Please can someone post them?StrmCkr wrote:they where published on a sub link... i dont see it either... werid..
Challenge: New set of 11 'Unsolvables'
by ronk » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:57 am
Michael Mepham "Unsolveables" (sic) #23 thru #33:
Wonder if they had to restore the site ... or have withdrawn the puzzles.
- Code: Select all
#23
...8.21...6..4..5.1......72..59.67......8......13.48..25......1.1..3..9...34.1...
#24
6...8...5.4...128..8.....6...7..23.....5.8.....17......6.....4...43...2.3...9...6
#25
4...1...56..2.7..4......1...4.9...6...2.5.8...9...4.....7......8..5.1..31...6...8
#26
.26...9....5.6.4.....9.7...9..1....5.4....28.5....3..4...6.2.....9.5.7....1...85.
#27
.....1...4..9.8..5..2...6.8.3..5..71.8.....6..7..9..8.3.9...4..6..4.5..7...2.....
#28
..5...8...7.3...1.8..1.5..96......74...2.6...29......83....4..1.1...9.4...6...3..
#29
.....8.6.19.....7...5.2.4..93.....4....2.7....6.....89..3.7.8...5.....26.1.3.....
#30
.5.....6...4.2.3..9...4...5.96...5.....4.8.....5...13.7...6.2.3..2.1.9...3.....7.
#31
....5.....4.2.8.9...7.6.4.2.8.....7.7.6...2.5.5.....4.3.8.2.1...7.9.1.......3....
#32
9...1...3...4.7.....1.5.6...23...49.5.......8..8...72...6.4.5.....1.8...4...9...1
#33
.1.....5.7.8........26.83..9..3.5..7.........8..4.2..6..97.12....3...4...8.....9.
Wonder if they had to restore the site ... or have withdrawn the puzzles.
- ronk
- 2012 Supporter
- Posts: 4764
- Joined: 02 November 2005
- Location: Southeastern USA
re: Michael Mepham's "unsolvable" #23-33
by Pat » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:03 pm
#23-33 were available at
www.sudoku.Org.UK/bifurcation.htm { broken link }
and have now vanished from there;
they are { were -- at the time of the post } still available at the following link --
www.sudoku.Org.UK/unsolvablesSep06.txt { broken link }
www.sudoku.Org.UK/bifurcation.htm { broken link }
and have now vanished from there;
they are { were -- at the time of the post } still available at the following link --
www.sudoku.Org.UK/unsolvablesSep06.txt { broken link }
Michael Mepham wrote:
...8.21...6..4..5.1......72..59.67......8......13.48..25......1.1..3..9...34.1...
6...8...5.4...128..8.....6...7..23.....5.8.....17......6.....4...43...2.3...9...6
4...1...56..2.7..4......1...4.9...6...2.5.8...9...4.....7......8..5.1..31...6...8
.26...9....5.6.4.....9.7...9..1....5.4....28.5....3..4...6.2.....9.5.7....1...85.
.....1...4..9.8..5..2...6.8.3..5..71.8.....6..7..9..8.3.9...4..6..4.5..7...2.....
..5...8...7.3...1.8..1.5..96......74...2.6...29......83....4..1.1...9.4...6...3..
.....8.6.19.....7...5.2.4..93.....4....2.7....6.....89..3.7.8...5.....26.1.3.....
.5.....6...4.2.3..9...4...5.96...5.....4.8.....5...13.7...6.2.3..2.1.9...3.....7.
....5.....4.2.8.9...7.6.4.2.8.....7.7.6...2.5.5.....4.3.8.2.1...7.9.1.......3....
9...1...3...4.7.....1.5.6...23...49.5.......8..8...72...6.4.5.....1.8...4...9...1
.1.....5.7.8........26.83..9..3.5..7.........8..4.2..6..97.12....3...4...8.....9.
-
Pat - Posts: 4056
- Joined: 18 July 2005
Re: Unsolvable #33
by ravel » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:51 pm
As expected, none of the puzzles needed more than 3 brute force steps (i.e. contradiction chains). The hardest seems to be the last one (#33), where my program only found one way for 3 steps, the first 2 being very long - r1c7<>6 or r2c2<>6 and r3c8<>7. Then the puzzle solves with UR1 and BUG+1.
1. ? a7, (SSTS), ?? -a7
2. ? c8, (SSTS), ?? -c8
3. ? a1, (SSTS), ?? -a1
Looks good, but to write out the first 2 steps would become very long and complicated, so i would prefer another solution with shorter steps.
This is not true, you can find it in many published solutions in this forum by Carcul and others. See here for a recent sample, where Carcul solved a puzzle by pointing out a contradiction when even 2 candidates are eliminated.
Applying this notation, a solution could be written asgurth wrote:When I use a forcing net, starting with a candidate x such as 5e4 and proceeding by SSTS to a contradiction, I am not going to list the SSTS steps, I am merely going to state " ? 5e4, (SSTS), ?? -5e4."
