The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[SpAce]

Dear Space, I am sorry that you are so aggressive perhaps it is related to your character

Indeed it is. My character has very little patience to deal with complete crap.

or perhaps because you have no valid arguments to reply.

In this case that's actually true. I am truly speechless.

[Ajò Dimonios]

Hi Space
I see you know "De vulgari eloquentia" very well.

[RSW]

Ajò amico mio, Potresti andare al circo qualche volta e vedere un cane che è stato addestrato per eseguire acrobazie. Forse può rotolarsi, o forse può saltare attraverso i cerchi, o forse può risolvere alcuni enigmi del sudoku. All'inizio può sembrare impressionante, ma quando inizia ad abbaiare contro di te, ricorda, è solo un cane e il suo abbaiare sta solo abbaiando. È meglio ignorare i cani che abbaiano.

[SpAce]

Hi Space

Who are you talking to? That's not my handle. I interpret your repeated failure to spell it correctly as either sloppiness or intentional disrespect. David Bird used to do the same (definitely on purpose because he wasn't sloppy), which I found pretty funny. In your case both reasons are possible.

I see you know "De vulgari eloquentia" very well.

Inferno even better. What I also happen to know quite well is AICs, strong inferences, and weak inferences. Additionally I know the difference between theoretical correctness and what makes practical sense.

I said from the get-go that Clement's way of starting with the weak link was correct. Yet it was poor style for reasons I argued pretty extensively, but which you totally ignored as usual. Instead you chose to keep defending that poor style by arguing something that was never disputed (its correctness), and used poor examples and wordings to do it. Why should I have much patience for that? Let's see what you actually wrote:

I don't see irregularities in the Ngisa chain because the first weak inference 4r1c1- (4 = 5 * 6) r1c47 is equivalent to the strong inference 4r3c1 = 4r3c8- (4 = 5 * 6) r1c47.

My response was:

What? I have no idea what you're saying, nor why you're mixing in cells that aren't even part of the chain. It doesn't make any sense to say a weak inference is equivalent to a strong inference anyway. They can't be equal because they're totally different concepts. One is OR and the other is NAND, in terms of logic gates.

Anything false in that response? Fact is, weak inferences and strong inferences are not equivalent, period. What you apparently tried to say was that those two chain fragments as a whole produce functionally equivalent logic. Sure, both obviously end up with the implication '-> 56r1c47', but so what?

What was it supposed to demonstrate about the question at hand? That Clement's use of the starting weak link was logically correct? Well, it did even that poorly (your second post was better), but more importantly no one disputed it in the first place. It's just poor style, that's all.

I guess you don't agree with that (poor style) either, but in that case you should have argued about why not. You would have been wrong of course, and I probably wouldn't have had much patience to debate that either, but at least you'd have addressed the correct issue. Now you just argued (poorly) in defense of something that everyone already knew, and continued the same with a follow-up post. Thus complete crap, sorry to say.

[SpAce]

Ajò amico mio, Potresti andare al circo qualche volta e vedere un cane che è stato addestrato per eseguire acrobazie. Forse può rotolarsi, o forse può saltare attraverso i cerchi, o forse può risolvere alcuni enigmi del sudoku. All'inizio può sembrare impressionante, ma quando inizia ad abbaiare contro di te, ricorda, è solo un cane e il suo abbaiare sta solo abbaiando. È meglio ignorare i cani che abbaiano.

Lol. You're another one who either can't realize or admit when he's dead wrong. Even your insults miss the mark -- I love dogs

[tarek]

Everybody,

I'm not sure if hurling insults at each other serves any good purpose.

I'll leave it to moderators to check if anyone crosses the line.

Tarek

[RSW]

Tarek, I'm fully prepared to suffer the consequences of any insults I may have hurled. But anyone who's been on this forum for any length of time will know that Space has hurled far more insults than anyone else.
Space's childish behaviour has caused a number of esteemed members to leave this forum. One of them is David P Bird, whom I sadly miss. So, if I'm banned, I'll be in good company. So be it.

[Ajò Dimonios]

Tarek wrote:
I'm not sure if hurling insults at each other serves any good purpose.

I'll leave it to moderators to check if anyone crosses the line.

I totally agree with you. I don't want to respond to provocations. I'm only interested in discussing topics related to the game.

Paolo

[SpAce]

But anyone who's been on this forum for any length of time will know that Space has hurled far more insults than anyone else.

It might just feel that way because apparently I'm better at it than anyone else. Truth is, I've probably been receiving more than giving but I don't cry about it. Besides, you should take a look at some of the very old discussions and the hurling contests there.

Space's childish behaviour has caused a number of esteemed members to leave this forum. One of them is David P Bird, whom I sadly miss. So, if I'm banned, I'll be in good company. So be it.

Please don't compare yourself to David. Despite our differences, I respect his sudoku contributions very much. Did you notice that last year I promised to go and remain away if he came back? Too bad he didn't take the offer. (Kindling our initial clash is the one thing I actually regret.) Btw, who else has left because of me?

PS. Have you been gathering courage all this time to get to say that? Well, good job, now you got it out of your system!

[SpAce]

RSW, I'm actually expecting an answer to my question regarding this claim of yours:

Space's childish behaviour has caused a number of esteemed members to leave this forum.

Which esteemed members other than David? If you can't name anyone and prove it, I consider that pure slander. In fact, you should be able to name several since that's what you implied.