The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[eleven]

yes i know, that you can't understand that. So please don't claim again, that Robert copied anything from you. We never needed yor strange solving theory.

"WE"? You now believe you are "we the people"?

Sorry, but this a misunderstanding. With "we" in this case i meant Robert and me (cause with different approach we often find very similar solutions).

Because you pretended you didn't understand whips and you asked obvious questions about them, do you think I hadn't anticipated the outcome of all your phoney questions? The only purpose what to make believe you didn't understand anything about whips. If that was true, why have you systematically been criticising them for years?
WE never needed opinions based only on personal hatred.

The reason, i have always criticized them as a tool for manual solvers (and i was not the only one) was, that they need memorizing earlier steps (links), without any hint, to which one. Since you claimed, they would not need that, i tried to show it with an example.

Like it or not, I repeat it: Robert's resolution paths are not the result of only his "Theory of Tracks" (in which there is indeed no theory at all). The paths and chains he presents are largely inspired:
1) by my notion of length (as opposed to the notion of number of inferences in ALL the other solvers)
2) by Defise's fewer step approach for reducing the number of steps.

I think, Robert already answered that. You might have missed, that in this long thread another measuring of "the shortest one-step solution" was used: Count the number of candidates [edit:] cells and add the number of links (inferences).

[Mauriès Robert]

Like it or not, I repeat it: Robert's resolution paths are not the result of only his "Theory of Tracks" (in which there is indeed no theory at all). The paths and chains he presents are largely inspired:
1) by my notion of length (as opposed to the notion of number of inferences in ALL the other solvers)
2) by Defise's fewer step approach for reducing the number of steps.

I think, Robert already answered that. You might have missed, that in this long thread another measuring of "the shortest one-step solution" was used: Count the number of candidates [edit:] cells and add the number of links (inferences).

Hi eleven,
Denis will not give up, he is convinced that I copy him and now that I copy François (DEFISE)....
However, it is enough to go back in time on this Forum to see that François arrived on April 22, 2020 whereas already I gave examples of resolution with the anti-tracks as I do it currently, for example on the following threads: Mystery Puzzle N°8 or 17Jan20 N°5 in January 2020, or with Extrem Puzzle N°5 in May 2020 well before François uses the whips.
François and I have been using TDP for a long time and our influences, if any, are mutual. We studied whips and braids at the same time in 2020, he with tracks, I with anti-tracks, to see that we could find Denis' resolutions with the TDP. So there is no need for me to copy a technique that I don't master well, whereas with TDP I do very well.
Robert

[denis_berthier]

Denis will not give up, he is convinced that I copy him and now that I copy François (DEFISE)....
...
François and I have been using TDP for a long time and our influences, if any, are mutual. We studied whips and braids at the same time in 2020, he with tracks, I with anti-tracks, to see that we could find Denis' resolutions with the TDP. So there is no need for me to copy a technique that I don't master well, whereas with TDP I do very well.

As tracks are downgraded versions of braids (or S-braids), no wonder that you can find the same eliminations.
I don't think I used the kindergarten word "copy" (copying is just taking something and reproducing it as such) but the proper idea is "strong undeclared inspiration".

For the elevens, twelves, champagnes, bordeaux and others who think I don't know anything about tracks and what I say is not based on tangible stuff, I refer you to the thread I opened yesterday: http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/is-there-any-original-theory-or-any-theory-at-all-in-tdp-t39766.html (renamed for a better match to its general topic).

[champagne]

I had a look to the thread given in link. It starts and is announced as a pure trash thread. This was my last visit (my trash bin is full of posts out of this thread)

For me, the forum is in priority a place for crossfertilization and team work. It’s fair when a key point is used to refer to the source, but there are so many parallel tracks that most often, the source is shared.
I know that some can come with other motivations as making money, but this is not so common here.
The recent developments push me to ask a simple question
Should we write
whips show a "strong undeclared inspiration" toward the dynamic forcing chains process in Sudoku Explainer.

