- Code: Select all
`|-----------------------|-----------------------|----------------------|`

| 23456 3468 7 | 1248 2456 9 | 1236 28 1236 |

| 2356 9 23568 | 128 2567 1567 | 12367 278 4 |

| 246 1 268 | 248 3 4678 | 2679 5 2679 |

|-----------------------|-----------------------|----------------------|

| 135679 3678 4 | 189 689 2 | 1379 79 13579 |

| 179 2 189 | 5 489 3 | 1479 6 179 |

| 13569 36 13569 | 7 469 146 | 8 249 12359 |

|-----------------------|-----------------------|----------------------|

| (24679) 5 269 | [249] 1 [47] | 24679 3 8 |

| 8 467 269 | 3 (24579) 457 | [24679] 1 2679 |

| [123479] 347 1239 | 6 2789 478 | 5 (2479) (279) |

|-----------------------|-----------------------|----------------------|

question:

Is r7c46 + r8c6 r9c1 an exocet

Is r9c89 + r7c1 r8c5 an exocet.

Answer: no at all for both.

The generic condition to have an exocet is that

a digit solving the base (say r7c46)

is also in one of the target cells (say r8c6 r9c1).

Let's see what happen for the digit 2.

The easiest way to check the generic condition is to consider the floor '2'

forcing r7c46 true (here r7c4 true)

forcing the target (r8c6 r9c1) false.

If the generic condition is true, that pattern has no solution

This is the resulting floor where 'g' shows the given in the PM

- Code: Select all
`2.. .2. 222`

2.2 .2. 22.

2.2 ... 2.2

... ..g ...

.g. ... ...

... ... .22

... 2.. ...

..2 ... ..2

..2 ... .22

I let you check, but that PM has multiple solutions.

This is enough to say we have no exocet

The Floor 2 in the second potential exocet is the following

- Code: Select all
`2.. 22. 222`

2.2 22. 22.

2.2 2.. 2.2

... ..g ...

.g. ... ...

... ... .22

..2 2.. ...

..2 ... ...

... ... .22

again, no problem to see that we have possible solutions.

So none of these 2 is an exocet.

In fact, we would come to the same conclusion using digits 9 (very similar floor)

and for digit 4 (I did not check digit 7, but with only one occurrence of that digit...).

================================

It could be that for some digits the check works and not for others.

As soon as the check works for 2 digits, we have a "partial exocet"

eg assume it works here for digits 4 and 7, we could say we have a partial exocet for the possble solution 47

This does not give direct eliminations, but we keep the side effect as here

if 47 was a partial exocet in r7c46 (this is false, but forget it)

then the reduced map in band 3 for assumption 47 would be

- Code: Select all
` | (24679) 5 269 | 4 1 47 | 24679 3 8 |`

| 8 6 269 | 3 (259) 5 | 47 1 2679 |

| 47 347 1239 | 6 289 8 | 5 29 29 |

just doing what comes directly from the exocet logic.

47r7c46 => 47 r8c7 ; 47 r9c1

This can make possible an easy elimination of the assumption 47 r7c46

champagne