The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[StrmCkr]

guess i'll have to use the way back machine to rebuild the initial post for this thread way down here.

.
I have started slowly exploring when it may be profitable to consider braid patterns to crack tough puzzles and was pleased to find the example that follows. I'm posting it in case any other contributors are looking for a new avenue to explore.

Fundamentals

Within a band of boxes (in a tier or a stack) a particular digit will a repeat in the mini-lines either in the / or \ diagonal directions which can be seen in this example solution grid.

Code: Select all

    - - - - - *--------*--------*--------*
    \    /389 | 9 8 3  | 7 4 6  | 2 1 5  |
    \    /467 | 6 7 4  | 1 5 2  | 9 3 8  |
    \    /125 | 1 2 5  | 3 9 8  | 6 7 4  |
    - - - - - *--------*--------*--------*
    \15  /4   | 5 4 1  | 6 3 9  | 8 2 7  |
    \28  /3   | 2 3 8  | 5 1 7  | 4 9 6  |
    \69  /7   | 7 6 9  | 2 8 4  | 3 5 1  |
    - - - - - *--------*--------*--------*
    \4   /16  | 4 1 6  | 9 7 3  | 5 8 2  |
    \8   /79  | 8 9 7  | 4 2 5  | 1 6 3  |
    \3   /25  | 3 5 2  | 8 6 1  | 7 4 9  |
    - - - - - *--------*--------*--------*

On the left of the grid, for each row the digits in the first mini-rows have been split according to the diagonals 'strands' they follow
There are therefore 6 possible strands in a band and there are only two ways the digits may be distributed between them.
1) All 3 digits repeat (or travel) together – known as a rope pattern as in tier 1 (rare)
2) Two digits follow one diagonal and the third follows the opposite one – a braid pattern as in tiers 2 & 3 (common)
No amount of column or row swapping will ever convert one pattern to the other.

The point to note here is that the same pattern applies to all the mini-lines in a band as otherwise some cells would need to hold two digits. Therefore during a solution, if it has been discovered that a pair of digits follow a particular strand, then the parallel strands must also contain repeating pairs.

As a puzzle is being solved this often allows pairs of digits that either must or must not share the same strands to be identified. This is of most help when simple puzzles are being tackled without pencil marks. When pencil marks are being used, the technique is generally far less useful as it most of the information it provides is already obvious. However, for purists it can provide a way to avoid using net methods when an impasse has been reached using linear chains, so it might be considered as a method of Almost last resort.

Example

Code: Select all

.8.2..4.3.4.....6.7.....89..3...2.....15.96.....7...1..58.....6.9.....2.2.6..3.4. Ruud 0065

Code: Select all

     *-----------------------*-----------------------*-----------------------*
     | 1569   <8>    59      | <2>    15679  1567    | <4>    57     <3>     |
     | 1359   <4>    2359    | 1389   15789  1578    | 1257   <6>    1257    |
     | <7>    126    235     | 1346   1456   1456    | <8>    <9>    125     |
     *-----------------------*-----------------------*-----------------------*
     | 45689  <3>    4579    | 1468   1468   <2>     | 579    578    4579    |
     | 48     27     <1>     | <5>    348    <9>     | <6>    378    247     |
     | 45689  26     2459    | <7>    3468   468     | 2359   <1>    2459    |
     *-----------------------*-----------------------*-----------------------*
     | 134    <5>    <8>     | 149    2      147     | 1379   37     <6>     |
     | 134    <9>    347     | 1468   145678 145678  | 1357   <2>    1578    |
     | <2>    17     <6>     | 189    15789  <3>     | 1579   <4>    15789   |
     *-----------------------*-----------------------*-----------------------*