1. ? a7, (SSTS), ?? -a7
2. ? c8, (SSTS), ?? -c8
3. ? a1, (SSTS), ?? -a1
Looks good, but to write out the first 2 steps would become very long and complicated, so i would prefer another solution with shorter steps.
What is *not* customarily done (nor ever, as far as I have seen!) is to *eliminate* a candidate in some cell and then prove a contradiction, thus allowing *placement* of the eliminated candidate !!!
Why is it not customarily done? For no good reason. Simply because nobody has thought of doing it.
This is not true, you can find it in many published solutions in this forum by Carcul and others. See here for a recent sample, where Carcul solved a puzzle by pointing out a contradiction when even 2 candidates are eliminated.
- ravel
- Posts: 998
- Joined: 21 February 2006
by Carcul » Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:02 pm
Gurth wrote:What is *not* customarily done (nor ever, as far as I have seen!) is to *eliminate* a candidate in some cell and then prove a contradiction, thus allowing *placement* of the eliminated candidate!!!
As Ravel pointed, I have been doing that in the past 7 months. However, its generally much more harder to prove that a candidate must be in a given cell than to prove that a candidate cannot be in a cell, specially in very hard puzzles, or if you are trying to solve a puzzle in a single step. For example, in the hardest puzzles from Henk Collection, if you want to solve them in a single step you almost certainly have to prove that a certain candidate must be in a given cell, not the other way around, and that is often harder than solving the puzzle. Unfortunately, I think that is the main path to reach magic cells.
Carcul
- Carcul
- Posts: 724
- Joined: 04 November 2005
by gsf » Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:37 pm
bob hanson mentioned this in his hypothesis/(dis)proof posts and documentation circa dec 2005
solver documentation
solver documentation
- gsf
- 2014 Supporter
- Posts: 7306
- Joined: 21 September 2005
- Location: NJ USA
Unsolvables #27 and #28
by gurth » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:23 am
Unsolvable #27 solved by Forcing Nets
(1) SSTS.
(2) ? 6k9, SSTS, ?? -6k9, 6g9, SSTS.
(3) ? 7a1, SSTS, ?? -7a1.
(4) ? 7k3, SSTS, ?? -7k3, 7k1, Singles to End.
Unsolvable #28 solved by finding a Ruby
(1) (GET) ? -2b3, SSTS, ?? 2b3. Then, but for one naked pair, it's singles all the way! A magnificent Ruby!
I first defined the concept "Ruby" in GeneralPuzzles - G910,A Pearl. In brief, a Ruby is a cell, at the start, containing more than 2 candidates, where the elimination of one candidate (GET) leads to a contradiction, thus placing that candidate, which in turn leads to immediate solution of the puzzle by simple techniques.
The value of the Ruby being proportionate to
(1) The number of candidates in the Ruby Cell, and
(2) The SIMPLICITY of the techniques needed to solve the puzzle once the Ruby Candidate is placed. Singles only being obviously the best.
Whereas pearls make a problem harder, rubies make it easier - if you can find them ! But they ARE things of beauty, so composers should be generous with them.
(1) SSTS.
(2) ? 6k9, SSTS, ?? -6k9, 6g9, SSTS.
(3) ? 7a1, SSTS, ?? -7a1.
(4) ? 7k3, SSTS, ?? -7k3, 7k1, Singles to End.
Unsolvable #28 solved by finding a Ruby
(1) (GET) ? -2b3, SSTS, ?? 2b3. Then, but for one naked pair, it's singles all the way! A magnificent Ruby!
I first defined the concept "Ruby" in GeneralPuzzles - G910,A Pearl. In brief, a Ruby is a cell, at the start, containing more than 2 candidates, where the elimination of one candidate (GET) leads to a contradiction, thus placing that candidate, which in turn leads to immediate solution of the puzzle by simple techniques.
The value of the Ruby being proportionate to
(1) The number of candidates in the Ruby Cell, and
(2) The SIMPLICITY of the techniques needed to solve the puzzle once the Ruby Candidate is placed. Singles only being obviously the best.
Whereas pearls make a problem harder, rubies make it easier - if you can find them ! But they ARE things of beauty, so composers should be generous with them.
- gurth
- Posts: 358
- Joined: 11 February 2006
- Location: Cape Town, South Africa
GET and GMET
by gurth » Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:14 am
GET and GMET:
My remarks have been quoted out of context. Both in my Prologue and in my exposition of GET, I specifically set my definition within the confines of Forcing Net techniques.
"When I use a forcing net", I said. Later, I said : "As usual, I concentrate on developing the technique of Forcing Nets. HERE I have one novel technique to offer !". (I have taken the liberty of capitalising the relevant word.)
And finally, I said :
"When "bifurcating" to start a Forcing Net, it is customary to *place* a candidate in some cell and then prove a contradiction, thus allowing elimination of the placed candidate.
What is *not* customarily done (nor ever, as far as I have seen!) is to *eliminate* a candidate in some cell and then prove a contradiction, thus allowing *placement* of the eliminated candidate !!!
