SadManSoftware.com

Sudoku puzzles, off-site games and other resources on the Internet

SadManSoftware.com

Postby 9X9 » Tue Nov 15, 2005 2:36 pm

Is it me, or is the definition of a Hidden Subset in the "Sudoku > Solving Techniques" section of the SadManSoftware.com 'site incorrect?
9X9
 
Posts: 100
Joined: 26 September 2005

Postby MCC » Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:49 pm

I think it's you. The definition looks ok to me. If you think there is a problem why don't you spell it out either for confirmation or further elaboration of the term.
MCC
 
Posts: 1275
Joined: 08 June 2005

Postby 9X9 » Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:36 pm

For Hidden Subsets simes says, "...... then those candidates can be removed from other cells in that row, column or block".

This is identical wording to the definition given there for Naked Subsets. There is also a subsequent identical mis-spelling of "than" as "that".
9X9
 
Posts: 100
Joined: 26 September 2005

Postby Pat » Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:13 pm

9X9 wrote:Is it me, or is the definition of a Hidden Subset in the "Sudoku > Solving Techniques" section of the SadManSoftware.com 'site incorrect?


yes, good catch!
the brief text at www.sadmansoftware.com/sudoku/solvingtechniques.htm
is wrong:
{ edit: quoted at the time, has been corrected }

Hidden Subset
If two cells in the same row, column or block have only the same two candidates, then those candidates can be removed from other cells in that row, column or block. This technique can also be extended to cover more that two cells.



but the full explanation at Hidden Subset is fine.

- Pat
User avatar
Pat
 
Posts: 3423
Joined: 18 July 2005

Postby 9X9 » Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:21 pm

Pat - yep, that was my take too and it might be contributing to "newbie confusion". I'll point simes at it.

MCC - is that another plastic goldfish? If so, could you make it a female this time - don't want tso getting one of his faces on!!!
9X9
 
Posts: 100
Joined: 26 September 2005

Postby simes » Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:43 pm

9x9. Thanks for letting me know, I've just corrected the page.

S
simes
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 11 March 2005
Location: UK

Postby 9X9 » Tue Nov 15, 2005 8:32 pm

simes - if you remain in correcting mode and mood, the minor residual point is that the Naked Subset definition still says, "This technique can also be extended to cover more that (sic) two cells."
9X9
 
Posts: 100
Joined: 26 September 2005

Postby simes » Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:26 pm

Tis done. Thanks again

S
simes
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 11 March 2005
Location: UK

Postby Ruud » Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:53 pm

Simon,

while you're at it,

this coloring example has led to confusion with some people:
Code: Select all
  1  |     |     
    1|     |     
     |     |     
-----+-----+-----
1    |     |  1 
1 1 1|     |     
1    |     |    1
-----+-----+-----
     |     |     
     |     |     
     |     |     


You have colored it this way:
Code: Select all
  a  |     |     
    A|     |     
     |     |     
-----+-----+-----
-    |     |  1 
- A a|     |     
-    |     |    1
-----+-----+-----
     |     |     
     |     |     
     |     |     


But it can also be colored this way:
Code: Select all
  1  |     |     
    1|     |     
     |     |     
-----+-----+-----
a    |     |  A 
- - -|     |     
A    |     |    a
-----+-----+-----
     |     |     
     |     |     
     |     |     


Which, combined, leads to the conclusion that this may not be a valid puzzle at all.

Notwithstanding these minor glitches, you explanations are amongst the best on the net.

Ruud.
Ruud
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 28 October 2005

Postby simes » Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:50 am

Good point, I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll see if I can come up with a better example.

Ruud wrote:Notwithstanding these minor glitches, you explanations are amongst the best on the net.

Thanks. People either seem to find them helpful, or complain they don't understand them. (But then I guess those who fall in the middle and find them acceptable, don't feel the need to get it touch.)

Simon
simes
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 11 March 2005
Location: UK

Postby 9X9 » Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:33 pm

I'm with Ruud.
9X9
 
Posts: 100
Joined: 26 September 2005

Postby emm » Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:27 pm

simes, your site is an excellent source of information, I use it frequently. I found angusj's easier when I was starting off but yours is great for advanced techniques - you've made a lot of things clearer for me. Thanks.
emm
 
Posts: 987
Joined: 02 July 2005

Postby simes » Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:08 pm

Folks, thanks for the ego restoration:D It's hard to judge how clear an explanation is when you've written it yourself.

I think I can fix that colouring example simply by adding a few more candidate 1s to prevent the alternative colouring.
Code: Select all
  a  |     |     
    A|     |     
     |     |     
-----+-----+-----
-    | 1   |  1 
- A a|   1 | 1   
-    |  1  |    1
-----+-----+-----
     |     |     
     |     |     
     |     |     


Is that better?

Simes
simes
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 11 March 2005
Location: UK

Postby angusj » Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:01 am

simes wrote:Is that better?

I'm afraid it's still confusing. Removing the 3 candidates marked with a dash in box 4 will leave column one without any 1 candidates. Also, by using a simpler technique (I think you call it a box-column interaction) you could remove the 'conjugate' candidates instead in box 4.
angusj
 
Posts: 306
Joined: 12 June 2005

Postby simes » Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:58 am

well come to that, it would also leave boxes 7, 8 and 9 without any 1s. It's a partial example, meant to illustrate a point, but perhaps it needs to be more.

I'll think on it.
simes
 
Posts: 324
Joined: 11 March 2005
Location: UK

Next

Return to On the web