(7)r4c3 = (7)r8c3 - (7=1)r9c2 - (1=34)r78c1 - (4=8)r5c1 - (8)r5c8 = (8)r4c8 => r4c8 <> 7
(16)r4c45 = (6)r6c56 - (6=2)r6c2 - (2=7)r5c2 - (7=1)r9c2 - (1=34)r78c1 - (4=8)r5c1 (8)r5c8 = (8)r4c8 => r4c45 <> 8
(6a)r1c1 = (6-1)r3c2 = (1)r9c2 - (1=34)r78c1 - (4=8)r5c1 - (8)r5c8 = (8-5)r4c8 = (5b)r1c8 - (5=9c)r1c3
=> [ab]r1c1 <> 5, [ac]r1c1 <> 9
(7)r4c3 = (7)r8c3 - (7=1)r9c2 - (1=34)r78c1 - (4=8)r5c1 - (8)r5c8 = (8-5)r4c8 = (5)r1c8 - (5=9)r1c3 => r4c3 <> 9
(5)r1c8 = (5-8)r4c8 = (38-2)r5c8,r6c7 = (2)r2c7 => r2c7 <> 5

At this point no further linear chains seem to be available (but I stand to be corrected).

In the grid below the strand candidates are now shown as extra pencil marks above and to the left of the grid. The diagonal symbol separates the candidates that are and aren't locked in the strand. Hence (8) is confined to the \ strand originating in the mini-column c7b3 and continuing through c8b6 & c9b9 and (4) is confined to the / strand c7b3,c9b6,c8b9. The candidates shown are those that occur in all three of the diagonal mini-lines involved.

In stack 3, because (4) and (8) follow different diagonal directions there is the derived inference that it must contain a braid pattern, but which diagonal will contain the digit pairs has yet to be determined.

Code: Select all

                   \367   \124    9\5      3\1468  \4689  \14567   8\17   \579   \237
                     /157  8/46      /23     2/4689  /14567 /1468    4/27  6/579   /1357
                   *-----------------------*-----------------------*-----------------------*
    89\1     /16   | 16     <8>    59      | <2>    15679  1567    | <4>    57     <3>     |
     4\35    /12   | 1359   <4>    2359    | 1389   15789  1578    | 127    <6>    1257    |
     7\126   /35   | <7>    126    235     | 1346   1456   1456    | <8>    <9>    125     |
                   *-----------------------*-----------------------*-----------------------*
      \3459  /3467 | 45689  <3>    457     | 146    146    <2>     | 579    58     4579    |
      \478  1/24   | 48     27     <1>     | <5>    348    <9>     | <6>    378    247     |
      \246   /4589 | 45689  26     2459    | <7>    3468   468     | 2359   <1>    2459    |
                   *-----------------------*-----------------------*-----------------------*
      \1458  /1358 | 134    <5>    <8>     | 149    2      147     | 1379   37     <6>     |
      \1379  /1479 | 134    <9>    347     | 1468   145678 145678  | 1357   <2>    1578    |
     2\17   6/17   | <2>    17     <6>     | 189    15789  <3>     | 1579   <4>    15789   |
                   *-----------------------*-----------------------*-----------------------*

Using group strand nodes the following chain is possible in stack 3
(18)r456c8a,r89c9,r23c7b, - (24)r12c7c = (2)r23c9 d,r8c7,r6c7e - (3)r6c7f = (3g-8h)r5c8 => [ah]r5c8 <> 8

Each strand node combines the three mini-columns the digits would need to occupy to be true in the strand, so they are all true or false together.
In the first strand node this shows that (18)r456c8a and (18)r23c7b are equivalent.
The mini-columns in the group nodes are ordered so that those on left and right provide the links to the adjacent nodes (this is rather unnatural but it makes the logic easier to follow).
The evidence used to support the links in the chains comes either from the usual pencil marks or from the extra ones showing the strand candidates.

Comments

Anyone who has studied the JExocet pattern will appreciate that many of its derived inferences arise from the braiding strands through the pattern's base cells.

At the simple level Braid Analysis shows that if a pattern has been determined for one strand it will also apply to the others in the same band. The approach used here takes this one step back to explore the effects of possible patterns to see if there are any eliminations that can be made because they would be common to rival patterns.

