The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[ronk]

On using Eureka!/AIC notation.
01: (hp38=2)r67c5-(2)r9c56=(2)r9c7-(2)r1c7=(2)r1c56-(2=8)r2c6 => r3c5<>8
02: (hp25=6)r13c5-(6)r2c4=(6-2)r2c8=(2)r7c8 => r7c5<>2

ttt, how are those hidden pairs?

I don’t know… , I follow the name that Steve used.

Take a look at your two usages of "hp" in the 2nd AIC here. It's a different usage, so which actually follows Steve Kurzhal's usage?

[DonM]

On using Eureka!/AIC notation.
01: (hp38=2)r67c5-(2)r9c56=(2)r9c7-(2)r1c7=(2)r1c56-(2=8)r2c6 => r3c5<>8
02: (hp25=6)r13c5-(6)r2c4=(6-2)r2c8=(2)r7c8 => r7c5<>2

ttt, how are those hidden pairs?

I don’t know… , I follow the name that Steve used.

Take a look at your two usages of "hp" in the 2nd AIC here. It's a different usage, so which actually follows Steve Kurzhal's usage?

But first, please state your name for the jury. Now, please raise your hand and say after me 'The testimony I will give in these proceedings is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.'

[aran]

01: (hp38=2)r67c5-(2)r9c56=(2)r9c7-(2)r1c7=(2)r1c56-(2=8)r2c6 => r3c5<>8
02: (hp25=6)r13c5-(6)r2c4=(6-2)r2c8=(2)r7c8 => r7c5<>2

how are those hidden pairs?
Take a look at your two usages of "hp" in the 2nd AIC here. It's a different usage, so which actually follows Steve Kurzhal's usage?

I don't see any difference in the usage :
on the one hand
not hidden pair=>x
on the other
not x=> hidden pair.

(hp38=2)r67c5 :
if r67c5 is not a hidden pair=>2 at r67c5.
In the example to which you link, eg this excerpt
(9-4)r3c2=(hp34)r78c2
if r3c2 is not 4=>hidden pair 34 at r78c2.

[DonM]

01: (hp38=2)r67c5-(2)r9c56=(2)r9c7-(2)r1c7=(2)r1c56-(2=8)r2c6 => r3c5<>8
02: (hp25=6)r13c5-(6)r2c4=(6-2)r2c8=(2)r7c8 => r7c5<>2

how are those hidden pairs?
Take a look at your two usages of "hp" in the 2nd AIC here. It's a different usage, so which actually follows Steve Kurzhal's usage?

I don't see any difference in the usage :
on the one hand
not hidden pair=>x
on the other
not x=> hidden pair.

(hp38=2)r67c5 :
if r67c5 is not a hidden pair=>2 at r67c5.
In the example to which you link, eg this excerpt
(9-4)r3c2=(hp34)r78c2
if r3c2 is not 4=>hidden pair 34 at r78c2.

That is but one of several good answers that addresses the question at a basic level. But, having also been the object of this kind of question, I find myself becoming more interested in what is the broader question (ie. beyond even what Steve K used/might have used which ends up really being just a red herring): Is there even a valid question as to the appropriateness of a given label assuming it isn't just so remote that no one can figure it out. I say not.

I was one of the ones who originally fought for the use of labels in AICs to begin with, simply because they gave the viewer more information to identify patterns. The argument against them was that they were redundant given the fact that the pattern was obvious from the strong/weak links/inferences being used. There was never any standardization of them; heck, it was enough to see people start to use them more frequently. No one really raised a question of standardization because these labels were descriptive enough whether, in this case, they were ahp, hp, or pair.

So,IMO, in this thread, the emphasis should be on the cleverness of ttt's solution. He is putting up solutions that are at the very highest level these days and has achieved enough credibility to use, within reasonable limits, any darn label he wants. If one is interested as to why he's using a particular label, perhaps best to ask it more like: 'I'm interested in why you are using the hp label here?'

[ronk]

If one is interested as to why he's using a particular label, perhaps best to ask it more like: 'I'm interested in why you are using the hp label here?'

I did ask, and ttt said he didn't know. Based on your responses, I take it you don't know either.

[DonM]

If one is interested as to why he's using a particular label, perhaps best to ask it more like: 'I'm interested in why you are using the hp label here?'

I did ask, and ttt said he didn't know. Based on your responses, I take it you don't know either.

It doesn't matter whether I know or not since my point is that the way the question is asked does not tend to open the door to enlightened discussion, but rather creates the premise that the label he is using is inappropriate/inaccurate, a premise that is further reinforced by your follow-up question to him.

Which led to the main point I make just above (a point you conveniently ignore) which as stated suggests that, considering the fact that sudoku is all about solving, his solution should be of more interest than the label used and the 'why he used that particular label' should be more in the line of interest value rather than judgment value.

Besides, perhaps we would have a better idea what ahp/hp/pair based labels you think are more appropriate if we saw more of your ahp/hp/pair based solutions. Heck, come to think of it, then we might have an equal opportunity to critique your use of them.

[ronk]

Besides, perhaps we would have a better idea what ahp/hp/pair based labels you think are more appropriate if we saw more of your ahp/hp/pair based solutions. Heck, come to think of it, then we might have an equal opportunity to critique your use of them.

