The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[QBasicMac]

There’s someone called elf ... who might agree with you.

I looked in vain in that thread for any hint that elf would agree that we need to avoid jargon when answering newbie questions. His/her point seems to be that you don't need jargon because there is nothing complicated to discuss - you just complete the puzzle.

? Now I found Ruud's puzzle quite impossible to solve without T&E or BAT. But elf claims that by merely staring at the puzzle for less than 10 minutes the solution is obvious.

I have no doubt that some people, elf included, can do that. But of what benefit is it to anyone to post that fact?

Well, probably I am more newbie-oriented than most. My forum, the "classic forum" at www.qbasic.com is always at the ready to help newbies without throwing advanced programming techniques in their face.

In this forum, the occasional newbie who drops in is a distraction to be put off by dispensing jargon and advising that pre-requisites are required in order to address our august majesties.

Personally, I feel that if you do not have the time to answer a newbie question properly, you should just skip it. It looks like petty show-off to say "read up on naked pairs, fool!" (The "fool" is understood in that context). Just skip it and go to the other posts or continue development of BAT.

a government specification.

ROFLMAO

That's my opinion of BAT (Boring Arcane Techniques).

Mac

[QBasicMac]

We can eliminate the 4 in r6c4, because the 4's in
row 4 are confined to box 5. Then, there is a
57-79-59 naked triple in box 2, which lets us
eliminate 5 from from r1c4.

Oops! Thanks!

Mac

[tso]

The resulting grid forms a BUG with three "extra candidates",
the 5 in r1c1, the 6 in r2c5, and the 6 in r6c6:

Code: Select all

 *--------------------------------------------------*
 | 69+5  8   45   | 46   1    59   | 2    3    7    |
 | 7    46   2    | 3    48+6 68   | 5    1    9    |
 | 59   1    3    | 57   79   2    | 6    8    4    |
 |----------------+----------------+----------------|
 | 1    2    7    | 45   34   35   | 9    6    8    |
 | 48   5    6    | 9    78   1    | 47   2    3    |
 | 48   3    9    | 67   2    78+6 | 47   5    1    |
 |----------------+----------------+----------------|
 | 2    9    1    | 8    67   67   | 3    4    5    |
 | 3    7    8    | 2    5    4    | 1    9    6    |
 | 56   46   45   | 1    39   39   | 8    7    2    |
 *--------------------------------------------------*


I had a similar conclusion last night -- but now I don't know if this is a correct deduction or not. I think I may be out-of-date on the theory. Tell me what I'm missing.

a) r1c1=[569]. The candidate 5 appears three times in row 1, column 1 and box 1, so clearly we can write r1c1=[69+5]

b) r2c5=[468]. The candidate 6 appears three times in row 2 and box 2, HOWEVER, it only appears TWICE in column 5! NONE of the candidates in r2c5 appear three times in column 5. (The candidate 7 appears in r357c5.) Does it still logically follow that we can write r2c5=[48+6]?

c) r6c6=[678]. The candidate 6 appears three times in column 6. HOWEVER, it only appears TWICE in row 6 and box 5. The candidate 7 appears three times in row 6 and box 5. How can I deduce r6c6=[78+6] rather than r6c6=[68+7]?

[Jeff]

a government specification.

ROFLMAO

That's my opinion of BAT (Boring Arcane Techniques).

Thanks for rubbing it in, Mac. Just kidding.

[Nick67]

Nick67 wrote:


The resulting grid forms a BUG with three "extra candidates",
the 5 in r1c1, the 6 in r2c5, and the 6 in r6c6:

Code: Select all


 *--------------------------------------------------*
 | 69+5  8   45   | 46   1    59   | 2    3    7    |
 | 7    46   2    | 3    48+6 68   | 5    1    9    |
 | 59   1    3    | 57   79   2    | 6    8    4    |
 |----------------+----------------+----------------|
 | 1    2    7    | 45   34   35   | 9    6    8    |
 | 48   5    6    | 9    78   1    | 47   2    3    |
 | 48   3    9    | 67   2    78+6 | 47   5    1    |
 |----------------+----------------+----------------|
 | 2    9    1    | 8    67   67   | 3    4    5    |
 | 3    7    8    | 2    5    4    | 1    9    6    |
 | 56   46   45   | 1    39   39   | 8    7    2    |
 *--------------------------------------------------*