Let me revisit the recent example discussed here
whip[7]: r1n7{c2 c8} - r1n1{c8 c7} - b3n6{r1c7 r2c7} - r8c7{n6 n4} - r9c8{n4 n1} - r9c2{n1 n2} - c7n2{r9 .} ==> r1c2≠9
Our friend yzfwsf posted an image showing the equivalent elimination in the mode Dynamic forcing chains.

good job in my view

Two reactions to this elimination
Denis’s comment

No, this is not at all a representation of the whip[7]; it doesn't even show a single continuous line between candidates. Once more, read the definitions before making claims about what you don't understand.

Because you can superficially translate a whip to your thing doesn't make it identical to your thing. Is this so hard to understand?
Your thing is based on basic inference steps. My whip is defined as a pure logic formula. Both are rated according to totally different principles.


My attempt to see the differences (typing random remarks on a keyboard as wrote Denis.)

whip[7]: r1n7{c2 c8} - r1n1{c8 c7} - b3n6{r1c7 r2c7} - r8c7{n6 n4} - r9c8{n4 n1} - r9c2{n1 n2} - c7n2{r9 .} ==> r1c2≠9
yzfwsf picture in the mood of Sudoku Explainer

Code: Select all

   a) 9r1c2 => -1r1c2,-7r1c2;-9r9c2             missing
    b) 7r1c8 => -1r1c8 ;-6r1c8 ;-1r8c7;-7r9c8    r1n7{c2 c8}
    c)(-1r1c2,-1r1c8) 1r1c7=>-6r1c7              r1n1{c8 c7}
    d)(-6r1c8,-6r1c7) 6r2c7=>-6r8c7 ;-2r2c7      b3n6{r1c7 r2c7}
    e)(-1r8c7,-6r8c7)4r8c7=>-4r9c8               r8c7{n6 n4}
    f)(-4r9c8 ;-7r9c8)1r9c8=>-1r9c2              r9c8{n4 n1}
    g)(-1r9c2 ;-9r9c2)2r9c2=>-2r9c7              r9c2{n1 n2}
    and now the last pieces of the whip    - c7n2{r9 .} ==> r1c2≠9
    Clearly we have no “2” in the column 7 

Same sequence one is “whip” the other one Dynamic forcing chain, the so-called solution path designed in 2003/2004 by Nicolas Juillerat. Unless I made an error in the logic of the whip, not one candidate missing nor one candidate in excess

Even if the dressing is different, the logic is the same. Not a surprise for me, I followed years ago the start of whips before the name was created.
so in the mood of the previous post, a reference to dynamic forcing chains would be required for whips

I personally like to have at minimum the PMs and an easy way to follow the elimination logic on the map.
Many members of the forum post their solution in this way, thanks to them.
As this is missing in whips sequences, I just skip such posts.

[denis_berthier]

I had a look to the thread given in link. It starts and is announced as a pure trash thread. This was my last visit

Good. You are not expected to provide any useful input in technical talks on such topics. You'd do well to do the same by avoiding to comment my other posts.

whips show a "strong undeclared inspiration" toward the dynamic forcing chains process in Sudoku Explainer.

As I have written many times, the inspiration for whips were xy-chains. I progressively extended them in such ways that they could still be defined as patterns.
But all along those years, you have failed to understand that a pattern (formally a logical formula) is not the same thing as a process/procedure or that a chain in my sense is not the same thing as a network of inferences - even if they occasionally happen to eliminate the same candidate. I'm not hoping you'll understand this now.

The relationship between whips (or rather their extension braids) and dynamic forcing chains can easily be seen via my braids vs T&E theorem. There is a full illustration of the relationship in [PBCS].

Same sequence one is “whip” the other one Dynamic forcing chain, the so-called solution path designed in 2003/2004 by Nicolas Juillerat.

Nicolas is a real genius for finding in 2003/2004 a solution to a puzzle published in 2022.