Why is it not customarily done? For no good reason. Simply because nobody has thought of doing it."
Quite clearly, I was referring to "customary" practices in FORCING NETS.
So it is beside the point to offer me examples of candidate elimination in the domains of AIC, Forcing Chains and Nice Loops. I am well aware that in AIC, the majority of chains in fact start with a strong inference, i.e. the assumption of a false candidate.
I am trying to develop and encourage the use of Forcing Nets, which seem to be avoided and eschewed by Carcul.
I regard a Forcing Chain, or Nice Loop, as a one-dimensional, limited, blinkered version of a Forcing Net. It restricts itself arbitrarily as to what deductions "may" be made, and so ends up much less powerful, and much more difficult to spot and use, than a Forcing Net.
Which I regard as making a virtue of inefficiency.
My remarks have been quoted out of context. Both in my Prologue and in my exposition of GET, I specifically set my definition within the confines of Forcing Net techniques.
"When I use a forcing net", I said. Later, I said : "As usual, I concentrate on developing the technique of Forcing Nets. HERE I have one novel technique to offer !". (I have taken the liberty of capitalising the relevant word.)
And finally, I said :
"When "bifurcating" to start a Forcing Net, it is customary to *place* a candidate in some cell and then prove a contradiction, thus allowing elimination of the placed candidate.
What is *not* customarily done (nor ever, as far as I have seen!) is to *eliminate* a candidate in some cell and then prove a contradiction, thus allowing *placement* of the eliminated candidate !!!
Why is it not customarily done? For no good reason. Simply because nobody has thought of doing it."
Quite clearly, I was referring to "customary" practices in FORCING NETS.
So it is beside the point to offer me examples of candidate elimination in the domains of AIC, Forcing Chains and Nice Loops. I am well aware that in AIC, the majority of chains in fact start with a strong inference, i.e. the assumption of a false candidate.
I am trying to develop and encourage the use of Forcing Nets, which seem to be avoided and eschewed by Carcul.
I regard a Forcing Chain, or Nice Loop, as a one-dimensional, limited, blinkered version of a Forcing Net. It restricts itself arbitrarily as to what deductions "may" be made, and so ends up much less powerful, and much more difficult to spot and use, than a Forcing Net.
Which I regard as making a virtue of inefficiency.
- gurth
- Posts: 358
- Joined: 11 February 2006
- Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Unsolvable #29, with GARNET
by gurth » Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:18 am
Unsolvable #29 solved by Forcing Nets, including GET :
(1) SSTS.
(2) ? -2k6, SINGLES ONLY, ?? 2k6. (Here I was trying for a magnificent Ruby, but it was not to be.)
(3) ? 7c2, SSTS, ?? -7c2, 8c2, SSTS.
(4) ? -3a9, SINGLES ONLY, ?? 3a9, SINGLES ONLY TO SOLUTION.
This step, had it occurred at the start, would have been a fantastic Ruby.
Although it is not a Ruby, as it does not occur at the start, still I think it is remarkable and pleasing enough to deserve a name. So I name it, in my hierarchy of jewels, a GARNET.
FORMAL DEFINITION :
A GARNET is in all respects like a Ruby, except that it need not occur immediately, at the start of a puzzle.
(1) SSTS.
(2) ? -2k6, SINGLES ONLY, ?? 2k6. (Here I was trying for a magnificent Ruby, but it was not to be.)
(3) ? 7c2, SSTS, ?? -7c2, 8c2, SSTS.
(4) ? -3a9, SINGLES ONLY, ?? 3a9, SINGLES ONLY TO SOLUTION.
This step, had it occurred at the start, would have been a fantastic Ruby.
Although it is not a Ruby, as it does not occur at the start, still I think it is remarkable and pleasing enough to deserve a name. So I name it, in my hierarchy of jewels, a GARNET.
FORMAL DEFINITION :
A GARNET is in all respects like a Ruby, except that it need not occur immediately, at the start of a puzzle.
- gurth
- Posts: 358
- Joined: 11 February 2006
- Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Re: GET and GMET
by Myth Jellies » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:23 am
gurth wrote:I am well aware that in AIC, the majority of chains in fact start with a strong inference, i.e. the assumption of a false candidate.
This assumption absolutely not true.
An AIC does have strong inferences on the endpoints.
The preferred way of defining a strong inference between two candidates is to note that at least one of the candidates must be true.
Of course, an equivalent way of saying that is: for a strong inference to exist between A and B, the implication, "If (not A) then B" must hold true.
However, one can note that a strong implication is valid without ever assuming any of the candidates involved is either true or false. One only has to note that the options given in the premises span the gamut of all possible options. When I have a cell containing only the candidates 'a' and 'b', then I can safely write "a = b" (i.e. 'a' is strongly linked to 'b') without ever assuming that either 'a' or 'b' was false.