I had a similar conclusion last night -- but now I don't know if this is a correct deduction or not. I think I may be out-of-date on the theory. Tell me what I'm missing.

a) r1c1=[569]. The candidate 5 appears three times in row 1, column 1 and box 1, so clearly we can write r1c1=[69+5]

b) r2c5=[468]. The candidate 6 appears three times in row 2 and box 2, HOWEVER, it only appears TWICE in column 5! NONE of the candidates in r2c5 appear three times in column 5. (The candidate 7 appears in r357c5.) Does it still logically follow that we can write r2c5=[48+6]?

c) r6c6=[678]. The candidate 6 appears three times in column 6. HOWEVER, it only appears TWICE in row 6 and box 5. The candidate 7 appears three times in row 6 and box 5. How can I deduce r6c6=[78+6] rather than r6c6=[68+7]?

tso, you are absolutely right. My BUG ... is not a BUG!
I have edited my earlier post.

[Nick67]

Well, my first post in this thread was incorrect.

But for those interested in BUGs,
I believe I have now come up with a correct BUG-based
solution to this puzzle, and I posted it here .

[Cec]

"...Box 7 has a locked candidate." That is the kind of help you can expect on this forum. The members believe that nobody should be helped other than to learn a mass of locally-invented jargon. So learn it if you want help. As I showed above, it means to inspect box 7 and note that there are only two 6's and they are in the same row. Hence the other 6's in row 9 (in columns 5 and 6) can be erased. Erase them...."

Mac, Just when I thought we were getting on ...!

Your above explanation of a locked candidate in Box7 is clear but I really can't see it is any clearer than the explanations given in the 'Solving Sudoku' link suggested by Shazbot. In addition to other solving techniques, this link explains simply and clearly how to identify both "Locked Candidates(1) and (2) and I was grateful when referred to this link and the impressive SadMan link both of which I found of enormous help to improve my sudoku.

It's easy to identify a "Newbie" when he/she submit their first post (or second post, etc) but the problem I have is not knowing how much the "Newbie" knows about solving techniques when conjuring my reply. The links suggested cover most of the basic and advanced techniques leaving the "Newbie" to choose how much of their time they wish to devote to learn. If something's not clear and they are keen to learn then I expect they would ask.

Cec

[QBasicMac]

Your above explanation of a locked candidate in Box7 is clear but I really can't see it is any clearer than the explanations given in [link to a general discussion]

Hi, Cec,

I really must insist my explanation is clearer. I can accept difference of opinion about whether the OP wanted so clear an explanation. I can even accept difference of opinion about whether the OP should be given such a clear explanation, whether or not it was wanted. That is all matters of personal opinion. But that it is clearer is a matter of fact.

Why? Because I address the exact specific case the question is about.

Now if the OP says "How can I solve puzzles like the one below?", then the clear answer would include or even be restricted to links to good instructions. I could have referred the OP to my own explanations documented with SSP3 at www.SuDoku.funURL.com.

But the question was about a specific puzzle. An answer that addresses that specific puzzle is clearer than a general answer.

If someone says "I am having trouble figuring the mean for these numbers: 8, 10, 31 and -3. My book says the answer is 11.75. Here is my work so far:
Mean = (8+10+31+3)/4 = 10.75

Answer 1: There is a Corrupted Copy in the numerator (see Arithmetic Calculation Techniques) <---- a link to a document where the local jargon term "Corrupted Copy" is described in general pointing out errors arise when the sign is not retained, blah, blah, ...

Answer 2: Your last number to average was -3, but you forgot the sign and thus averaged +3. Do this instead
Mean = (8+10+31-3)/4 = 11.75

Surely you don't insist that the latter answer is not clearer.

