The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[denis_berthier]

Hi Space,
I didn't even read your explanations. If you need one page of explanations for a formula supposed to represent a pattern, there's a problem.
I simply don't accept the idea that some intermediate steps are not included in a pattern.

[SpAce]

I didn't even read your explanations. If you need one page of explanations for a formula supposed to represent a pattern, there's a problem.
I simply don't accept the idea that some intermediate steps are not included in a pattern.

Suit yourself. Truth is, I didn't ask your opinion of that at all. I asked if the presented logic was valid, and you failed to give an answer. I guess you calculated it's safer than to risk giving a wrong answer and get caught. Either way, I conclude that you're probably not such a hotshot logician after all, despite your unchecked arrogance. Simple as that.

[SpAce]

When i follow your argumentation, why do you not write
38r3c6,r7c9 = 9r3c9 => -38r3c9, stte

Well, I could, but in that case I'd definitely use '==' because that link is far less obvious and more derived than the original. It's a valid link anyhow. This should prove it, for example:

Code: Select all

(38)r3c6,r7c9
||
(33)r3c6,r7c9 - (8)r7c9 = RP(38) - (3|8=9)r3c9
||
(88)r3c6,r7c9 - (8)r8c6 = RP(38) - (3|8=9)r3c9

=> (38)r3c6,r7c9 == (9)r3c9 ==> -38 r3c9

Of course I'd rather write it:

(38=33|88)r3c6,r7c9 - (8)r7c9&r8c6 = RP(38) => -38 r3c9

And if someone says, with both 3's in the 2 cells also 8 is possible in r3c9, you give the above answer.

That answer would still be valid, yes. 8 is not possible in r3c9 if you follow the logic through. The fact that (33)r3c6,r7c9 can imply the opposite (among other things, like 8 not being possible there, or even 3 having to be there) doesn't prove anything except its own invalidity. The same goes for (88), as well as one half of the (38) branch. They're all false branches so they can imply anything you want. The only branch you can't bend to your will is the (3,8) branch because it happens to be true. You can never make it agree with the rest that 8 is possible in r3c9. Thus it's irrelevant what the (33) or (88) or (8,3) branches claim on their own. Only the four together can prove anything, and they can never agree that 8 is possible in r3c9.

The only thing that matters is that at least one member of the SIS is guaranteed to be true, because true branches can never lie. They can never participate in proving falsehoods nor can they be killed by contradictions. (In fact, they're kind of like me ). If the SIS is valid, then the link is valid. If it's possible that all branches are false, then it's not a valid SIS and the logic falls apart. It means that at least one case has been unaccounted for. The only way you can prove that my link is invalid is if you can show that it doesn't cover all cases. Everything else is irrelevant.

Btw, just for fun, here's (33)r3c6,r7c9 implying that r3c9 is 3:

Code: Select all

(3-8)r3c6 = r8c6 - (8|3=6)r7c5 - r7c23 = r8c2 - (6=9)r3c2 - (9|8=3)r3c9
 &                   /                                        /
(3)r7c9 ------------/                                        /
         \                                                  /
          (8)r7c9 = r7c5 - r8c6 = (8)r3c6 -----------------

What do you think that proves?

[eleven]

As i said, i am not interested in your "notation" games.
I use the quote signs now, because you seem to have another definition for it (commonly it proves a move/elimination/placement):
Write something, which is not contradicting the solution, and let the reader find out, why. E.g. 9r3c9 would do it.

[SpAce]

As i said, i am not interested in your "notation" games.

Then don't play. Or if you play, learn to win. At the very least learn to lose gracefully. You're repeatedly failing at all three.

Arrogance has to be earned.

[eleven]

I did not play. I just wasted time, because i thought, that after 3 years you would know, what a notation is.
[Added:]Yours i would call "Riddle AIC". And it should be a seperated thread.

[SpAce]

I did not play. I just wasted time, because i thought, that after 3 years you would know, what a notation is.

I'm speechless.

[Added:]Yours i would call "Riddle AIC".

This is a riddle:

(3,8)r3c6,r7c9 = RP(38)r38c6,r7c59 => -38 r3c9; stte

It's actually how I wanted to write it because I hated the (38-6) weak link. There should be no need to even mention the ugly 6 at all, because locking the (38) pair into b8p26 already completes the RP. Yet I must admit that the above form gets a bit too extreme even for me. This would be a compromise:

(3,8)r3c6,r7c9 = (38)b8p26 -> RP(38)r38c6,r7c59 => -38 r3c9; stte