The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[ArkieTech]

Code: Select all

 *-----------*
 |.8.|...|..7|
 |5..|897|..6|
 |...|...|.54|
 |---+---+---|
 |...|6.1|94.|
 |...|.4.|...|
 |.91|3.2|...|
 |---+---+---|
 |37.|...|...|
 |8..|913|..5|
 |2..|...|.8.|
 *-----------*


Play/Print this puzzle online

[SteveG48]

Code: Select all

 *-----------------------------------------------------------*
 | 1     8     6     | 245   235   45    | 23    9     7     |
 | 5     4     23    | 8     9     7     | 123   123   6     |
 | 9     23    7     | 1     23    6     | 8     5     4     |
 *-------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
 | 7     5     23    | 6     8     1     | 9     4     23    |
 | 6     23    8     |d57    4     9     | 1357  137   123   |
 | 4     9     1     | 3   ae57    2     |a567   6-7   8     |
 *-------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
 | 3     7     59    | 245   256   8     | 146   16    19    |
 | 8     6     4     | 9     1     3     | 27    27    5     |
 | 2     1     59    |c457  c567   45    |b346   8     39    |
 *-----------------------------------------------------------*


(7=56)r6c57 - 6r9c7 = (67)r9c45 - 7r5c4 = 7r6c5 => -7 r6c8 ; stte

[SpAce]

Code: Select all

.-----------.-----------------.--------------------.
| 1  8   6  | 245   235    45 |   23      9    7   |
| 5  4   23 | 8     9      7  |   123     123  6   |
| 9  23  7  | 1     23     6  |   8       5    4   |
:-----------+-----------------+--------------------:
| 7  5   23 | 6     8      1  |   9       4    23  |
| 6  23  8  | 57    4      9  |   1357    137  123 |
| 4  9   1  | 3   a(57)    2  | a(57)-6   67   8   |
:-----------+-----------------+--------------------:
| 3  7   59 | 245   256    8  |  146      16   19  |
| 8  6   4  | 9     1      3  |  27       27   5   |
| 2  1   59 | 457  b56(7)  45 | b34(6)    8    39  |
'-----------'-----------------'--------------------'

L-Wing:

(57)r6c75 = (76)r9c57 => -6 r6c7; stte

Edit 1: added name.
Edit 2: added (the same demystified):

Code: Select all

.-----------.---------------.-------------------.
| 1  8   6  | 245   235  45 |   23     9    7   |
| 5  4   23 | 8     9    7  |   123    123  6   |
| 9  23  7  | 1     23   6  |   8      5    4   |
:-----------+---------------+-------------------:
| 7  5   23 | 6     8    1  |   9      4    23  |
| 6  23  8  | 57    4    9  |   1357   137  123 |
| 4  9   1  | 3    b57   2  | a(5)7-6  67   8   |
:-----------+---------------+-------------------:
| 3  7   59 | 245   256  8  |   146    16   19  |
| 8  6   4  | 9     1    3  |   27     27   5   |
| 2  1   59 | 457  c567  45 |  d34(6)  8    39  |
'-----------'---------------'-------------------'


(5)r6c7 = (5-7)r6c5 = (7-6)r9c5 = (6)r9c7 => -6 r6c7; stte

[Ngisa]

Code: Select all

+---------------+------------------+--------------------+
| 1    8     6  | 245    235    45 | 23      9      7   |
| 5    4     23 | 8      9      7  | 123     123    6   |
| 9    23    7  | 1      23     6  | 8       5      4   |
+---------------+------------------+--------------------+
| 7    5     23 | 6      8      1  | 9       4      23  |
| 6    23    8  | 57     4      9  | 1357    137    123 |
| 4    9     1  | 3     e57     2  | 567   fa6-7    8   |
+---------------+------------------+--------------------+
| 3    7     59 | 245    256    8  | 146    b16     129 |
| 8    6     4  | 9      1      3  | 27      27     5   |
| 2    1     59 | 457   d567    45 |c346     8      39  |
+---------------+------------------+--------------------+


(6)r6c8 = r7c8 - r9c7 = (6-7)r9c5 = r6c5 - (7=6)r6c8 => - 7r6c8; stte

Clement

[eleven]

76r6c58=76r97c5 => -6r7c8, stte

[SpAce]

76r6c58=76r97c5 => -6r7c8, stte

Nice! Is that some type of M-Wing?