Now whether anyone needs to learn jargon to solve SuDoku puzzles is a matter of opinion, as em points out, and is thus not subject to resolution. But whether or not SuDoku help to a newbie should exactly identify cells and pencilmarks in the specific case is, in my view, a matter of fact that I am willing to debate endlessly. I have been such newbie and have been enraged at what appeared to be look-how-cute-and-in-crowd-I-am type replies that were designed to impress fellow forum regulars rather than help me out.

I was stuck on an exact puzzle because of some blind spot and could benefit only by details.

If I have lost my car keys, I don't want a general explanation about the benefits of keeping track of my stuff and a list of references to memory-aid books. I want to hear "They are on the living room table". That is a clear answer to my question.

Right? Mac

[emm]

Finding my car keys is entirely different from solving a puzzle, and if we can't agree on that then we will be debating endlessly.
To me, it’s like comparing giving a kid at a birthday party directions to the toilet with giving him a clue in a treasure hunt. In the first case I want to get him there by the shortest possible route, in the second I’m giving him a pointer that will set him on a path of discovery.

Your style doesn't appeal to me, Mac, but I know it may well appeal to some and I'm certainly not going to get all worked up about it. If I think I can be more helpful than you, or anyone else, then I can reply myself and leave it up to the newbies to choose which response works for them.

One thing you don’t do though, is give newbies enough credit. Look at skd’s reply . Doesn't sound very "enraged at what appeared to be look-how-cute-and-in-crowd-I-am type replies" to me.

[QBasicMac]

we be debating endlessly.

LOL - Well, to keep the forum open for SuDoku work, I will unilaterraly quit arguing and instead just supply fuller answers without editorial comment whenever I see the stuff I used to hate.

Too bad the OP didn't reply "in thread" yesterday. I might have changed some text. I do note the thanks were "to everybody" which was nice.

Mac

[emm]

I will unilaterraly quit arguing

Oh no, I didn't mean that! I like arguing!

[QBasicMac]

I like arguing!

Me, too, but must resist - save forum space!

(The devil made me respond)

Hey, em, while we have hijacked this thread anyway, I think you are English. If so, could you verify something? I overheard some English person say "Happy Christmas". It has always been "Merry Christmas".

Is it now changed in Happy Old England? Is "merry" defunct? Or was that just a strange person.

Mac

[emm]

Yeah, merry is defunct where I come from or rather it means happily intoxicated more than anything else, but Merry and Happy are still both used in relation to Christmas - and it's personal preference and has nothing to do with any implied consumption of alcohol!

Americans are divided on this too - see this poll.

[QBasicMac]

Americans are divided on this too

Not so! Americans who think Christmas is supposed to be dedicated to the birth of Jesus generally say "Merry Christmas" (seldom or never "Happy Christmas"). True some merely say "Happy Holidays" in order to include New Year, rather than say "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year".

But since the insane Religious Right got motivated by issues of gay marriage, abortion and evolution, the idea that "Happy Holidays" might mean to include Jews, Moslems, Blacks who celebrate some African rite, etc. has caused them to go off the deep end. They already elected Bush by voting to a person on pain of going to hell so he would pack the Supreme Court with nuts. I think they would really prefer "Happy celebration of the virgin birth of the son of God and a pox on whoever doesn't like to hear this". To make matters worse, Bush inexplicably sent seasons greetings (another phrase they hate) to all his big-donor supporters and really set them off.

The poll you referenced refers to the split between "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays", not "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Christmas" which nobody says.

But you have informed me that "Happy Christmas" is indeed used in England. Interesting.

Mac

Edit: P.S. On reading your explanation of "merry", I think we should start using "Merry New Year".

[ronk]

Answer 2: Your last number to average was -3, but you forgot the sign and thus averaged +3. Do this instead
Mean = (8+10+31-3)/4 = 11.75

Surely you don't insist that the latter answer is not clearer.

An incorrect answer is rarely clearer.

... [edit: whatever] is, in my view, a matter of fact ...

That's oxymoronic. Either it's your point of view, i.e., your opinion ... *or* it's fact ... not both.