Looking for a rule: finned x wing

Advanced methods and approaches for solving Sudoku puzzles

Postby tarek » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:48 am

thanx Mike,

Looking at the matters again... what Myth posted does require life support............so it can't be a franken fish.......

if we are going to include everything that requires life support (Anything outside the pattern regarding the proof) then it should be called a Kraken fish........so everything from Almost fish to the use of NICE loops or Siamese patterns should fall under that (with sub headings if needed)...........

in an N row * N columns, you can't have finned cells in multiple boxes that can see an elimination cell......so that throws the multi finned fish out of the window......

Regarding the franken fish.......as the cover sectors now cover boxes.....we can have 2 options......Either to apply Franken to (Classic, Finned, Sahimi & headless) or as Mike mentioned (Bif Finned & Franken) or leave everything that uses boxes as cover as FRANKEN & mention fins if present (which sounds resonable).......

So the list for now to me looks like this
Code: Select all
Fish#1 Classic fish (no extras (Fins))
Fish#2 Finned fish (Not Headless Not sahimi)
Fish#3 Sashimi fish (Not headless)
Fish#4 Headless fish (No simpler counterpart)
Fish#5 Franken Fish (Any fish 1-4 that uses a box or boxes in the cover sectors) (No simpler counterpart)
Fish#6 Kraken Fish (Any Fish from 1-5 that survives by using Candidates out of the pattern)

Fish 1-4 are categorised in that way to allow junior fishermen who are already familiar with classic concepts to have a good learning curve towards the more difficult ones

What Mike has suggested -I think- goes along these line
Code: Select all
Classic Fish (N rows * N columns)
Finned Fish (N rows * N columns) + Extras (Fin)
Big Fish (Box or Boxes in cover sectors)  No extras
Franken fish (Box or Boxes in cover sectors)+ Extras (Fin)
Kraken Fish (survives through candidates outside the pattern)


Which also sounds fine, but may confuse biginners IMO as you will have people saying "Sashimi, finned sashimi, finned" describing the same thing.

tarek
User avatar
tarek
 
Posts: 2612
Joined: 05 January 2006

Postby tarek » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:57 am

ronk wrote:
tarek wrote:... in the Filet-O-Fish thread we have always referred to each fin cell as a fin, so we can have up to 4 fins in a skinny Finned fish

That was my viewpoint also until someone pointed out that ...
Myth Jellies wrote:Filet-O-Fish Rule

If you can form a swordfish/x-wing pattern by not considering candidates in cells (1..n), then you can keep any eliminations from that swordfish/x-wing pattern that share a group with all cells (1..n). The cells (1..n) have been called the fin.

Note that "cells" is plural and "fin" is singular. Myth Jellies

Myth Jellies wrote:The way I've tried to use it is that a fin can consist of multiple cells, but all of those cells have to be part of the same group (box). I indicated two fins in my prior post because the two cells were not in the same box. I like this distinction because then the two-finned label will indicate a significant difference in the deduction (the concept is the same but the execution is more difficult) as compared to a single-finned fish with a two-cell fin like the opening example.

You are talking about N rows * N columns pattens Myth.....if you have more than 1 fin in an N row * N column pattern then you need some extra help from outside the pattern.....but if the cover sectors include boxes then there may exist >1 fin that can see an elimination cell which makes the fish survive on its own.

tarek
User avatar
tarek
 
Posts: 2612
Joined: 05 January 2006

Postby ronk » Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:52 pm

tarek wrote:So the list for now to me looks like this
Code: Select all
Fish#1 Classic fish (no extras (Fins))
Fish#2 Finned fish (Not Headless Not sahimi)
Fish#3 Sashimi fish (Not headless)
Fish#4 Headless fish (No simpler counterpart)
Fish#5 Franken Fish (Any fish 1-4 that uses a box or boxes in the cover sectors) (No simpler counterpart)
Fish#6 Kraken Fish (Any Fish from 1-5 that survives by using Candidates out of the pattern)

Fish 1-4 are categorised in that way to allow junior fishermen who are already familiar with classic concepts to have a good learning curve towards the more difficult ones