Braids require a lot of work; firstly the extra pencil marks for the strand candidates must be recorded, and secondly they greatly increase the chaining possibilities to investigate. They are therefore only worth exploring once basic methods have been exhausted and if the braiding patterns for a band appear to be doubly limited. In the case of the example it is the restrictions on the strands through c7b3 and (2) being confined to one of two strands that have been exploited.

When I first explored the approach back in the Eureka days, expecting great things to result, I also produced a shorthand notation system and a number of theorems. Ruud then created a rather elaborate <entry> in Sudopedia, but it turned out that the benefits from it were very limited. The notation used here therefore follows customary practice although it is somewhat longer.

DPB

TAGdpbBraidAnalysis
.

[David P Bird]

StrmChkr, What sort of forum do we want? When beginners who can't even recognise <a closed loop AIC> when they see one, start posting indiscriminately over every thread about issues that have been discussed ad nauseam before, I give up.

I didn't destroy the opening post when I pulled it, but had considered that I could to repost it in a fresh un-vandalised thread possibly with a better example, depending on what Jason chose to do.

I consider myself a team player, and have been a lone voice in complaining about practices that make it difficult for newcomers to join in. Repeating myself, we need new players otherwise the forum will suffer a lingering death.

When SpAce first joined, <in this thread> I posted this.

Over the years the ways we have devised for propelling missiles have evolved, from slings and trebuchets to automatic guns and cannons of various types. However, our military are very proud of their history and have various ways of honouring it with their archaic titles and ceremonies – so too in Sudoku. Just as we need scholars to decipher historic texts, so this will apply to the posts we write now with all our badly chosen terms and alternative names for much the same thing. For example while it might have been fun for a clique of players to devise a series of fancy names for each size of fish, all replacing numbers with names does is to make the subject more difficult for newcomers.

New recruits quickly spot these things but will invariably fail to get the rest of the regiment to fall in step with them, because the old guard won't allow it. However if the new recruits had their way they would just create another set of inconsistencies because, like the 'pioneers', they are unable to anticipate the effects of their suggestions further down the line.

It was meant to give him a gentle warning that whatever improvements he could suggest, he should consider their wider implications, and he should hold off until he was conversant with what those would be. Obviously, I shouldn't have gone to the trouble.
.

[SpAce]

StrmChkr, What sort of forum do we want? When beginners who can't even recognise <a closed loop AIC> when they see one, start posting indiscriminately over every thread about issues that have been discussed ad nauseam before, I give up.

Giving up is always helpful and constructive, right? You're one of the people who can make convincing arguments if you want to, but it's too bad your reactions are sometimes less than mature. If you're really worried about newcomers' experiences, you should exercise a bit more patience.

I didn't destroy the opening post when I pulled it, but had considered that I could to repost it in a fresh un-vandalised thread possibly with a better example, depending on what Jason chose to do.

That seems like a form of extortion to me. 


I consider myself a team player, and have been a lone voice in complaining about practices that make it difficult for newcomers to join in. Repeating myself, we need new players otherwise the forum will suffer a lingering death.

Have you considered that it's been a long while since you were a beginner, so you might be a little bit out of touch with what actually works for newcomers and what doesn't (besides the obvious that different people have different learning styles and abilities)? I've probably been the most active newcomer in the past year, but you're not interested in my actual learning experiences, even though it should be obvious that I've learned quite a bit during that year. The single most important thing in that process has been active discussions with more (and sometimes less) experienced players, which you now wish to suppress. 



Studying static information posted earlier has played a part, of course, but it's the discussions that actually stimulate thinking and deep learning. Even in the case of static information, the best sources have been the old long threads which can provide light to why certain choices have been made and others dropped -- that's what's missing in your otherwise great and concise information packages and why I suggested adding some links to them. Mistakes and stupid questions are inevitable in discussions, but they're also an excellent learning tool, so I don't see them as a bad thing. If you've followed my development at all, you should have noticed that I've dropped many practices I initially thought were good ideas and picked up new ones instead, so some learning has evidently taken place.