AIC's make deductions based upon the relationship of these strong and weak inferences to each other and never assumes anything about any of the candidates or candidate premises. Bifurcation is not involved at all.
- Myth Jellies
- Posts: 593
- Joined: 19 September 2005
Re: GET and GMET
by ravel » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:25 am
gurth wrote:Quite clearly, I was referring to "customary" practices in FORCING NETS.
So it is beside the point to offer me examples of candidate elimination in the domains of AIC, Forcing Chains and Nice Loops.
Hi Gurth,
we should not mix (the logic behind) techniques and notations. We now, that (regarding the proof for an elimination or placement of candidates) all AIC's and nice loops can be expressed with chains also and vice versa each forcing net can be expressed as nice loop or - i believe - as AIC ( i once did it for a complicated one).
Each notation has its advantages and drawbacks.
Of course a technique that already was used and denoted in NLN or AIC, cannot be claimed to be new, when formulated in forcing nets.
- ravel
- Posts: 998
- Joined: 21 February 2006
Puzzle 33: another solution
by Carcul » Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:35 am
- Code: Select all
*------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| 346 1 46 | 29 23479 3479 | 6789 5 2489 |
| 7 34569 8 | 1259 123459 349 | 169 1246 1249 |
| 45 459 2 | 6 14579 8 | 3 147 149 |
|-------------------------+------------------------+---------------------------|
| 9 246 146 | 3 168 5 | 18 1248 7 |
| 123456 234567 14567 | 189 16789 679 | 1589 12348 1234589 |
| 8 357 157 | 4 179 2 | 159 13 6 |
|-------------------------+------------------------+---------------------------|
| 456 456 9 | 7 34568 1 | 2 368 358 |
| 1256 2567 3 | 2589 25689 69 | 4 1678 158 |
| 12456 8 14567 | 25 23456 346 | 1567 9 135 |
*------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
1. [r9c7]=7=[r1c7]=8=[r1c9]-8-[r789c9]-1,5-[r9c7], => r9c7<>1,5.
2. [r5c9]-1,3-[r4c7|r6c8]-8-[r1c7]=8=[r1c9]-8-[r789c9]-1,3-[r5c9], => r5c9<>1,3.
3. [r5c1](-1-[r5c4]=1=[r2c4]-1-[r3c5])(-1-[r6c3])-1-[r8c1]=1=[X-Wing:
r38c89]-1-[r6c8]-3-[r6c23]-5,7-[r145c3]-1-[r5c1], => r5c1<>1.
4. Consider the following sets of cells:
A = r19c3
A' = r149c3
B = r56c3
C = r4c7/r6c8
D = r56c7
E = r4c57
F = r58c6
G = r1c136
Consider also T = r1c7 as our target cell. Ok. Let's now suppose that r9c3 is not 5,7. Then:
-5,7-[r9c3]{=7=[r9c7](-7-[r8c8])-7-[T]}{[A locked on 4,6]-[r4c3=1]-
-[E locked on 6,8]-6-[r5c6]}-[A' locked on 1,4,6]-[B locked on 5,7]-
-[r6c2=3]-[C locked on 1,8](-8-[T])([D locked on 5,9]-9-[T])(-1-[r3c8])-
-1-[r8c8]=1=[r89c9]-1-[r3c9]=1=[r3c5]-1-[r2c4]=1=[r5c4]=8=[r8c4]-8-
-[r8c8]-6-[r8c6]-[F locked on 7,9]-[G locked on 3,4,6]-6-[T]
So, r9c3<>4,6.
5. [r7c8]-6-[r7c12]-5-[r9c3]-7-[r9c7]-6-[r7c8], => r7c8<>6.
6. [r1c9]=8=[r1c7]=7=[r9c7]-7-[r9c3]-5-[r9c4]-2-[r1c4]-9-[r1c79],
=> r1c7/r1c9<>9.
7. Consider now T = r5c4:
[r9c6]{-6-[r58c6](-7-[r5c3])-7,9-[r1c136]-6-[r1c7]}-6-[r9c7]{-7-[r9c3]
(=7=[r6c3])-5-[r9c4]-2-[r1c4]-9-[T]}-7-[r1c7]-8-[r4c7](-1-[r6c78]=1=
=[r6c5]-1-[T])=8=[r4c5]-8-[T], => r9c6<>6.
8. [r2c7](-1-[r2c4]=1=[r5c4]-1-[r4c5])-1-[r4c7]-8-[r4c5]-6-[r5c6]=6=
=[r8c6]-6-[r8c8]-7-[r3c8]-1-[r2c7], => r2c7<>1.
9. [r9c7]=7=[r1c7]-7-[r1c6]-9-[r1c4]-2-[r9c4]-5-[r9c3]-7-[r9c7],
=> r1c5<>7,9; r2c4/r8c4<>2; r9c1/r9c5/r9c9<>5.
10. [r3c2]=9=[r3c9]-9-[r2c7]-6-[r9c7]-7-[r9c3]=7=[r8c2]-7-[r6c2]-5-
-[r3c2], => r3c2<>5.
