The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[eleven]

If that logic is accepted and understood, then even this should become clearer: ...

Sorry that i only read the half of your elaborations. I have no problem at all to understand the logic. I just stated, that your notation is misleading.
A link starting with '98r19c3 = ' let me look at the other candidates 6r1c3 and 2r9c3.
If it would start with 'hp89 r19c3 = ' i would look at the 8 in r4c3.
If you use the same notation for a double strong link, it is not, what a reader like me would expect. I would wish to have it marked somehow, or explained in forward.
You can argue the correctness, i complain the user unfriendliness, which seems to be a result of an exaggerated effort to shorten your chains.

Personally i prefer, that you write your solutions in a standard way, and add your own notation as hidden text.

[SpAce]

If that logic is accepted and understood, then even this should become clearer: ...

Sorry that i only read the half of your elaborations.

Sorry that I read but ignored all of yours after such a starting declaration.

I have no problem at all to understand the logic.

Didn't think so, which is why I have a hard time seeing the problem.

I just stated, that your notation is misleading.
A link starting with '98r19c3 = ' let me look at the other candidates 6r1c3 and 2r9c3.

User error.

which seems to be a result of an exaggerated effort to shorten your chains.

No.

Personally i prefer, that you write your solutions in a standard way, and add your own notation as hidden text.

Duly noted, and promptly ignored.

[eleven]

Since you seem to be offended, that i did not read the second part, i did now.
I already said, how i see it: there is a strong link for 7 in c5, the one implying 5r6c7, the other 6r9c7 => -6r6c7 (and useless -5r9c7).
In standard AIC it can be simply written as
5r6c7 = (5-7)r6c5 = (7-6)r9c5 = 6r9c7 => -6r6c7
So i can't see any reason for alternative - shorter - notations, which are harder to understand.

[SpAce]

Since you seem to be offended

As an obviously super-smart person you can't act surprised. I think I've recently made pretty clear that I'm done swallowing such off-hand put-downs -- even from people whose sudoku skills I look up to.

I already said, how i see it: there is a strong link for 7 in c5, the one implying 5r6c7, the other 6r9c7 => -6r6c7 (and useless -5r9c7).

So? Does that make it the only possible way to see it? (Btw, I can't see any 5 in r9c7, but yeah, that would be a valid elimination too.)

In standard AIC it can be simply written as
5r6c7 = (5-7)r6c5 = (7-6)r9c5 = 6r9c7 => -6r6c7

Which is exactly what I added after taking so much surprising heat for my original. How interesting is that, though? Isn't that something that anyone who's taken Chaining 101 could and would write?

I honestly thought that I produced a more interesting and elegant expression for that simple piece of logic, but all evidence suggests that I failed miserably. Funny enough, none of the feedback has managed to change my own opinion, so I'm not the only one who's failed.

So i can't see any reason for alternative - shorter - notations, which are hard to understand.

I do. That's enough for me.