Using the swordfish as the "case study" and ignoring the Kraken fish for now, I'm assuming the below are suitable exemplars for this discussion. The exemplars are adapted versions from MJ's post here.
Code: Select all
 . | . | | . . | . | .     . | . | | . . | . | .     . | . | | . . | . | .
 * X * | X * * | * X *     . X . | X . . | . X .     . X . | X . . | . X .
 . | . | | . . | . | .     . | . | | . . | . | .     . | . | | . . | . | .
-------+-------+-------   -------+-------+-------   -------+-------+-------
 . | . | | . . | . | .     . | . | # . . | . | .     . | . | # . . | . | .
 * X * | X * * | * X *     . X . | X * * | . X .     . X . |(.)* * | . X .
 . | . | | . . | . | .     . | . | # . . | . | .     . | . | # . . | . | .
-------+-------+-------   -------+-------+-------   -------+-------+-------
 . | . | | . . | . | .     . | . | | . . | . | .     . | . | | . . | . | .
 . | . | | . . | . | .     . | . | | . . | . | .     . | . | | . . | . | .
 * X * | X * * | * X *     . X . | X . . | . X .     . X . | X . . | . X .
 1. basic                  2. finned                 3. sashimi


 . . . | | . . | X X *     . . . | | . . | X X .
 . . . | | . . | X X *     . . . | | . . | X X .
 . . . | | . . | X X *     . . . | | . . | X X .
-------+-------+-------   -------+-------+-------
 . . . | | . . | | | .     . . . | # . . | | | .
 * * * | X * * | X X *     . . . | X * * | X X .
 . . . | | . . | | | .     . . . | # . . | | | .
-------+-------+-------   -------+-------+-------
 . . . | | . . | | | .     . . . | | . . | | | .
 . . . | | . . | | | .     . . . | | . . | | | .
 * * * | X * * | X X *     . . . | X . . | X X .
 4. finless franken (a)    5A. franken

Key:  X  = vertex or candidate (may be missing)
      |  = no candidate
     (.) = missing vertex
      #  = fin cell (only one required)
      *  = potential exclusion

Notes: (a) Also known as "headless" and "skinny" fish

Any corrections or suggestions?

Note that I've followed Mike's suggestion of "basic" instead of "classic" ... so we can say things like "classic frankenswordfish" as Havard already has.:)

[Edit 1: Modified figures 1, 2 and 3 to use all three stacks to distingush between 3-col/3-row and 3-col/(2-row + 1-box) patterns; added figure 5B to illustrate Mike Barker's "big fin. Edit 2: Removed figure 5B and references to big fin. Edit 3: Added "finless franken" name and note (a); replaced "missing vertex" with "no candidate" symbols.]
Last edited by ronk on Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:26 am, edited 3 times in total.
ronk
2012 Supporter
 
Posts: 4764
Joined: 02 November 2005
Location: Southeastern USA

Postby Mike Barker » Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:34 pm

Ron, in both the finned and sashimi versions you are using a big fin. You may also want to show a regular fin version or emphasize that a fin doesn't require two lines in a box in some other way. This looses the distinction between regular fins and big fins, which at one time was a major revelation, but may not be so important now. Of course there is the other side of the coin - a big fin can cover three lines!
Mike Barker
 
Posts: 458
Joined: 22 January 2006

Postby tarek » Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:03 pm

Great work ronk,

The headless fish that you used is correct in that it shows a 3 Lines * 2 Line & box configuration, but what I had in mind is something that works also a sashimi (something to bridge the gap between sashimi & franken) like this
Code: Select all
 . . . | . . . | # # .
 . . . |(.). . |(. .)*
 . . . | | . . | # # .
-------+-|-----+-|-|---
 . . . | | . . | | | .
 . . . | X . . | X X .
 . . . | | . . | | | .
-------+-|-----+-|-|---
 . . . | | . . | | | .
 . . . | | . . | | | .
 . . . | X . . | X X .
4. headless 


Mike,
I know that talking of fins in terms of 1 fin per base sector is more accurate than saying 1 fin per box, but for Fishes 1-4 it shouldn't make that much difference....so for fins in fish 1-4 IMO it should remain as it had been, just 1 fin per box without (big fin or samll fin)

I think, we're just about to get there

tarek
User avatar
tarek
 
Posts: 2612
Joined: 05 January 2006

Postby daj95376 » Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:45 pm

Thanks for the summary and great examples!!! Now, all I need to do is try and match my Template eliminations to these patterns for Swordfish ... and similar patterns for other fish.

