I see in Sudoku that solving techniques have names.
Is there a name for this combination?
I'm still learning
joolslee wrote:Hi Roz, I just wanted to say that your posting IS helpful. It opens up the discussion to show why a particular approach or a misunderstood technique doesn't work ... and sometimes I find that really useful in helping me to gain a better understanding. I see where you're coming from with your strategy and I'm looking forward to see why that can't work to help me understand these triple and quadruple sets more clearly. I'm sure that is the intention of Animator and Scrose, not just to shoot you down :o)
BadCujo wrote:I see in Sudoku that solving techniques have names.
Is there a name for this combination?
Roz wrote:I felt a bit like the boys were picking on the old lady lol. I'm sure they wern't really
Roz wrote:In box six my candidates were from top to bottom C8 and C9 respectivly: 458,458,148, and 256,256,16. My thinking was 4 and 8 must be in column 8 therefore I had just to determine the other number. If in column 9 the cells R4 and R5 were numbers 2 and 6
9 .458 .256
7 .458 .256
3 14.8 1..6
9 .458 .2
7 .458 .6
3 14.8 16
9 458 2
7 458 6
3 4.8 1
Roz wrote:I didn't have enough numbers to go round
Roz wrote:therefore those cells must contain 2 and 5 which left 1 and 6 remaining
9 458 2
7 458 6
3 4.8 1
Roz wrote:Thanks Jules. :D I felt a bit like the boys were picking on the old lady lol. I'm sure they wern't really, it was just a bit of a shock when I saw both replys asking me to explain!
Roz wrote:If in column 9 the cells R4 and R5 were numbers 2 and 6 I didn't have enough numbers to go round therefore those cells must contain 2 and 5 which left 1 and 6 remaining. I knew from the candidates number 6 couldn't be in column 8 so it must be number 1.
BadCujo wrote:I'm showing the following in row #2
(379) (379) (56) (2) (467) (8) (45) (1379) (1379)
can the combination (56) (467) (45) allow me to eliminate the 7 in the (467) ?
air16 wrote:will someone explain where the game came from cause i don't really understand.
MCC wrote:We have (379) (379) (1379) (1379) ... Fractionally easier but the same result.