Ocean wrote:The first case (xy-wing) is simple and obvious (at least after having seen the xy-wing in other puzzles now and then, once having accepted general proofs for it's validity, etc). The second case is a bit more complicated - so complicated that the equations may not stay in my memory long enough to carry out the deductions, unless I am specially trained for it. (It is still nice and elegant, although harder to spot).
Again, "obvious", "hard to spot", "nice", "elegant", are all subjective issues. For me, there is absolutely no difference between the two, because they both have the same number of links. They are equal nice loops in light of the bilocation/bivalue plot. Also, I don't know what you mean by "equations". Don't forget that this is not mathematics.
No offense, by I think that some of you people complicate things so much, by wanting to give a more "scientific" (or "beautifull", or "socially more cute", I don't know) character to the deductions, and I see how that hinder people to see things as clear as crystal.
RW wrote:Trivial step... I see 2 URs to solve it after that.
Look more carefully. There is a direct deduction.
RW wrote:Here's a shorter one that solves it immediately, could be done even without applying the x-wing first:
Yes, I also spoted that one, but I finded the one I posted more interesting (because of the trivial step).
RW wrote:Now I'm totally lost... From where did you get the stong links [r9c2]=2=[r7c3] and [r8c3]=2=[r8c7]?
I will leave that as another riddle.
Carcul