[Cenoman]

Code: Select all

 +-----------------+-------------------+---------------------+
 |  1    8    6    |  245* b235   45*  |  23     9     7     |
 |  5    4    23   |  8     9     7    |  123    123   6     |
 |  9    23   7    |  1     23    6    |  8      5     4     |
 +-----------------+-------------------+---------------------+
 |  7    5    23   |  6     8     1    |  9      4     23    |
 |  6    23   8    |  57    4     9    |  1357   137   123   |
 |  4    9    1    |  3    c57    2    |  567    67    8     |
 +-----------------+-------------------+---------------------+
 |  3    7    59   |  245   256   8    |  146    16    19    |
 |  8    6    4    |  9     1     3    |  27     27    5     |
 |  2    1    59   | a457*  56-7  45*  |  346    8     39    |
 +-----------------+-------------------+---------------------+

UR(45)r19c46 using mixed internal-external
(7)r9c4==(5)r1c5 - (5=7)r6c5 => -7 r9c5; ste

[eleven]

76r6c58=76r97c5 => -6r7c8, stte

Nice! Is that some type of M-Wing?

I don't know.
First it is a persiflage of your notation.
Second it does reflect somehow, how i spotted it: There is a strong link for 7, and one forces this 6 the other that one.

But i doubt that any reader recognized that. And i doubt, that it makes sense to try to make it a standard notation. Personally i really don't bother. Depending on peoples background i would write it this or that way. Now, when 5 people are posting solutions here, i think one notation (or in some cases an explanation in words) should be sufficient. Outsiders can't even read that.

Nice move by Cenoman.

[SpAce]

76r6c58=76r97c5 => -6r7c8, stte

Nice! Is that some type of M-Wing?

I don't know.

Well, I'm pretty sure it is (if written in the normal form). Clement's solution actually contains almost the same M-Wing if its first two nodes are cut off (except that it would also kill 6r6c7).

First it is a persiflage of your notation.

Funny! I thought mine was something you could write, which made me kind of proud of it Then you even wrote a better version of it (using just two digits). Sorry I was too stupid to understand your mockery! Anyway, I guess I just have a thing for one-linkers, as evidenced here.

And i doubt, that it makes sense to try to make it a standard notation. Personally i really don't bother. Depending on peoples background i would write it this or that way. Now, when 5 people are posting solutions here, i think one notation (or in some cases an explanation in words) should be sufficient. Outsiders can't even read that.

There wasn't actually anything non-standard in my notation this time -- it just cut some corners, but as far as I know, it was still perfectly valid. But whatever. I'm done debating notation stuff, especially with people who've explicitly stated that they're not even interested in it. If someone's solutions are painful to read, don't read them. Problem solved.

I've already stated my position: I happen to enjoy experimenting with notations, and it also helps my overall learning because it forces me to look at things from different perspectives. So, unless it gets me kicked out, I'll keep doing it. I'm not posting solutions to entertain or impress anyone. I'm doing it to learn and to have fun.

It's kind of funny that my learning methods, including active discussions and experimenting, bother some people so much. I think I've somewhat demonstrated that my methods actually work, at least for me. Would you guys prefer that I'd still be asking newbie questions and making rookie mistakes everywhere? If not, let me be me.

[SteveG48]

There wasn't actually anything non-standard in my notation this time -- it just cut some corners, but as far as I know, it was still perfectly valid.

I quite agree. It's still valid. But why cut corners? I had trouble (and fun!) figuring out why your first link was valid. The reader has to spot the strong link on 5 in row 6 and on 7 in column 5. People just joining us are likely not to have fun with it.

But whatever. I'm done debating notation stuff, especially with people who've explicitly stated that they're not even interested in it. If someone's solutions are painful to read, don't read them. Problem solved.

