ronk wrote:aran wrote:why not abbreviate this :

4r1c1-(4=78)r9c1-ALS(4789)r9c145=789r9c145-(789=5)r9c9

to 4r1c1-4r9c1-ALS(4789)r9c145-(789=5)r9c9

Debating NL notation using AIC notation makes no sense to me.

If you speak English and French reasonably well, but Swahili is your mother tongure...then that would not be a parallel.

Some speak NL, some speak Eureka, but we all speak common sense.

All sudoku logic is simple, even simplistic, so simple that we'd all like to skip certain boring steps.

NL does that to a limited extent by skipping logic within bivalues (and why not).

AIC or Eureka, or whatever it is called, seems to prefer each laboured step to be stated (and why not)..

Neither system can easily handle something as straightforward as an xyt-chain ie chain with memory.

I don't know whether Denis Berthier created this term but he is certainly its foremost exponent (so far as I know) and he makes this point somewhere (that xyt has no easy outlet in NL or AIC)

This IMHO is an indictment of NL/AIC.

But back to the point "debating NL using AIC makes no sense".

Response : of course it makes sense.

Each in an impoverished attempt to state the obvious ; no solver starts with NL or AIC : he sees an elimination via some logic, then he seeks to express it in NL or AIC.

Said otherwise, he speaks common sense, then he has to fit that into deficient notation.

So since each is deficient, why not compare their demerits ?