2 | 4 57 39 |
| 4 6 2379 | 58 35 589 | 57 1 2389 |
| 5 13 1239 | 4 7 189 | 6 238 2389 |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
1. 79r5c89=1r5c7-(1=5)r5c5-(5=7)r5c3-(7=2)r4c2-(27=5)r6c2-(5=7)r6c6 : <7>r6c8
2. 135r125c3=7r5c3-(7=9)r5c8-(79=1)r5c7-(1=5)r5c5-(5=3)r8c5 : <3>r8c3
Steps 1 and 2 make sense to me, but only if I use "chain memory" (all highlights mine.)
3. 24r6c89=3r6c89-(3=57)r6c46-(57=2)r6c2-(2=7)r4c2-(7=5)r5c3- (5=1)r5c5-(67=1)r4c6-(671=3)r4c4-(37=2)r4c8 : <2>r4c7
This sequence lost me. Would you have any problem looking at it like this? (5=1)r5c5-(16)r4c46=(3)r4c4 (mindful of the memory on 7.)
6. 589(r8c46+r9c6)=
i). (1-9)r9c6=(9-8)r8c6=8r2c6-8r2c9=8r1c8
ii). 1r9c6-(1=3)r9c2
=>2r9c8
=>8r9c9
=>3r8c9
=>5r8c5
: <5>r7c45 : placements 5r7c5 7r8c7 + resulting eliminations.
I follow i) and ii) but the vertical notation after that is new to me. I gather that either the (589) group is true or the (3) and (8) are, but can't take that onward to the eliminations.
Hopefully you won't have to spend more time explaining mysteries to me than you did solving the puzzle...
Luke
Delighted to respond to your questions.
Step 1 : Yes that was chain memory of 7r5c3 (5r6c2 placed in the chain results from the immediate previous step 2r4c2 and the one preceding that 7r5c3, which is therefore the "remembered" element : little effort of memory required !).
Step 2 : Yes indeed 7r5c3 is remembered in reaching 1r5c7 in the chain.
It occurs to me here that it might be a good idea to do this in notation involving memory : place first "expected" candidate ie the immediate previous placement, then next the nearest remembered element, and so on. An example will make that clear :
in step 2 : this (7=9)r5c8-(79=1)r5c7 as presented, would become (7=9)r5c8-(97=1)r5c7.
Step 3 : two points here
i : there is a little typo in my chain...this : (5=1)r5c5-(67=1)r4c6 should read (5=1)r5c5-(17=6)r4c6. Mea culpa (will edit after this post). ie 1r5c5 and the remembered 7 from 57r6c46 produce (-17=6)r4c6. This 6r4c6 with remembered 1r5c5 and remembered 7 from 57r4c6 produce 3r4c4
From the foregoing I would now write that as (-617=3) to respect the order of memory recall.
ii : my objection to what you propose is that the memory doesn't appear in the transcription. So far as I know I don't use memory without referring to it in the chain : ie if I am remembering b and c having justed placed a, so as to produce d : then I will always write (-abc=d)
Step 6 :
As you have seen (i) and (ii) are separate strands emanating from 1r9c6. (i) serves first to assist in the placement of 2r9c8 as you have also followed, but also later with 9r8c6.
First of all the logic, then comment on the notation.
Logic : with 1r9c6 and 2r9c8 placed in the chain, 8r9c9 now follows being the only remaining possibilty for 8 in row 9.
We now use 2r8c9+8r9c9+9r8c6 (from the first strand) to establish 3r8c9 which therefore establishes 5r8c5 and we are home ie <5>r7c45 resulting from the strong link now proven 589(r8c46+r9c6)=5r8c5.
As to the notation well I just I thought it was simpler than using chain notation : because
- I would have had to explain that r9c9 was the only place left for 8, which I could have done for example by (-132=9)r9c2-(329=8)r9c9
- then I would have had to remember 2r9c8 from the "current" strand and 9r8c6 from the first strand which I could have done as (-829=3)r8c9 without any reference to the first strand or maybe with an asterisk to remind (-829*=3)r8c9.
The foregoing is not I hope too indigestable.
I consider in any case that step 6 is the best move in the solution even if it does involve two strands (in other words a net, but far from a tortuous one, with a clear objective).