eleven wrote: 2r2c = 2518r2c1,r1c352 - (2|8 = *6)r4c2 - r46c3 = r9c3 - *6r49c7 = (6-5)r6c7 = 59r1c78 => -2r1c78, stte
Very nice. Again you need the comma, though:
2r2c9 = (2,518)r2c2,r1c352 - (2|8=6*)r4c2 ...
...or explicitly (2nd node: r1c78 used to avoid repetition, could be r2c2 too):
2r2c9 = r1c78 - r1c23 = 2r2c2 & 518r1c352 - (2|8=6*)r4c2 ...
Otherwise the following weak link doesn't work properly because 2r1c3 doesn't see 2r4c2. Same thing as yesterday.
--
Btw, some would prefer this but I don't particularly like it:
2r2c9 = 2r2c2 & 518r1c352 - (2|8=6*)r4c2 ...
Its problem is that 518r1c352 is not directly strongly-linked with 2r2c9 but dependent on 2r2c2. The comma is better because it implies such internal interactions within the node while '&' doesn't. (It's not incorrect, though. It just skips part of the logic flow.)