Life was so much simpler with Double/Triple Implication Chains. But no one wants to use the C-word anymore, so I try to adapt even though I'm lucky to spot the basic fish. Again, Thanks!!!

Code: Select all
 *-----------*
 |1..|45.|7..|
 |.5.|...|..2|
 |..9|.21|.5.|
 |---+---+---|
 |..8|79.|...|
 |2..|...|..7|
 |...|.14|5..|
 |---+---+---|
 |.7.|63.|2..|
 |3..|...|.7.|
 |..2|.78|..4|
 *-----------* # original

Code: Select all
# Pick your favorite fish and fin(s)
# Here's the eliminations on <5>
 *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
 | 1       2       36      | 4       5       369     | 7       3689    3689    |
 | 468     5       346     | 389     68      7       | 13469   13469   2       |
 | 7       3468    9       | 38      2       1       | 346     5       36      |
 |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------|
 | 456     1346    8       | 7       9       2356    | 1346    12346   136     |
 | 2       13469   13456   |-358     68      356     | 134689  134689  7       |
 | 69      369     7       | 238     1       4       | 5       23689   3689    |
 |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------|
 | 4589    7       145     | 6       3      -59      | 2       189     1589    |
 | 3       1689    156     | 1259    4      -259     | 1689    7       15689   |
 | 569     169     2       | 159     7       8       | 1369    1369    4       |
 *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*

Code: Select all
# Identical grid
# Here's the eliminations on <8>
 *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
 | 1       2       36      | 4       5       369     | 7       3689    3689    |
 |-468     5       346     | 389     68      7       | 13469   13469   2       |
 | 7       3468    9       |-38      2       1       | 346     5       36      |
 |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------|
 | 456     1346    8       | 7       9       2356    | 1346    12346   136     |
 | 2       13469   13456   | 358     68      356     | 134689  134689  7       |
 | 69      369     7       | 238     1       4       | 5       23689   3689    |
 |-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------|
 | 4589    7       145     | 6       3       59      | 2      -189    -1589    |
 | 3      -1689    156     | 1259    4       259     | 1689    7       15689   |
 | 569     169     2       | 159     7       8       | 1369    1369    4       |
 *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
daj95376
2014 Supporter
 
Posts: 2624
Joined: 15 May 2006

Postby ronk » Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:00 pm

tarek wrote:The headless fish that you used is correct in that it shows a 3 Lines * 2 Line & box configuration, but what I had in mind is something that works also a sashimi (something to bridge the gap between sashimi & franken) like this ...

I intentionally avoided "bridging the gap" to keep separation between the 3-col/3-row and 3-col/(2-row + 1-box) patterns. At the same time I kept the exemplars as much alike as possible to illustrate how much alike they were ... but carried that a bit too far. So as Mike suggested, the basic, finned and sashimi swordfish exemplars have been modified to use all three stacks (and bands).
ronk
2012 Supporter
 
Posts: 4764
Joined: 02 November 2005
Location: Southeastern USA

Postby tarek » Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:34 pm

ronk wrote:I intentionally avoided "bridging the gap" to keep separation between the 3-col/3-row and 3-col/(2-row + 1-box) patterns.
That is fine, however 2 issues....

1. the modified pattern that I posted last falls withinin "sashimi" & NOT "headless" then ??? The pattern you posted can still fall under Sashimi (3 sashimis)!!!!!
Code: Select all
 . . . |(.). . | X X *   . . . |(.). . | # # .   . . . |(.). . | # # .
 . . . |(.). . | # # .   . . . |(.). . | X X *   . . . |(.). . | # # .
 . . . |(.). . | # # .   . . . |(.). . | # # .   . . . |(.). . | X X * 
-------+-|-----+-|-|--- -------+-|-----+-|-|--- -------+-|-----+-|-|---
 . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | . 
 * * * | X * * | X X *   * * * | X * * | X X *   * * * | X * * | X X * 
 . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | . 
-------+-|-----+-|-|--- -------+-|-----+-|-|--- -------+-|-----+-|-|---
 . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | . 
 . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | . 
 * * * | X * * | X X *   * * * | X * * | X X *   * * * | X * * | X X * 
Sashimi 1                Sashimi 2               Sashimi 3


2. The way you displayed the headless is also a "Finless Franken" or "basic Franken", was that also intentional ?:D

We need to decide on how to treat these Sashimis that exhibit a (2line & box) cover.