Repeating myself, we need new players otherwise the forum will suffer a lingering death."

And you seriously think your attitude helps recruiting new players? It's a wonder I'm still here, but it's because I don't let a single personality clash destroy an otherwise good thing -- nor does it destroy my respect for your knowledge and experience. I also happen to think our attitudes towards solving and notations and generally doing things "right" are actually closer than you want to admit.

When SpAce first joined, <in this thread> I posted this.

Funny that right after that post of yours there's Gordon giving the familiar speech about "assumptive" methods. At the time I couldn't have a strong opinion about the subject, but eleven did and provided very clear counter-arguments. That didn't seem to make a dent in Gordon's thinking as he made the exact same points not so long ago. When I countered that time, there was no response, which makes me presume I'll be seeing the same hardly defensible claims again and again (as I just did in this thread, though not from him). Since you're prone to frustration yourself, perhaps you can understand that others can be too? It's not just newcomers that should question their own thinking at times.


It was meant to give him a gentle warning that whatever improvements he could suggest, he should consider their wider implications, and he should hold off until he was conversant with what those would be. Obviously, I shouldn't have gone to the trouble.

Based on what? And how is that relevant to this discussion any way? Funny that my response to your writings was: 



David, I agree with almost everything you said.



I guess it's the "almost" that ruined it, or more likely, it simply didn't matter to you what I said. In general, I've gone out of my way to be nice to you after our unfortunate early clash -- until now -- but you haven't made any effort to get back to normalcy. If you were actually worried about the forum and not your own ultra-sensitive skin, you'd let bygones be bygones and move on. I have.

[StrmCkr]

What do I want?, I offered some insight Into on some ones generalized question, and gently reminded those off topic to get back on topic, and removed my non topic post and answered further questions via pm.

By the way me and the other veterans did the same thing,
(lead by example, that's what I expect every forum to do)

This is not the first time a thread of yours wondered of topic and you altered the opening post or simply dropped the thread altogether and even renamed the idea, oh and in case you forgotten that was between you and some veterans not new players. So yes it happens from time to time.

I'm not going to link it as I found that reteric intresting as it showed me some thought process behind the later rebuilt idea.
Still even then you happened to offended by some one posting stuff that made the topic apprently fruitless at lest to your opinion.

Yes, I do agree that some times players do go off topic and one of the mods ie pat, jason) split threads and merge off topic stuff back to an exsiting topic. That takes time.

Be patient, allow players to retract their own stuff or a mod to do the above.
Not simply crush the contents because you feel offended for what ever reason.

I treat the forums as a knowledge pool, and a place to answer brought up questions when and if I can usually attempting to redirect to other topics when needed and continue the idea over there
.
Unfortunately this places search engine is terrible, and having others with bookmarks also helps retrieve stuff
When it's bookmarked and that leads to posts that are mildly off topic.

I put the post back, as I have alot of your pages marked for study to implement in my solver, good and bad examples so I can work on the idea. The number of times I've had my info destroyed because some one else decided to remove that info is frustrating and counter intuitive to a knowledge pool I Belive the forums are..

It is your thread and you can do what ever you wish to.

[David P Bird]

Space, pulling my opening post was in no measure extortion as backups are always available. I was only accepting that the thread was no longer serving the purpose I intended for it, and I might as well accept you had turned it into a free-for-all. The situation was the other way around; by refusing to keep on topic, you were forcing the issue.

We are at opposite ends of the spectrum. You want a forum for beginners, and I want one for experienced players. I won't pre-judge what your ideal would be, but mine would be a source of information that isn't covered in the numerous beginners guides that are available. Neither is possible, so what compromise do you suggest? I am happy to accept that I don't represent all experienced players, are you prepared to accept that you don't represent all beginners?
.

[SpAce]

Space, pulling my opening post was in no measure extortion as backups are always available.

