The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[Mauriès Robert]

Yes, it is indeed conjugated tracks that you have used in 3 successive steps. You present it as sets, which is in accordance with my definition

Thanks; that's all I wanted you to admit. Conjugated tracks are Forcing-T&E

No Denis, you interpret my answer as it suits you. For two sets T&E, as you construct them, to form conjugate tracks, the invalidity of one (contradiction) must lead to the validity of the other (solution). In your steps this is the case because these T&E sets are derived from a pair. If this were not the case, these T&E sets would not be conjugate tracks. It is possible to construct conjugate leads that are not from a pair and this requires a condition for them to be conjugate leads.
So your Forcing-T&E are conjugate tracks, and not the other way around.
Robert

[denis_berthier]

Yes, it is indeed conjugated tracks that you have used in 3 successive steps. You present it as sets, which is in accordance with my definition

Thanks; that's all I wanted you to admit. Conjugated tracks are Forcing-T&E

No Denis, you interpret my answer as it suits you. For two sets T&E, as you construct them, to form conjugate tracks, the invalidity of one (contradiction) must lead to the validity of the other (solution). In your steps this is the case because these T&E sets are derived from a pair. If this were not the case, these T&E sets would not be conjugate tracks. It is possible to construct conjugate leads that are not from a pair and this requires a condition for them to be conjugate leads.
So your Forcing-T&E are conjugate tracks, and not the other way around.

OK. But this is minor change in the starting condition for the pair of tracks.
Instead of starting from bivalue candidate pairs, you start from two candidates that have been proven to be in an XOR relationship.
The main point is unchanged, any individual track is T&E.

[denis_berthier]

When I started on this forum, I was reproached for this type of presentation, which I therefore abandoned in favour of a sequential presentation A->B->C->....

We've already talked about that.
The sequential "presentation" is not a presentation. It's the mark of a deep gap between the "theory" and the real practice of tracks. More on this later, in the other thread: http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/is-there-any-original-theory-or-any-theory-at-all-in-tdp-t39766.html

[Mauriès Robert]

When I started on this forum, I was reproached for this type of presentation, which I therefore abandoned in favour of a sequential presentation A->B->C->....

We've already talked about that.
The sequential "presentation" is not a presentation. It's the mark of a deep gap between the "theory" and the real practice of tracks.

Votre réponse est typiquement la preuve de votre mauvaise foi pour arriver à vos fins, c'est dire dénigrer ce que ja fais. Alors je répète ce que j'ai déjà écrit dans le document présentant la TDP sur ce forum ( https://www.assistant-sudoku.com/Pdf/TDP-anglais.pdf, document que vous avez forcément lu et auquel je vous renvoi à nouveau.
A track is a set of candidates, this is not debatable. We write this as P = {A,B,C,D, ...}.
But this representation of P does not describe the order in which the track was built, even though it is represented by a colour marking on the puzzle.
I have therefore added a construction diagram for the benefit of those who read me, i.e. a sequential representation as follows:
P : A->B->C->->....
It did not escape you that in the first case I write P = and in the second case P : there is thus no confusion nor shift.
So stop this bad faith if you want us to discuss "technique" as you suggest earlier in this thread.
Robert

[denis_berthier]

When I started on this forum, I was reproached for this type of presentation, which I therefore abandoned in favour of a sequential presentation A->B->C->....

We've already talked about that.
The sequential "presentation" is not a presentation. It's the mark of a deep gap between the "theory" and the real practice of tracks.

Votre réponse est typiquement la preuve de votre mauvaise foi pour arriver à vos fins, c'est dire dénigrer ce que ja fais. Alors je répète ce que j'ai déjà écrit dans le document présentant la TDP sur ce forum ( https://www.assistant-sudoku.com/Pdf/TDP-anglais.pdf, document que vous avez forcément lu et auquel je vous renvoi à nouveau.
A track is a set of candidates, this is not debatable. We write this as P = {A,B,C,D, ...}.
But this representation of P does not describe the order in which the track was built, even though it is represented by a colour marking on the puzzle.
I have therefore added a construction diagram for the benefit of those who read me, i.e. a sequential representation as follows:
P : A->B->C->->....
It did not escape you that in the first case I write P = and in the second case P : there is thus no confusion nor shift.
So stop this bad faith if you want us to discuss "technique" as you suggest earlier in this thread.
Robert

Accuser l'autre de ses propres défauts (mauvaise foi) est une technique éprouvée. Vous utilisez cela comme prétexte pour ne pas discuter technique, car vous savez bien que votre document ne tient pas debout, comme prouvé ici: http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/is-there-any-original-theory-or-any-theory-at-all-in-tdp-t39766.html
Writing P= vs P: doesn't change the fact that there is a conceptual gap between the two and there is nothing in your "theory" to deal with the real aspect of solving, the sequential one.