If we are not using boxes as base sectors in any fish, why is there a need to use big/small fin terms if we didn't use them in the Filet-O-Fish thread??

I said that it is more "appropriate", but at this stage I think this will just confuse people unless you want to add big/small fin to Finned & Sashimi fish.

tarek
User avatar
tarek
 
Posts: 2612
Joined: 05 January 2006

Postby ronk » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:40 am

tarek wrote:1. the modified pattern that I posted last falls withinin "sashimi" & NOT "headless" then ??? The pattern you posted can still fall under Sashimi (3 sashimis)!!!!!
Code: Select all
 . . . |(.). . | X X *   . . . |(.). . | # # .   . . . |(.). . | # # .
 . . . |(.). . | # # .   . . . |(.). . | X X *   . . . |(.). . | # # .
 . . . |(.). . | # # .   . . . |(.). . | # # .   . . . |(.). . | X X * 
-------+-|-----+-|-|--- -------+-|-----+-|-|--- -------+-|-----+-|-|---
 . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | . 
 * * * | X * * | X X *   * * * | X * * | X X *   * * * | X * * | X X * 
 . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | . 
-------+-|-----+-|-|--- -------+-|-----+-|-|--- -------+-|-----+-|-|---
 . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | . 
 . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | . 
 * * * | X * * | X X *   * * * | X * * | X X *   * * * | X * * | X X * 
Sashimi 1                Sashimi 2               Sashimi 3

Because there are still candidates in the box, those don't look like sashimi exclusions to me. There are three different sashimi exclusions possible just in the box but the pattern (see below) wouldn't survive the x-wing.
Code: Select all
 . . . |(#). . |(. .)*   . . . |(.). . |(. .).   . . . |(.). . |(. .).
 . . . |(.). . |(. .).   . . . |(#). . |(. .)*   . . . |(.). . |(. .).
 . . . |(.). . |(. .).   . . . |(.). . |(. .).   . . . |(#). . |(. .)*
-------+-|-----+-|-|--- -------+-|-----+-|-|--- -------+-|-----+-|-|---
 . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | . 
 . . . | X . . | X X .   . . . | X . . | X X .   . . . | X . . | X X . 
 . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | . 
-------+-|-----+-|-|--- -------+-|-----+-|-|--- -------+-|-----+-|-|---
 . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | . 
 . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | .   . . . | | . . | | | . 
 . . . | X . . | X X .   . . . | X . . | X X .   . . . | X . . | X X . 
Sashimi 1                Sashimi 2               Sashimi 3

Don't be concerned about there being three such exclusions instead of one. It's no different than three different sashimi exclusions in a row of a basic swordfish.

tarek wrote:2. The way you displayed the headless is also a "Finless Franken" or "basic Franken", was that also intentional ?:D

Yes it was. If I had my druthers, we would rename "franken" to "finned franken" and "headless" to "franken" ... and then add "sashimi franken." And if I really had my druthers, we'd drop the "sashimi" name and just consider it part of the "finned" pattern.

tarek wrote:If we are not using boxes as base sectors in any fish ...

That's another kettle of fish.:D The inverse of a row/col N-fish is a col/row N-fish so we just proceed by mentally transposing the pattern ... or explicitly transposing in a computer program. But the inverse of a rows/(cols+box) pattern is a (cols+box)/rows pattern. I think I've posted an example or two of that ... but no one seems interested yet.

Which reminds me ... has anyone searched for "headless" N-fish and posted any real life examples? Mike Barker and Havard have both posted frankenfish (with at least one fin), but I don't recall a finless example. Seems odd since it has the potential for many more exclusions.

tarek wrote:... why is there a need to use big/small fin terms if we didn't use them in the Filet-O-Fish thread??

I said that it is more "appropriate", but at this stage I think this will just confuse people unless you want to add big/small fin to Finned & Sashimi fish.

I have never seen the need for "big fin" either. Mike Barker seems to be the only one using that term ... so I removed that exemplar.
ronk
2012 Supporter
 
Posts: 4764
Joined: 02 November 2005
Location: Southeastern USA

Postby Mike Barker » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:29 am

Ron wrote:If I had my druthers, we would rename "franken" to "finned franken" and "headless" to "franken" ... and then add "sashimi franken." And if I really had my druthers, we'd drop the "sashimi" name and just consider it part of the "finned" pattern.

