The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[Bud]

Double XY-Wing Triangle

This is the second time I have run into this solving pattern so I thought I would pass it on. In the example below the first XY-wing has a pivot at r7c9 and 7 pincers at r7c3 and r8c8. This eliminates 7 from r8c1 which becomes the pivot for the second XY-wing with 7 pincers at r7c3 and r8c7. The resultant triangle is indicated by '. Since r8c78 are peers, at least one of these must be not 7 and its Z-conjugate r7c3 must be 7.

Code: Select all

 |-----------------+-----------------+-----------------|
 |  467   8   467  |   3    5   67   |   2    9    1   |
 |   9    5    1   |  468  46    2   |   3   68    7   |
 |   3   67    2   | 1678   9  1678  |   4   68    5   |
 |-----------------+-----------------+-----------------|
 |   8   36    5   |  16    2   136  |  79   47   49   |
 |   1    2    9   |  478  47   478  |   6    5    3   |
 |  467  367  467  |   5   36    9   |   1    2    8   |
 |-----------------+-----------------+-----------------|
 |   2    9  '67   |  467   1    5   |   8    3   46   |
 | *567   1    3   |   9    8   467  | '57  '47    2   |
 |  567   4    8   |   2   367  367  |  579   1   69   |
 |-----------------+-----------------+-----------------|

[Glyn]

Bud starting from your initial cell we could also find this chain

Code: Select all

(6=4)r7c9-(4)r7c4=(4-6)r8c6=(6)r8c1 => r7c3<>6,r8c6<>7


[daj95376]

An interesting overlap in logic.

The XY-Wing [r7c9]/[r7c3]+[r8c8] not only produced an elimination, but it also identifies [r7c3]=7=[r8c8].

The XY-Wing [r8c1]/[r7c3]+[r8c7] doesn't produce an elimination, but it identifies [r7c3]=7=[r8c7].

Putting these links together results in a short forcing network:

Code: Select all

          [r8c7]
         /      \
[r7c3]=7=        contradiction!  =>  [r7c3]=7
         \      /
          [r8c8]


I don't know how often this will be of use, but it may have possibilities given the number of XY-Wings present in so many puzzles.

[re'born]

Off topic: The strong link r8c78 =7= r9c7 along with the potential deadly pattern r89c17<57> eliminates 7 from r89c1.

On topic: Bud's observation is a different take on transport, but uses the same principle. I like it.

[ttt]

Very... very nice to see you come back Adam...!
I'm sorry if something's wrong... I was dru... so much... HCMC's vodka...

ttt

[aran]

Off topic :
hp36r9c56=>-6r9c9=>6r7c9 : <6>r7c3
~hp36r9c56=>7r9c5/6=>np46r7c49 : <6>r7c3

[re'born]

Very... very nice to see you come back Adam...!
I'm sorry if something's wrong... I was dru... so much... HCMC's vodka...

ttt

LoL Thanks for the kind words, ttt. But I'm not really back...at least, don't let my wife know I'm here.

Off topic :
hp36r9c56=>-6r9c9=>6r7c9 : <6>r7c3
~hp36r9c56=>7r9c5/6=>np46r7c49 : <6>r7c3

If I understand your notation, aran, this is a corresponding AIC?
(6)r7c9 = (6)r9c9 - (6=37)r9c56 - (7=46)r7c49, => r7c3<>6.

[ronk]

Off topic :
hp36r9c56=>-6r9c9=>6r7c9 : <6>r7c3
~hp36r9c56=>7r9c5/6=>np46r7c49 : <6>r7c3

If I understand your notation, aran, this is a corresponding AIC?
(6)r7c9 = (6)r9c9 - (6=37)r9c56 - (7=46)r7c49, => r7c3<>6.

Nicer written as a nice loop

r7c3 -6- r7c9 =6= r9c9 -6- r9c56 -7- r7c49 -6- r7c3 ==> r7c3<>6

[aran]

re'born

If I understand your notation, aran, this is a corresponding AIC?
(6)r7c9 = (6)r9c9 - (6=37)r9c56 - (7=46)r7c49, => r7c3<>6

As written, the hidden pair approach considered the (in this case) 2 element strong inference set (hidden pair 36, not hidden pair=>7).
So two AICs which converged on r7c3 <6>.
It could be written as a single AIC loop starting from the elimination cell which would not however reflect the actual logic

Code: Select all

7r7c3=7r7c4-(7=36)r9c56-6r9c9=6r7c9-(6=7)r7c3

Would you agree that your own AIC is in fact a DIC sending two streams from r7c9 (the ~6 stream and the 4 stream) and therefore the step (7=46)r7c49 isn't "strictly" true insofar as there is not a pair46 but a 4 and a 6? Capillary fissure.

