Mauriès Robert wrote:P'(8r9c4): -8r9c4->6r9c4->6r1c1->8r1c8 => -8r1c4, stte
Can the corresponding AIC be written as follows: (8=6)r9c4-6r9c1=6r1c1-(6=8)r1c8 =>-8r1c4?
Robert
Hi Robert,
It is maybe not very clearly stated in the Eureka page
here (don't know which is your reference ?), that the digits need not to be repeated when they don't change.
In the same way that Sudopedia states:
There is no need to repeat the cell name when multiple candidates of that cell are used in the chain.
, the following principle for writing AICs is generally practised:
There is no need to repeat the digit symbol when the same digit is used in sequencing terms in the chain, (except in endpoints).This way, digits are always between parentheses, and only digits are. This avoid confusing them with node coordinates. This is true even in endpoints.
I used a complex way to say that, in your chain (8=6)r9c4-6r9c1=6r1c1-(6=8)r1c8 =>-8r1c4, you can drop the 6 in front of r9c1 and r1c1.
Then you get (8=6)r9c4-r9c1=r1c1-(6=8)r1c8 =>-8r1c4, i.e. exactly Leren's W-wing.
On this forum (not a Eureka rule) we are used to adding blanks around isolated link symbols '=' and '-' (by isolated I mean "not inside parentheses"). It makes the chains easier to read.
Thus (8=6)r9c4 - r9c1 = r1c1 - (6=8)r1c8 => -8 r1c4; stte would be the major practise .
Fortunately, this recommandation is exactly Leren's
(as well as mine...)