I agree with four types of standalone fish: basic, finned, Franken, and finned Franken except that we seem to be redefining a Franken fish which may not be a good idea (it will be confusing when reading older posts). If Havard agrees, we could go with finless Franken and finned Franken. Kraken and almost can wait for another day.

Here's a few "finless Franken" fish (formerly known as headless and big fin)
Code: Select all
.8....64.....4....3.4..6..2....5.....9.76...57.3...1......9....1..4..7.996...2..3
+----------------+----------------+------------------+
|  25   8   159  |  259  3    79  |    6     4   17  |
| 256  12  1569  | 2589  4   789  | 3589*   13  178* |
|   3   7     4  |  589  1     6  |  589* 59-8    2  |
+----------------+----------------+------------------+
| 268* 12    16  |    3  5  19-8  |   89*    7    4  |
|   4   9    18  |    7  6    18  |   23    23    5  |
|   7   5     3  |   89  2     4  |    1    89    6  |
+----------------+----------------+------------------+
|  58*  4     7  |    6  9     3  |  258*   12   18* |
|   1   3     2  |    4  8     5  |    7     6    9  |
|   9   6    58  |    1  7     2  |    4    58    3  |
+----------------+----------------+------------------+

8....5..4.5.12..7...9..3...6.8.......3.5...16.9.83......1.4......7....3..8....5..
+---------------+----------------+----------------+
|  8    12*  3  | 67   67     5  |   12*   9   4  |
|  4     5   6  |  1    2     9  |    3    7   8  |
| 27  17-2   9  |  4    8     3  | 16-2   26   5  |
+---------------+----------------+----------------+
|  6    47   8  | 27   17  1247  |    9    5   3  |
| 27     3  24  |  5    9    47  |    8    1   6  |
|  1     9   5  |  8    3     6  | 47-2   24  27  |
+---------------+----------------+----------------+
|  5    26*  1  |  3    4    27* |  267*   8   9  |
|  9   246*  7  | 26*   5     8  |  246*   3   1  |
|  3     8  24  |  9  167    17  |    5  246  27  |
+---------------+----------------+----------------+
Mike Barker
 
Posts: 458
Joined: 22 January 2006

Postby Ocean » Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:00 am

ronk wrote:Using the swordfish as the "case study" and ignoring the Kraken fish for now, I'm assuming the below are suitable exemplars for this discussion. The exemplars are adapted versions from MJ's post here.

Interesting development in the classification of fishes. Thanks for the summary and pictures, ronk!

Wonder if this "fish" (or its related species) is now classified as fish ? (Discovered in my "younger days", but apparently not recognized as a fish then by the ichtyologists...):
Code: Select all
 | | | | | . . | | | .
 . . . | X * * | X | *
 . . . | X * * | | X *
-------+-|-----+-|-|---
 . . . | | . . | | | . 
 * * * | X * * | X X *
 . . . | | . . | | | .
-------+-|-----+-|-|---
 . . . | | . . | | | .
 . . . | | . . | | | .
 * * * | X * * | X X *


Key:  X  = vertex (candidate) (may be missing)
      | =  no candidate
      *  = potential exclusion
Ocean
 
Posts: 442
Joined: 29 August 2005

Postby tarek » Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:38 am

Mike Barker wrote:Here's a few "finless Franken" fish (formerly known as headless and big fin)
Nice.......:D

Ocean wrote:Wonder if this "fish" (or its related species) is now classified as fish ? (Discovered in my "younger days", but apparently not recognized as a fish then by the ichtyologists...):
Code: Select all
 | | | | | . . | | | .
 . . . | X * * | X | *
 . . . | X * * | | X *
-------+-|-----+-|-|---
 . . . | | . . | | | . 
 * * * | X * * | X X *
 . . . | | . . | | | .
-------+-|-----+-|-|---
 . . . | | . . | | | .
 . . . | | . . | | | .
 * * * | X * * | X X *
I don't know how to explain the eliminations in rows 5 & 9, but the secret may be in the extra information from r1C123..