As I've stated before, I'm not interested in finding complete solutions, but I post lots of selected solution steps using sets, uniqueness and chains. You and everyone else are welcome to critique them, and have done so. My chains use the als term almost exclusively,so you won't see the ahs/ahp/hp terms, at least not so far.

I'm still looking for a direct answer to my original direct question. BTW the question was about np vs hp, not ahp vs hp as you seem to think.

Rather than telling me what and how to write, perhaps you should tell yourself to drop the ad hominem. It's beneath you and doesn't befit the Players' Forum.

[DonM]

Besides, perhaps we would have a better idea what ahp/hp/pair based labels you think are more appropriate if we saw more of your ahp/hp/pair based solutions. Heck, come to think of it, then we might have an equal opportunity to critique your use of them.

As I've stated before, I'm not interested in finding complete solutions, but I post lots of selected solution steps using sets, uniqueness and chains. You and anyone else are welcome to critique them, and have done so. My chains use the als term almost exclusively,so you won't see the ahs/ahp/hp terms, at least not so far.

Rather than telling me what and how to write, perhaps you should tell yourself to drop the ad hominem. It's beneath you and befits Eureka rather than the Players' Forum.

And I'm still looking for a direct answer to my original direct question.

'Rather than telling me what and how to write...' This coming from the person always correcting people on 'terminology' (conjugate links to jog your memory) and other minutiae?

First of all, you provoke Ron and you know it so don't play the victim. Second, you drop the 'ad hominem' ('purporting to be an expert' and 'defensive' to jog your memory) and I will also. Thirdly, you drop the sort of questioning such as the type regarding the use of the 'hp' label by myself & ttt, a form of questioning that seems more designed to imply inappropriate or questionable use so that you can tell everyone what is allegedly appropriate rather than a genuine interest in discussion, and I'll stop this type of response.

Further, what I'd like to know is- all those months when people like David Bird and Steve K were using differing hp-based labels, why didn't you raise the question then? Why here, why now? And that applies to other questions. For instance, regarding the absence of tailing weak links in the notation of AICs- what does that have to do with the guys of Eureka? Why didn't you raise that with the guy who first notated AICs? And why the repeated snide remarks about Eureka, painting it with a broad brush when you & I know that there were mainly a lot of good people there & basically only one source of dysfunction? And you say those things knowing full well that I was one of those active at Eureka. So many questions that bring us to this point. Myself & many others (from what I've seen) have always had the greatest respect for your skills. I and some others here deserve a little more respect from you. My opinion of course.

[ronk]

DonM, this is such an unbelievable waste of time and energy for me, that you can just continue the debate with yourself.

[DonM]

DonM, this is such an unbelievable waste of time and energy for me, that you can just continue the debate with yourself.

It is information & background that is finally well out on the table. I didn't expect a response from you.

[ronk]

DonM, this is such an unbelievable waste of time and energy for me, that you can just continue the debate with yourself.

It is information & background that is finally well out on the table. I didn't expect a response from you.

You can expect this response. Since you, ttt, and aran haven't come up a reasonable explanation of when the 'np' and 'hp' terms are appropriate in AIC notation, I'll be addressing that topic myself.

[ttt]

Since you, ttt, and aran haven't come up a reasonable explanation of when the 'np' and 'hp' terms are appropriate in AIC notation, I'll be addressing that topic myself.

With my English, I can’t…
I like to use “hp” (hidden pair) or “ht” (hidden triple) because it’s based on my sudoku learning experience. For reader – especially new one: “Pair” or “Triple” is easier understand than on using “ALS”.

In my mind you are one of my Mentor on Sudoku Land and thank you for correcting me.
Draco, I’m sorry by out of this Topic.

ttt

[Pat]

ttt -- the distinction of "naked" vs. "hidden" was established years ago

(apparently by angusj)

what ronk pointed out was that r67c5 would be (or not be) a "naked pair"---

[DonM]

ttt -- the distinction of "naked" vs. "hidden" was established years ago

(apparently by angusj)

what ronk pointed out was that r67c5 would be (or not be) a "naked pair"---

Pat, with all due respect, I didn't see that pointed out anywhere and given ttt's understandable english language limitations he might not understand a subtle inference from ronk's question to begin with. There is room for a reasonable discussion here. What might be reasonably used in complex chain labels may be different than what angusj gave names for as individual patterns. Also, those using, in this case, hp-based patterns may have their own views that differ with ronk and others who don't use those patterns.

[aran]

Since you, ttt, and aran haven't come up a reasonable explanation of when the 'np' and 'hp' terms are appropriate in AIC notation, I'll be addressing that topic myself.

I'll try something else.
Hidden set (but let's use pair) logic starts out like this for example :
two cells ab, abc
there is no naked pair : if there was, there'd be no point.
there is no hidden pair as yet : if there was, there'd be little point (other than to remove the surplus candidates)
A statement can however be made :
either ab will turn out to be a hidden pair, or if that is not the case, then c is true.
Or in other words ab=c, start point for a chain (or not).
It strikes me as remarkably reasonable to call that hidden pair logic, and I do.
Some write hp(ab)=c.
I don't make reference to hp/ht/hq because I don't think it's necessary, nor brackets for the same reason.