11. =6=[r5c6](-6-[r4c5])=7=[r1c6]{-7-[r2c4|r3c5](-1,5-[r2c5])-1-[r4c5]
=1=[r4c7]-1-[r6c7]}-7-[r1c7]=7=[r9c7]-7-[r9c3]{-5-[r7c12|r9c4]-2,4,6-
-[r9c1]-1-[r9c9]-3-[r7c9]=3=[r7c5]-3-[r12c5]=3=[r2c6]-3-[r2c2]}-5-
-[r5c3]=5=[r5c7]-5-[r6c7]-9-[r2c7](-6-[r2c2])-6-[r1c7]-8-[r1c9]-{TIUR},
=> r5c6<>6.
12. Now we have r4c3=4 or r5c3=4, and r7c1=4 or r4c2/r5c2=4. So, r7c1=4 and that solves the puzzle.
Carcul
- Carcul
- Posts: 724
- Joined: 04 November 2005
by Mike Barker » Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:14 am
The Sudoku Unification Method was developed a week ago here. Basically it defines a set of Restricted Subsets (RS - cells, houses, fish, URs, BUGs, ALS, etc) and uses as set of linking elements (direct replacement, direct links, bivalues, stong links, grouped strong links, and ALS) to connect the RS to a Candidate Exclusion Cells (CEC) such that a candidate in the CEC must be false in order to avoid a contradiction condition (CC) in the RS (an empty cell, multivalued cell, incomplete house, incomplete ALS, incomplete covering set, etc.) The SUM approach predicts several new solving techinques. I've implemented several of them. The simplest is the Kraken Blossom which uses a cell as the RS with the no valid candidates in the cell as the CC. This is similar to Death Blossom except that strong links are used in addition to ALS. The Kraken House uses a row, column, or box as the RS and an incomplete house as the contradiction condition. When used with bivalues and strong links these can be used effectively to solve intermediate puzzles (see here). I have also updated the Kraken Fish to use the SUM approach (RS=fish=a digit in n rows or columns, CC=incomplete covering set). In addition, I've added a Kraken Unique Rectangle (RS=UR, CC=deadly pattern).
More advanced problems can be addressed using ALS as a linking element. With this addition, U#25 was solved with a Kraken Cell (Death Blossom) and U#27 with a Kraken Fish. In the examples to date, there has been a single link between the RS and the CEC. In fact, the link between them can be larger. By allowing two links between the RS and the CEC, U#24 can be solved. Here is one solution. There is lots more work required to find the simplest SUM approach, but this at least verifies its effectiveness to address more difficult problems in a logical manner.
Since I first published this solution, I've expanded fish to include Endofins (Obi-Wahns extension to allow fish where two of the base sets include a common cell), so unlike the previous solution this one includes an Endofin Mutant Swordfish. Its not necessary, but for those interested in different solving techniques kind of a fun elimination. The real work horse here is the Kraken Blossom.
More advanced problems can be addressed using ALS as a linking element. With this addition, U#25 was solved with a Kraken Cell (Death Blossom) and U#27 with a Kraken Fish. In the examples to date, there has been a single link between the RS and the CEC. In fact, the link between them can be larger. By allowing two links between the RS and the CEC, U#24 can be solved. Here is one solution. There is lots more work required to find the simplest SUM approach, but this at least verifies its effectiveness to address more difficult problems in a logical manner.
Since I first published this solution, I've expanded fish to include Endofins (Obi-Wahns extension to allow fish where two of the base sets include a common cell), so unlike the previous solution this one includes an Endofin Mutant Swordfish. Its not necessary, but for those interested in different solving techniques kind of a fun elimination. The real work horse here is the Kraken Blossom.