I didn't say it was. I just said what it seemed like based on what you said about the conditional reposting of it.




I was only accepting that the thread was no longer serving the purpose I intended for it, and I might as well accept you had turned it into a free-for-all. The situation was the other way around; by refusing to keep on topic, you were forcing the issue

I wasn't forcing anything; you made the decision all by yourself. There was no way for me to know you considered the forum your personal blog space and your posts as untouchable, until you made it clear. Some might consider any kind of a comment a good thing as it lifts the post.

Anyway, I've learned my lesson and won't be commenting your threads from now on. If I have something to say about them, I'll do it elsewhere and link your thread if need be. It will increase fragmentation, however, but so be it. Nevertheless, you're very welcome to comment my threads and correct my possible abuse of your ideas, though I don't expect you will.

We are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Yes we are -- if your spectrum only covers SE 9.0-11.9. I'm just wondering... where in your spectrum are the great majority of players who struggle with puzzles much easier than that? Do you simply count me in the same lot? Not only is it insulting, it's also a logical fallacy to see only two extremes when there's a lot of ground in between.

You want a forum for beginners,

Really? I must presume you threw yet another baseless assumption just to irritate me, because you're too smart to keep doing the same thing repeatedly by accident. Why would I want a forum that wouldn't help myself at this point? Oh, I guess in your spectrum I am a beginner. Stupid me.

and I want one for experienced players.


I'm a bit confused. In your previous post you were specifically interested in attracting newcomers, but apparently you only meant experienced newcomers.

I won't pre-judge what your ideal would be, but mine would be a source of information that isn't covered in the numerous beginners guides that are available.

Mine too (as long as "source" isn't seen as a static one-way street; that's the difference between a forum and a blog). I don't think anyone but you would suggest I'd personally be interested in beginners' guides at this point. What I'd really want to see is strategy guides and actual walk-throughs of solving whole puzzles manually in the 9.0-11.9 range (beyond applying the few well-known exotic patterns). I haven't found that kind of advice from you or much anyone else here (except totuan for some neat downgrading net moves, but even those aren't accompanied with explanations of how he actually found them). The best guides of that sort I've seen are Steve K's on his own site.

Well-known exotic patterns such as JE and MSLS can of course be found here, but they're not the only tools that are needed for such endeavours. From what I understand, they can typically work as an opening salvo (if found at all) but the rest of the puzzle might still be very difficult (9+). Unlike some, I don't see much value in partial solutions. I'd like to have tools to have a fighting chance at solving the whole thing, i.e. downgrading it to below 9, using any logical means necessary (the more elegant the better, but it's not an absolute requirement). Those kinds of extreme tactics and full solving strategies (in the true meaning of the word) don't seem to be well-documented here, even though there are clearly people who can and do solve those kinds of puzzles manually (including yourself).

Neither is possible, so what compromise do you suggest?

None. I don't see any reason why this forum could not serve both beginners and very experienced players, as well as everything in between. I don't think anything I've suggested would be taking anything away from experienced players, but it might help aspiring players learn more quickly and deeply about complex topics. There are clearly lots of prerequisites for understanding things like MSLS, but they're not listed much less linked in the main document at all. The same thing for JE. It wouldn't be that hard to make them more accessible to people who haven't been around years and seen their birth and evolution in real-time, but based on what you're saying it seems that you don't even want to.

I am happy to accept that I don't represent all experienced players, are you prepared to accept that you don't represent all beginners?

Of course. Then again, calling me a beginner only makes sense within your skewed spectrum, as in normal language it would obviously imply a very different skillset from what I have already gathered. I'm still clearly a newcomer, though, which should give me fresh perspectives. I do remember very well what it is to start from scratch and what has helped me learn (and what hasn't), since it's only been a year and a half since I started studying non-basic techniques at all. I also have a lot of teaching experience, which might give me some understanding of pedagogics in general instead of just from the point of view of my own learning.

