ronk wrote:Jeff wrote:Bob Hanson wrote:A={26 23}
B={79 39 679}
x=3 (weak link)
z=6 (can be eliminated)
Ronk, can you see that the unit (box 4) housing the weak link with label 3 above has exactly 2 nodes (r4c3 & r6c2) containing the digit 3?
Bob Hanson was illustrating bennys' almost locked set xz rule ... which requires only a weak link for x. So with "x=3 (weak link)" above, Bob was merely denoting the requirements of the rule ... NOT that the 'edge' between the two candidates is a weak link.
Hi Ronk, This is exactly why the term 'weak link' is so confusing. In this particular case, it is not just an indication, but a clear description that confirms 'x=3 (weak link)' is a weak link with a 3 label. Yet, the 2 nodes of the link have a conjugate relationship. No matter what the reason is, you cannot rule out the fact that the definition of 'weak link > 2' and the actual usage are inconsistent.
Another point. You mentioned in your statement that a weak link for x is a requirement of the xz rule. But, according to your own definition weak link > 2, the link with conjugate nodes r4c3 & r6c2 surely doesnt meet that requirement. Nevertheless, this problem can be easily overcome by defining weak link >= 2, a definition that make good sense.
ronk wrote:My answer is "no" to the direct question ... because the meaning of "weak link" is too well established.
Perhaps it's more appropriate to say that the meaning of 'weak link' has been well established in every individual's mind, but these meanings are not necessarily same.
ronk wrote:At the moment, I don't have any better suggestions than "conjugate" and "unconditional" ... but I'll definitely give it some thought.
There is no ambiguity problem regarding the terms 'conjugate' and 'unconditional'.