- 1) Naked Single (40)
2) Hidden Single (17)
3) Locked Line/Box (6)
4) Locked Box/Box (3)
5) 4-valued/2-link Kraken Unit (3)
6) Naked Pair (2)
7) UR+2(X,D,B)/1SL (Type 4,...) (2)
8) Nice Loops with 3 Strong Links/BV Cells (2)
9) Grouped Nice Loops with 4 GSL/ALS (2)
10) A=2 cell ALS-xz rule (2)
11) Finned X-wing (1)
12) Finned Swordfish (1)
13) Mutant Swordfish (1)
14) UR+3(X,C,N,U,E)/2SL (1)
15) UR+4(x,X)/2SL, UR+4(x,X)/1SL (1)
16) Advanced BUG-Lite with 2 lines (1)
17) Advanced Colouring with 6 Links (1)
18) Nice Loops with 4 Strong Links/BV Cells (1)
19) Nice Loops with 5 Strong Links/BV Cells (1)
20) Strong Nice Loops with 5 GSL/BV Cells (1)
21) Grouped Nice Loops with 3 GSL/ALS (1)
22) B=2 cell ALS-xy rule (1)
23) 3-valued/2-link Kraken Blossom (1)
24) 4-valued/2-link Kraken Blossom (1)
- Code: Select all
Locked Column Line/Box: r46c1 => r78c1<>8
Locked Column Line/Box: r46c8 => r9c8<>5
Locked Column Line/Box: r46c9 => r8c9<>8
Locked Column Box/Box: r137c7|r238c9 => r5c7<>9,r456c9<>9
UR+2D/1SL (5,9): r46c28 => r6c2<>5
Column Finned Swordfish: r2379c3|r379c6|r79c7 => r3c1<>5
3-element Nice Loop: r6c8=5=r6c1-5-r4c2-9-r4c4=9=r6c6~9~r6c8 => r6c8<>9
5-element Strong Nice Loop: r4c2-9-r4c4=9=r6c6=3=r3c6=5=r23c5-5-r8c5=5=r8c12~5~ => r9c2<>5
A=2 cell ALS xz-rule: r1c34-9-r179c6 => r3c6<>4
A=2 cell ALS xz-rule: r56c5-1-r8c5|r79c6 => r6c6<>4
B=2 cell ALS xy-rule: r179c6-9-r13c4-2-r234568c5 => r7c5<>5
Overlap 4-element Grouped Nice Loop: r1c3-9-ALS:r179c6-5-r8c5=5=r8c12-5-ALS:r179c3~2~ => r3c3<>2
+----------------------+--------------------+------------------+
| 6 1279 29*d | 249 8 479*b | 1479 3 5 |
| 579 4 359 | 69 3567 1 | 2 8 79 |
| 1279 8 359-2 | 249 23457 3579 | 1479 6 1479 |
+----------------------+--------------------+------------------+
| 4589 59 7 | 1469 146 2 | 3 19 148 |
| 249 239 6 | 5 134 8 | 147 179 1247 |
| 2489 239 1 | 7 34 39 | 6 5 248 |
+----------------------+--------------------+------------------+
| 12579 6 2589*d | 128 127 57*b | 1579 4 3 |
| 1579*c 1579*c 4 | 3 157* 6 | 8 2 179 |
| 3 127 258*d | 1248 9 457*b | 157 17 6 |
+----------------------+--------------------+------------------+
4-element Grouped Nice Loop: ALS:r2c19-5-r23c3=5=r79c3-5-r8c12=5=r8c5-5-ALS:r179c6~9~ => r2c4<>9
+----------------------+--------------------+------------------+
| 6 1279 29 | 249 8 479*e | 1479 3 5 |
| 579* 4 359*b | 6-9 3567 1 | 2 8 79* |
| 1279 8 359*b | 249 23457 3579 | 1479 6 1479 |
+----------------------+--------------------+------------------+
| 4589 59 7 | 1469 146 2 | 3 19 148 |
| 249 239 6 | 5 134 8 | 147 179 1247 |
| 2489 239 1 | 7 34 39 | 6 5 248 |
+----------------------+--------------------+------------------+
| 12579 6 2589*c | 128 127 57*e | 1579 4 3 |
| 1579*d 1579*d 4 | 3 157* 6 | 8 2 179 |
| 3 127 258*c | 1248 9 457*e | 157 17 6 |
+----------------------+--------------------+------------------+
Endofin Mutant Swordfish (r28c3/c9b17): r2c139|r8c129|r137c3 => r3c1<>9,r1c2<>9
+---------------------+--------------------+------------------+
| 6 127-9 29* | 249 8 479 | 1479 3 5 |
| 579* 4 359# | 6 357 1 | 2 8 79* |
| 127-9 8 359* | 249 23457 3579 | 1479 6 1479 |
+---------------------+--------------------+------------------+
| 4589 59 7 | 149 6 2 | 3 19 148 |
| 249 239 6 | 5 134 8 | 147 179 1247 |
| 2489 239 1 | 7 34 39 | 6 5 248 |
+---------------------+--------------------+------------------+
| 12579 6 2589* | 128 127 57 | 1579 4 3 |
| 1579* 1579* 4 | 3 157 6 | 8 2 179* |
| 3 127 258 | 1248 9 457 | 157 17 6 |
+---------------------+--------------------+------------------+
3-element Grouped Nice Loop: ALS:r4c48-4-r56c5=4=r3c5-4-ALS:r238c9~1~ => r4c9<>1
+--------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| 6 127 29 | 249 8 479 | 1479 3 5 |