I've already stated my position: I happen to enjoy experimenting with notations, and it also helps my overall learning because it forces me to look at things from different perspectives. So, unless it gets me kicked out, I'll keep doing it. I'm not posting solutions to entertain or impress anyone. I'm doing it to learn and to have fun.

Valid points, but the thing is, some of your solutions do impress. That can't happen every time, but when it does, the rest of us learn, and that's why I am here. It would be a shame if some folks give up on your solutions because they can't figure them out. There are occasional posters here (not anyone in this thread) who I suspect are in the genius category, but I can't be sure because I can't understand them.

[SpAce]

I quite agree. It's still valid. But why cut corners? I had trouble (and fun!) figuring out why your first link was valid.

Hi Steve, and thanks for your constructive comments! Didn't you just answer your own question, though? Doesn't doing and seeing the same thing over and over again get boring if there's never anything surprising that actually makes you think for a second? Of course it'd be more fun to see and produce actually genius solutions such as this or this (just two examples out of many that I've really enjoyed seeing), but I'm not on that level -- nor is it often necessary with these puzzles.

Playing with the notations does help me improve, however, because my brain requires a language to process things. The same solution can be written in many ways, even using just standard Eureka (not to mention its extensions and other notations), and they all represent a bit (or sometimes very) different thinking processes. I'd like to master as many of them as possible, because I think it correlates with actual solving abilities too.

That's why I sometimes produce multiple different notations for my solutions to see them from different perspectives. It's also why I sometimes like to rewrite others' solutions in my own way, so I can better understand them and link others' ideas into my own thinking. I've also made a conscious effort to try to find as short notations as possible partly because I'd like to train my brain to take such shortcuts when solving too, i.e. to see larger patterns and nodes instead of individual candidates and their links. I think some other solvers can do that much more naturally, but I need to actually practice it.

(I still remember the time when I couldn't read even normal ALS chains easily, so it's not like I'd become arrogant and wouldn't understand newbies' challenges. However, even back then I wanted to see and study those compacted solutions because I thought I would learn more from them -- and I think I was right. Now I actually prefer to read them too.)

The reader has to spot the strong link on 5 in row 6 and on 7 in column 5.

It might have been a bit clearer with the comma: (5,7)r6c75 = (76)r9c57. I thought about that but left it out because it wasn't technically necessary and might have had the opposite effect, too. The normal form would have avoided any controversy, of course.

People just joining us are likely not to have fun with it.

Possibly so. It's impossible to please everyone at the same time, but since at least two people had fun with it (I when I wrote it, and you when you read it), then it wasn't a total failure. I don't know how much else can be asked. Personally I'm the most intrigued with things that seem a bit mysterious at first, because figuring them out is satisfying (though disappointing too because the mystery is gone -- or worse, if it wasn't worth figuring out in the first place). Those are also the times when some learning actually happens.

I also presume that people know how to ask if they can't figure something out and really want to know. I had to do a lot of asking when I started here, and am grateful for any help and constructive criticism I've received. Similarly I'm always happy to help others when I think I have something to offer (even though some people see dubious motives in that too, so I'm not sure how much more of that I want to do any more).

In general I try to treat people like I'd want to be treated, but even that golden rule doesn't always produce positive results because not everyone wants to be treated like I do (perhaps not even most). Treating others how they'd actually like to be treated is much more difficult, and I doubt there are many such empaths and mind-readers who can do that consistently -- and without losing themselves while trying to please everyone else so desperately.

Valid points, but the thing is, some of your solutions do impress. That can't happen every time, but when it does, the rest of us learn, and that's why I am here. It would be a shame if some folks give up on your solutions because they can't figure them out.

Thank you for those words. Perhaps I should provide "standard" versions as well to avoid too many controversies. And just to be sure: even though I've been a bit tired and frustrated with some types of feedback lateIy, I always welcome constructive criticism and differing points of view (like this post of yours).

There are occasional posters here (not anyone in this thread) who I suspect are in the genius category, but I can't be sure because I can't understand them.

I know that feeling.

PS. Hope you don't mind my "multiple lines" of commentary as much as some. Perhaps I like to shorten my solutions as much as possible because of my complete inability to do the same to my text