ab wrote:rep'nA wrote:
...I find no technique in Sudoku more elegant than uniqueness reductions.
I'm educated to degree level in maths, but couldn't disagree with you more! I only like to use techniques that rely on logic and not the assumption that the puzzle has a unique solution.
I seriously don't understand why this conversation is neccessary. In every source I can find, the basic rules for a sudoku are:
1. Every number 1-9 has to appear once in every row, column and box
2. There is only one solution
Why would it be less logical to assume the second rule to be true than to assume the first rule is true? If you play by the rules any technique that assumes an unique solution is as logical as any technique that assumes that every number appears once in every row. Sure, you can construct a 9x9 grid with multiple solutions that would satisfy the first rule of a sudoku puzzle, but everybody on this forum agrees that such a grid cannot be called a sudoku, it is something else. I do not care if the technique doesn't apply in "something else", as long as it is a valid logical technique in every sudoku puzzle.
Smythe Dakota wrote:Is it not also true (at least with Pappocom-published puzzles) that minimality (non-redundancy of the clue set) ia assured? If so, how do you feel about using THAT fact to help solve a puzzle?
Very interesting idea, could develop into something nice. I would absolutely use such a technique if the minimality was assured. If the creator provides a fact about a puzzle, why should I question that and not assume it to be true?
RW