[re'born]

re'born

If I understand your notation, aran, this is a corresponding AIC?
(6)r7c9 = (6)r9c9 - (6=37)r9c56 - (7=46)r7c49, => r7c3<>6

As written, the hidden pair approach considered the (in this case) 2 element strong inference set (hidden pair 36, not hidden pair=>7).
So two AICs which converged on r7c3 <6>.
It could be written as a single AIC loop starting from the elimination cell which would not however reflect the actual logic

Code: Select all

7r7c3=7r7c4-(7=36)r9c56-6r9c9=6r7c9-(6=7)r7c3

I'll have to think about this a little.

Would you agree that your own AIC is in fact a DIC sending two streams from r7c9 (the ~6 stream and the 4 stream) and therefore the step (7=46)r7c49 isn't "strictly" true insofar as there is not a pair46 but a 4 and a 6? Capillary fissure.

This part I definitely don't understand. Would you explain what you mean by "not a pair46 but a 4 and a 6"? I don't see the difference. As for it being a DIC, I can only answer hypothetically since I don't know the formal definition of a double implication chain. It does not appear to me that my AIC uses two streams, but I've been wrong about these things a lot more often than I've been right (ask ronk ).

[aran]

re'born

aran wrote:

Would you agree that your own AIC is in fact a DIC sending two streams from r7c9 (the ~6 stream and the 4 stream) and therefore the step (7=46)r7c49 isn't "strictly" true insofar as there is not a pair46 but a 4 and a 6? Capillary fissure.

This part I definitely don't understand. Would you explain what you mean by "not a pair46 but a 4 and a 6"?

Your chain starts (6)r7c9 =. That is : r7c9 is not 6. So you can't subsequently in the same logic say it is 46. On the other hand you can subsequently say it's 4 which is what starts your second inference stream which combined with the first stream inference (not 7 r7c4) places 6 at r7c4.

[ronk]

Your chain starts (6)r7c9 =. That is : r7c9 is not 6. So you can't subsequently in the same logic say it is 46.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the derived strong inference ... (6)r7c9 = (46)r7c49. All it says is ... if r7c9 is not digit 6, then r7c49 contains the digit pair 46.

For the AIC notation ... mea culpa, mea culpa.

[aran]

Ronk

aran wrote:
Your chain starts (6)r7c9 =. That is : r7c9 is not 6. So you can't subsequently in the same logic say it is 46.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the derived strong inference ... (6)r7c9 = (46)r7c49. All it says is ... if r7c9 is not digit 6, then r7c49 contains the digit pair 46.

If you say r7c49 is a digit pair 46, then (to my way of thinking) that reserves the possibility that the 46's may split 4r7c4 and 6r7c9, which is excluded by virtue of (6)r7c9=.
So it's a white lie

[re'born]

Ronk

aran wrote:
Your chain starts (6)r7c9 =. That is : r7c9 is not 6. So you can't subsequently in the same logic say it is 46.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the derived strong inference ... (6)r7c9 = (46)r7c49. All it says is ... if r7c9 is not digit 6, then r7c49 contains the digit pair 46.

If you say r7c49 is a digit pair 46, then (to my way of thinking) that reserves the possibility that the 46's may split 4r7c4 and 6r7c9, which is excluded by virtue of (6)r7c9=.
So it's a white lie

As I see it, an AIC (or Nice Loop) is not to be read as a novel, but a collection of short stories That is, when I write (6)r7c9 = (6)r9c9 - (6=37)r9c56 - (7=46)r7c49,
I mean it as a collection of 10 independent statements.
1. If r7c9<>6, then r9c9=6.
2. If r9c9<>6, then r7c9<>6.
3. If r9c9=6, then r9c56<>6
4. If r9c56=6, then r9c9<>6
...
The derived strong inference is then the Cliff Notes (okay, the metaphor is breaking down here) and is comprised of two statements.
1. If r7c9<>6, then r7c49=[46].
2. If r7c49<>[46], then r7c9<>6.
The first one can be used to say that if r7c9<>6, then r7c9=4, but this isn't the point of the AIC and it is a not a white lie to omit a conclusion that is unnecessary.

[aran]

Re'born
I agree with what you write about independent statements etc and the

collection of short stories

metaphor is absolutely fine.
What you then go on to say is this I believe :
if it is a true statement : 46r7c49 not a pair =>r7c9 is 6
ie ~46r7c49=>6r7c9
then the logical converse must hold :
~6r7c9=>~~46r7c49.
There can be no disagreement so far.
The double "not" above is crucial because in "language" we might say that "not not a pair" means a pair...but does it ?
A pair here means 4,6 or 6,4 in r7c49 (and both remain possible)
Examine : not not (4,6 or 6,4).
not (4,6 or 6,4)=>neither.
not neither : is satisfied by the existence of either, without implying that both remain possible.
Consequently I say "not" to :

it is a not a white lie

And not not a white lie is a white lie