Is there any agreement on what constitutes the full set of all "small patterns"? I'm thinking things like naked pairs, 2-string kites and really short chains, excluding uniqueness techniques.
Thanks.
Red Ed wrote:Is there any agreement on what constitutes the full set of all "small patterns"? I'm thinking things like naked pairs, 2-string kites and really short chains, excluding uniqueness techniques.
Red Ed wrote:I think there are 14 distinct patterns - here - though I'm sure players would argue they're all just fish in disguise. How does it look to you?
you wrote: 12 = 1 and 2 are possibly candidates in this cell
*12 = 1 and 2 are the only candidates in this cell
Can you say more about that? I can't see how these smaller patterns make any of the 14 elimination patterns redundant, bearing in mind the maximality bit described in the preamble on that page. (Keep it simple, please; I don't actually play sudoku, so don't know solving terminology.)ronk wrote:If anything, there might be a few too many, since some have co-existing smaller patterns, e.g., locked candidates in patterns 2-3-x and 2-5-1.
That would be welcome - either here on on the wiki (but if the latter, please tip me off here). Thanks.ronk wrote:Also, were you expecting help with the missing names?
Pat wrote:b3\r3 provides the exclusions in r3
1 /1 /1 | 1 /1 /1 | /1 /1 /1
1 /1 /1 | 1 /1 /1 | /1 /1 /1
-1 -1 -1 | -1 -1 -1 | . . .
---------+----------+---------
-1 . . | -1 . . | . . .
-1 . . | -1 . . | . . .
-1 . . | -1 . . | . . .
---------+----------+---------
-1 . . | -1 . . | . . .
-1 . . | -1 . . | . . .
-1 . . | -1 . . | . . .
Red Ed wrote:That would be welcome - either here on on the wiki (but if the latter, please tip me off here). Thanks.ronk wrote:Also, were you expecting help with the missing names?