eleven wrote:The problem with the wrong link is, that there is no ALS, because there are 4 candidates in 2 cells.

The ALS chains of Dan and Leren are out of question.

Personally i prefer, when such chains are written as simple as possible, without pressing simple links into one ALS link.

E.g Dan's cahin i would write as

(46=7)r23c4-(7=1)r1c4-(1=8)r1c6-(8=146)r78c6,r7c5 => -46r8c4

and Leren's as

(467=8)r8c269-(8=1)r1c6-(1=7)r1c4-(7=46)r23c4 => -46r8c4

But i see, that you like to play with that to notate shorter solutions.

@Danny: if you have an ALS, you always have a link between different sets of candidates, e.g. abc=defg for a 6 cell ALS. The question is just, if it is of use It seems to be convention here to leave out candidates on one side, if they are not used (so a=b also would be a valid link in the 6 cell ALS).

In keeping with the subject of the posts above, beginning with David's, I believe that the use of the 'simplified' ALS notation mentioned by Eleven just above and other variations of notation that have been introduced are also contributing to the problem. For instance, to me, leaving out the 'unused candidates' of a 6-element ALS so that all that is notated is a=b results in an ALS notation that is both misleading and inaccurate. It is the entire pattern and thus, all candidates of an ALS that allows a=b so all candidates that make up an ALS need to be stated. This premise applies to all other patterns as well.

The basic Eureka notation became standardized after a lot of input (over 2 years or more) from people with a lot of math logic experience, but what we have here are changes being made to the notation by people who are relatively new solvers. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for it other than to reduce the notation to a form of shorthand that requires less typing at the price of accuracy and clarity for the reader.

PS. Just so it's clear, I realize that Eleven was simply stating what has been occurring by others rather than his promoting this 'simplified' notation.