[David P Bird]

SpAce from the Forum Usage Guidelines

By registering, you agree to follow these Usage Guidelines... .
Keep it relevant
For everyone's benefit, please stay on topic. This Forum is provided specifically to talk to each other about Sudoku and other puzzle games related to Sudoku. Please refrain from discussing personal matters, abusing any company or product, or from posting in a manner unrelated to the discussion topics.

From your experience, would you agree that this is a fairly basic requirement that is common to most forums?

So, by posting about assumptivity, terminology, and even 'multi-headed hydras' on a thread dedicated to Braid Analysis, you were flagrantly disregarding it, and continued to do so in the face of my objections.

By asking you for your suggestions, I was hoping you would consider not only your own requirements, but also those of others. The forum would be in danger of collapse if it were only tailored to the needs of newcomers, because experienced players would be unlikely to stay. It could then turn into a case of one-eyed becoming kings in the land of the blind.

Members here do not have a right to demand assistance and no members are duty-bound to provide it. Consequently, those that are appreciative of any help from others, get more attention than those complain that about it being poorly presented or incomplete, and make personal judgements about the providers.

On a personal level, our styles clash. You do not like my style and I do not like yours. Since our initial falling out, the only time I've posted regarding anything you have raised was on Multi-Sector Locked Sets, and that was a damage limitation exercise. You have other friends here who can help you, so it is best if we continue to avoid each other.
.

[SpAce]

SpAce from the Forum Usage Guidelines

By registering, you agree to follow these Usage Guidelines... .
Keep it relevant
For everyone's benefit, please stay on topic. This Forum is provided specifically to talk to each other about Sudoku and other puzzle games related to Sudoku. Please refrain from discussing personal matters, abusing any company or product, or from posting in a manner unrelated to the discussion topics.

From your experience, would you agree that this is a fairly basic requirement that is common to most forums?

Yes.




So, by posting about assumptivity, terminology, and even 'multi-headed hydras' on a thread dedicated to Braid Analysis, you were flagrantly disregarding it, and continued to do so in the face of my objections.

That depends on the definition of "relevant" and "topics". Everything said was related to sudoku, which I think is the most important criterion. We also did talk about braiding as well, so it was not all off-topic even on that level. Also, I wouldn't personally mind if a thread started by me took side branches -- as they sometimes have -- so I couldn't automatically empathize with your reactions (but I try to remember from now on). For example, the very first thread I started resulted in a side discussion about Exocet details (between yourself and a few others), which were totally irrelevant and incomprehensible to me at the time. Did I mind that discussion? Not at all. In fact, now that I have a bit more understanding I can go back and learn from it.

That being said, I can still admit being guilty as charged, if it makes you happy. However, it wasn't all fruitless, as it resulted in a very revealing discussion and clearing of air. Besides, if you had a more positive outlook, you'd have the option of taking that hydra-comment as a compliment. I was happy to see the AIC-guru himself using something I'd independently found useful and wondered about whether it was ok to use as a shorthand or not. Of course you'd probably seen my earlier question about it and could have answered back then directly -- which would have benefited the whole community by keeping notations standard -- but just as naturally you didn't, so therefore I couldn't resist when I saw your usage of the same. As for the rest of that comment, I read your "but I stand to be corrected" statement as an honest invitation, so you can't really blame me for that (although you apparently took that as malicious criticism which it was not).

By asking you for your suggestions, I was hoping you would consider not only your own requirements, but also those of others.

I would hope you did the same.

The forum would be in danger of collapse if it were only tailored to the needs of newcomers, because experienced players would be unlikely to stay. It could then turn into a case of one-eyed becoming kings in the land of the blind.

Whatever. You must really be making this up while you go, because I have yet to see any relevant arguments. I guess it's physically impossible for you to admit that I just might have a point, so you just keep moving the goal posts and suggesting slippery-slope scenarios without any evidence of their likelihood.