However, the eliminations in boxes 2 & 3 can be done by a variety of of Finned Franken Swordfishes (again unusual 3 column* 3 row formation with 2 fins !!).........is this pattern possible ????

tarek
User avatar
tarek
 
Posts: 2612
Joined: 05 January 2006

Postby ravel » Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:24 am

tarek wrote:I don't know how to explain the eliminations in rows 5 & 9, but the secret may be in the extra information from r1C123..
Probably not what you asked for:
A value elsewhere in those rows leaves 2 strong links (skyscraper) in columns 7 and 8, that eliminate X from the rest of box 3 and from r9c4 (or r5c4), which gives a strong link in box 2. So neither r1c45 (locked candidates) nor r1c9 can be X - no X in row 1.
Code: Select all
 | | | | | . . | | |-.
 . . . | X * * | X |-*
 . . . | X * * | | X-*
-------+-|-----+-|-|---
 . . . | | . . | | | .
 . . . | | . . | | | .
 . . . | | . . | | | .
-------+-|-----+-|-|---
 . . . | | . . | | | .
 . . . | | . . | | | .
 * * * |-X * * | X X *
ravel
 
Posts: 998
Joined: 21 February 2006

Postby ronk » Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:48 am

Mike Barker wrote:Here's a few "finless Franken" fish (formerly known as headless and big fin)

Thanks. Are you aware of any previously posted examples?

Ocean wrote:Wonder if this "fish" (or its related species) is now classified as fish ? (Discovered in my "younger days", but apparently not recognized as a fish then by the ichtyologists...):
Code: Select all
 | | | | | . . | | | .
 . . . | X * * | X | *
 . . . | X * * | | X *
-------+-|-----+-|-|---
 . . . | | . . | | | . 
 * * * | X * * | X X *
 . . . | | . . | | | .
-------+-|-----+-|-|---
 . . . | | . . | | | .
 . . . | | . . | | | .
 * * * | X * * | X X *

Key:  X  = vertex (candidate) (may be missing)
      | =  no candidate
      *  = potential exclusion

Nice example of a 4x4 constraint set problem which could be called a "generalized jellyfish", I suppose. All the candidates of set 'A' in b1c478 are covered by set 'B' in r2359. Candidates in set B, but not in set A, may thus be excluded.

Code: Select all
 | | | | | . . | | | .
 X X X | X * * | X X *
 X X X | X * * | X X *
-------+-------+-------
 . . . | | . . | | | . 
 * * * | X * * | X X *
 . . . | | . . | | | .
-------+-------+-------
 . . . | | . . | | | .
 . . . | | . . | | | .
 * * * | X * * | X X *

Key:  X  = vertex (candidate) (may be missing)
      |  =  no candidate
      *  = potential exclusion
ronk
2012 Supporter
 
Posts: 4764
Joined: 02 November 2005
Location: Southeastern USA

Postby tarek » Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:33 am

ravel wrote:Probably not what you asked for:
A value elsewhere in those rows leaves 2 strong links (skyscraper) in columns 7 and 8, that eliminate X from the rest of box 3 and from r9c4 (or r5c4), which gives a strong link in box 2. So neither r1c45 (locked candidates) nor r1c9 can be X - no X in row 1

ronk wrote:Nice example of a 4x4 constraint set problem which could be called a "generalized jellyfish", I suppose. All the candidates of set 'A' in b1c478 are covered by set 'B' in r2359. Candidates in set B, but not in set A, may thus be excluded.


So it is....... I was caged in this "No boxes in the base sectors".....I'm free now........

So in a sense... this is a finless franken Jellyfish....According to what we are trying to do here:?::!:

So now we have.......

Finless franken fish: N SECTORS * N SECTORS (No extras"Fins")
Finned franken fish: N SECTORS * N SECTORS (with extras "Fins")

So by accepting that the exceptional case of the previous Sashimi sworfish is actualyy a finless franken swrdfish that should really wrap it up:D

1. Basic: N line * N line No extras
2. Finned: Basic with extras
3. Sashimi N line * N line with extras (Not Finned)
4. Finless Franken N Sector * N sectors (No extras)
5. Finned Franken N Sector * N sectors (with extras)
6. Kraken (later?)

The sashimi term probably is redundant ..... I'm insisting on it because if we refer to everything as finned, it may confuse junior fishermen & I'm sure that sashimi will then come back with a vengance....I've already gave it a go here

tarek
Last edited by tarek on Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tarek
 
Posts: 2612
Joined: 05 January 2006

PreviousNext

Return to Advanced solving techniques