| 579 4 359 | 6 357 1 | 2 8 79*c |
| 127 8 359 | 249 23457* 3579 | 1479 6 1479*c |
+--------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| 4589 59 7 | 149* 6 2 | 3 19* 48-1 |
| 249 239 6 | 5 134*b 8 | 147 179 1247 |
| 2489 239 1 | 7 34*b 39 | 6 5 248 |
+--------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| 12579 6 2589 | 128 127 57 | 1579 4 3 |
| 1579 1579 4 | 3 157 6 | 8 2 179*c |
| 3 127 258 | 1248 9 457 | 157 17 6 |
+--------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
UR+3C/2SL (4,8): r46c19 => r6c1<>4
UR+4X/2SL (8,2): r79c34, r9c2678 => r7c3<>2
4-valued/2-element Kraken Row (r1c2=1=r1c7-1-, r1c6-7-r7c6-5-r7c7|r9c8|r8c9-1-, r1c7-7-r2c9-9-r9c8|r8c9-1-): r1c267=7 => r9c7<>1
+-------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| 6 127*b 29 | 249 8 479* | 1479*b 3 5 |
| 579 4 359 | 6 357 1 | 2 8 79d |
| 127 8 359 | 249 23457 3579 | 1479 6 1479 |
+-------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| 4589 59 7 | 149 6 2 | 3 19 48 |
| 249 239 6 | 5 134 8 | 147 179 1247 |
| 289 239 1 | 7 34 39 | 6 5 248 |
+-------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| 12579 6 589 | 128 127 57c | 1579c 4 3 |
| 1579 1579 4 | 3 157 6 | 8 2 179cd |
| 3 127 258 | 1248 9 457 | 57-1 17cd 6 |
+-------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
UR+2D/1SL (5,7): r79c67 => r9c6<>5
6-element Advanced Colouring: r9c7=5=r7c7-5-r7c6=5=r3c6=3=r6c6=9=r4c4-9-r4c8=9=r5c8=7=r9c8~7~r9c7 => r9c7<>7
4-valued/2-element Kraken Row (r7c1-7-r23c1=7=r1c2-7-r13c4|r1c6-9-, r7c5=2=r3c5-2-r13c4-9-, r7c6-7-r19c6-9-, r7c7-7-r49c8-9-r4c4=9=r6c6-9-): r7c1567=7 => r3c6<>9
+-------------------+---------------------+------------------+
| 6 127b 29 | 249bc 8 479bd | 1479 3 5 |
| 579b 4 359 | 6 357 1 | 2 8 79 |
| 127b 8 359 | 249bc 23457c 357-9 | 1479 6 1479 |
+-------------------+---------------------+------------------+
| 4589 59 7 | 149e 6 2 | 3 19e 48 |
| 249 239 6 | 5 134 8 | 147 179 1247 |
| 289 239 1 | 7 34 39e | 6 5 248 |
+-------------------+---------------------+------------------+
| 12579* 6 589 | 128 127*c 57* | 179* 4 3 |
| 1579 1579 4 | 3 157 6 | 8 2 179 |
| 3 127 28 | 1248 9 47d | 5 17e 6 |
+-------------------+---------------------+------------------+
3-valued/2-element Kraken Blossom (r9c4-1-r9c28-2-r6c26-9-, r9c4-2-r13c4-9-r4c4=9=r6c6-9-, r9c4-4-r13c4-9-r4c4=9=r6c6-9-, r9c4-8-r19c3-9-r1c6=9=r6c6-9-): r9c4=1248 => r6c1<>9
+-------------------+---------------------+------------------+
| 6 127 29e | 249cd 8 479e | 1479 3 5 |
| 579 4 359 | 6 357 1 | 2 8 79 |
| 127 8 359 | 249cd 23457 357 | 1479 6 1479 |
+-------------------+---------------------+------------------+
| 4589 59 7 | 149cd 6 2 | 3 19 48 |
| 249 239 6 | 5 134 8 | 147 179 1247 |
| 28-9 239b 1 | 7 34 39bcde | 6 5 248 |
+-------------------+---------------------+------------------+
| 12579 6 589 | 128 127 57 | 179 4 3 |
| 1579 1579 4 | 3 157 6 | 8 2 179 |
| 3 127b 28e | 1248* 9 47 | 5 17b 6 |
+-------------------+---------------------+------------------+
Advanced 2-line BUG Lite (XY:r6c1|r4c9-8-r6c9, SL:r4c1=4=r5c1, SL:r6c9=2=r5c9): r456c19 => r4c1<>8,r6c9<>8
4-valued/2-element Kraken Row (r9c2-1-r1c2=1=r1c7=4=r1c46-4-, r9c4-1-r9c28-2-r6c256-4-, r9c8-1-r4c8=1=r4c4=4=r56c5-4-): r9c248=1 => r3c5<>4
+-------------------+--------------------+------------------+
| 6 127b 29 | 249b 8 479b | 1479b 3 5 |
| 579 4 359 | 6 357 1 | 2 8 79 |
| 127 8 359 | 249 2357-4 357 | 1479 6 1479 |
+-------------------+--------------------+------------------+
| 459 59 7 | 149d 6 2 | 3 19d 8 |
| 249 239 6 | 5 134d 8 | 147 179 1247 |
| 8 239c 1 | 7 34cd 39c | 6 5 24 |
+-------------------+--------------------+------------------+