I'm pretty sure that nothing I've suggested would drive away experienced players, and I definitely have not suggested "only tailoring to the needs of newcomers" (a clear strawman, based on an already denied and ridiculous assumption about my wishes). My suggestions might increase the potential audience, though, but perhaps you'd rather keep certain techniques accessible to a small initiated elite, I don't know. I guess we can both agree that we're done with this discussion anyhow.

Members here do not have a right to demand assistance and no members are duty-bound to provide it.

Really? That's shocking! (You're the only one whom I've seen demanding anything, multiple times.)

Consequently, those that are appreciative of any help from others, get more attention

I've been very appreciative for all the help I've got, including from you. With you I just didn't want to pay the price tag, which was accepting thinly veiled insults and condescending assumptions (the kind you've kept using in this discussion as well). Then again, your constant use of assumptive techniques in discussions, if not sudoku, is actually very effective, as you're finding contradictions at an amazing rate (but for some reason you're not always making the relevant eliminations, as the same assumptions keep coming back).

than those complain that about it being poorly presented or incomplete,


That's one way to react to constructive criticism. Personally I'm grateful if someone gives me ideas to improve a creation of mine, even if I happen to hate the source of such input or the manner in which it's given. On the other hand, it's quite apparent that you can't judge anything I say without a clearly negative bias.

and make personal judgements about the providers.

That part I can understand. Then again, we both made such judgments about each other, but only one of us could put them behind. If holding a grudge forever and withholding information that could benefit everyone gives you satisfaction and a feeling of revenge, so be it. However, you can't claim at the same time that the best interest of the forum is a very high priority to you.

On a personal level, our styles clash. You do not like my style and I do not like yours.



You seem to like black and white type of thinking. Real life isn't sudoku with such simple binary truth values, though. It's obviously true that I don't like some aspects of your style but it's not the whole truth on my part. You're of course free to dislike the whole of me and everything I say and do, if compartmentalizing is too difficult.

Since our initial falling out, the only time I've posted regarding anything you have raised was on Multi-Sector Locked Sets, and that was a damage limitation exercise.

Yep. When you wrote that, I had a glimmer of hope that you'd come to your senses, but it soon vanished as you didn't bother with my friendly follow-up question about your Platinum Blonde JE solution.

You have other friends here who can help you, so it is best if we continue to avoid each other.

At this point I whole-heartedly agree. The main reason why I kept hope alive for a different outcome was for the benefit of the community. Since you've had a hand in developing and standardizing certain widely used practices, it would have naturally been helpful -- and not just for me -- to hear your opinion about certain less clear parts which I've pointed out. It's also been a courtesy to give you a chance to provide that. You've generally chosen not to, which is absolutely your right.



No big deal, though, as those questions have usually been answered one way or another, and I'm not totally clueless about figuring out the missing parts on my own. Like I've said many times, a certain level of initial confusion is actually better for deep learning than spoon-fed flawless information. In that light, perhaps you're even pedagogically right about not implementing my suggested improvements which would decrease that confusion. Usually works for me, at least.

[David P Bird]

Friends and foes.

It is now over a month since I reported the off-topic posts for moderation and requested a reply, but no determination has been made. I therefore conclude that, for whatever reason, this forum has been left to free-wheel which makes my heart sink. It makes me feel that it is approaching its sunset.

Although I will still follow it, I therefore see no point in trying to make any more serious contributions.

Thanks for all the fish.

David PB

[eleven]

Well, i think you are retireing late.
To my knowledge in solving techniques, JExocet and, if you want, multisector stuff were the last new concepts applicable to more than very very rare cases. The chances for comparably useful new techniques are zero since 5 years.
Similar for other areas. All the main topics are grazed since many years.
But though the sunset already started then, there are still pearls popping up in the borderline, so the light keeps glimmering.
Remembering old members (here less than on Eureka), who really were contentious, the discussion style now is very friendly.

However, thanks for your great contributions.

[StrmCkr]

"and" -Thanks for all the fish.

nice hitchhikers guide to the galaxy reference. "...don't forget to bring your towel"