rep'nA wrote:If one doesn't want to assume Mac's reductions (which I presume were based on trial & error), we can still make this "simple" reduction (using RW's first 2 deductions which do not depend on Mac's work).
I think the second of my reductions would need some extra steps to remove 2, 4 and 8 from r2c7, otherwise it works fine:
If r1c4=4 => r1c23=(26) => r1c8=1 => r3c4=1 =>
r2c3=4 => r2c4=5 =>
r2c6=8 =>
r2c9=2 => r2c7=7 => r3c8=4 => UR in r13c48 => r1c4<>4
Then the last reduction could also be:
If r1c9=4 => r1c23=(26) => r1c8=1 => r2c3=4 => r2c6=8 => r2c4=5 => r1c4= empty cell => r1c9<>4
But that's essentially the same as your move, so it doesn't matter which we use. What matters is that r1c3=4, which I think is very well proved by now.
I had another look at the puzzle this morning. I was hoping to find a solution that didn't need 10+ step trails, but that seems to be very hard. Solving the next number required two shorter trails and one 12 step (unfortunately these also continue from Macs already made T&E reductions, maybe I should go back and find something that doesn't depend on them):
First a quite short trail:
If r9c7=7 => r2c7=5 => r3c7=4 => r9c9=2 => r2c9=8 => r2c6=4 => r2c4= empty cell => r9c7<>7
Then I can smell an uniqueness reduction, so let's do that:
If r4c7=2 => r9c9=2 => r8c8=3 => r5c8=4 => r5c7=8 => r5c4=6 => r5c1=3 => r9c4=7 => r9c1=6 => BUG-lite in r1c28, r2c38, r6c23 => r4c7<>2
[Edit: missing step in previous trail r9c7=9]
The next step is quite ugly, but I've been working this same area for a while and wish to see some result:
If r9c7=9 => r9c9=2 => r9c5=1 => r4c7=8 => r6c9=3 => r5c78=(24) => r5c45=(68) => r5c1=3 => r4c4=7 => r4c2=2 => r1c2=6 => r1c1=5 => r3c1=7 => r9c1=6 => r9c4= empty cell => r9c7<>9
[Edit: Typos fixed]
=> r9c7=2
A small step for a man and unfortunately feels like an even smaller step in terms of solving the puzzle... it's not very easy to get an opening in this evil creation.
RW