| 12579 6 589 | 128 127 57 | 179 4 3 |
| 1579 1579 4 | 3 157 6 | 8 2 179 |
| 3 127*c 28 | 1248* 9 47 | 5 17*c 6 |
+-------------------+--------------------+------------------+
Locked Column Box/Box: r139c4|r19c6 => r4c4<>4
5-element Nice Loop: r7c4=8=r9c4-8-r9c3-2-r1c3-9-r1c6=9=r6c6-9-r4c4~1~r7c4 => r7c4<>1
3-element Nice Loop: r7c4-8-r7c3=8=r9c3=2=r1c3~2~ => r1c4<>2
Locked Row Line/Box: r3c45 => r3c1<>2
4-valued/2-element Kraken Blossom (r7c1-1-r3c1=1=r1c2-1-r1c467-9-, r7c1-2-r7c4-8-r237c3-9-, r7c1-5-r7c6-7-r1c46-9-, r7c1-7-r23c1=7=r1c2-7-r1c46-9-, r7c1-9-r7c7=9=r8c9-9-r2c9=9=r2c13-9-): r7c1=12579 => r1c3<>9
+--------------------+--------------------+------------------+
| 6 127be 2-9 | 49bde 8 479bde | 1479b 3 5 |
| 579e 4 359ce | 6 357 1 | 2 8 79e |
| 17be 8 359c | 249 2357 357 | 1479 6 1479 |
+--------------------+--------------------+------------------+
| 4 5 7 | 19 6 2 | 3 19 8 |
| 29 239 6 | 5 134 8 | 147 179 1247 |
| 8 239 1 | 7 34 39 | 6 5 24 |
+--------------------+--------------------+------------------+
| 12579* 6 589c | 28c 127 57d | 179e 4 3 |
| 1579 179 4 | 3 157 6 | 8 2 179e |
| 3 127 28 | 1248 9 47 | 5 17 6 |
+--------------------+--------------------+------------------+
Naked Block Pair: r3c1|r1c2 => r2c1<>7
4-element Nice Loop: r7c3-5-r7c6=5=r3c6=3=r6c6=9=r6c2~9~ => r8c2<>9
Locked Column Box/Box: r278c1|r237c3 => r5c1<>9
Locked Row Line/Box: r1c46 => r1c7<>4
Locked Row Line/Box: r1c46 => r1c7<>9
Naked Row Pair: r1c27 => r1c6<>7
Row Finned X-Wing: r3c179|r7c17 => r1c7<>1
Last edited by Mike Barker on Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Mike Barker
- Posts: 458
- Joined: 22 January 2006
by daj95376 » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:08 am
Mike Barker, I admit that I'm way out of my league here, but I do have a question and a comment even though I've only examined part of your solution for U#24.
Q: In your second SUM elimination, did you drop the details for r8c1-9-... because they were a mirror of r8c2 and would take up unnecessary space?
[Updated:]
C: The first two SUM eliminations remind me of complex Triple Implication Chains. I guess this is one of the techniques SUM includes in its scope.
Q: In your second SUM elimination, did you drop the details for r8c1-9-... because they were a mirror of r8c2 and would take up unnecessary space?
[Updated:]
C: The first two SUM eliminations remind me of complex Triple Implication Chains. I guess this is one of the techniques SUM includes in its scope.
Last edited by daj95376 on Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
- daj95376
- 2014 Supporter
- Posts: 2624
- Joined: 15 May 2006
Unsolvable #30
by gurth » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:44 am
Unsolvable #30 solved by Forcing Nets and fine GARNET :
1. SSTS.
2. ? -4d8, SSTS, ?? 4d8, SSTS.
3. ? 4k7, SSTS, ?? -4k7, SSTS.
4. ? -4k1, SSTS, ?? -4k1.
5. ? 4h2, 6h9, 8k7, 5h8, 1g8, 8g2h1 ?? -4h2.
6. ? -4g2, 4g6, 4k9, 6h9, 8k7, 5h8, 1g8, 8gh2 ?? 4g2, SSTS.
7. ? -8c3, SINGLES ONLY, ?? 8c3, SINGLES TO END.
Step 7 completes the solution with a very fine GARNET, the trivalue cell at c3, requiring singles only for both contradiction of -8c3 and subsequent completion of the puzzle.
1. SSTS.
2. ? -4d8, SSTS, ?? 4d8, SSTS.
3. ? 4k7, SSTS, ?? -4k7, SSTS.
4. ? -4k1, SSTS, ?? -4k1.
5. ? 4h2, 6h9, 8k7, 5h8, 1g8, 8g2h1 ?? -4h2.
6. ? -4g2, 4g6, 4k9, 6h9, 8k7, 5h8, 1g8, 8gh2 ?? 4g2, SSTS.
7. ? -8c3, SINGLES ONLY, ?? 8c3, SINGLES TO END.
Step 7 completes the solution with a very fine GARNET, the trivalue cell at c3, requiring singles only for both contradiction of -8c3 and subsequent completion of the puzzle.
- gurth
- Posts: 358
- Joined: 11 February 2006
- Location: Cape Town, South Africa
