Topic:

what is the exact definition of these techniques: sue de coq & Deathblossom?

sue: are they aals ?

deathblossom : are they aaals ?

Als with N+2 candidates where 2 als with n+1 are attached to it so that z is restricted to all sets

Als with N+3 candidates where 3 als with n+1 are attached to so that z is restricted to all sets

using any of these :

3 als eliminations rules: als rules]

- xz,xy = rules { where rc = number of links}

- extra linked rules { more RC then links}

* N cells with N candidates so all N Candidates are in N sectors exactly once.

or

sues occupying 2 sectors with any size of A*Ls with the 3 types of eliminations.

Death blossoms occupying 3 sectors with any size of A*Ls with the 3 types of eliminations.

OR

are these DDS

sues: 2 sectors

Death blossoms: 3 sectors

using any of these : {specifically the star'd type}

3 als eliminations rules:

- xz,xy = rules { where rc = number of links}

- extra linked rules { more RC then links}

* N cells with N candidates so all N Candidates are in N sectors exactly once.

my present code is DDS scalar building sets with A^LS set up that trigger elimination code specifically goes off

* N cells with N candidates so all N Candidates are in N sectors exactly once.

this tends to miss potential eliminations with its more narrow elimination search.

ive had these named techniques setup in different methods based on the presented examples from

als-xz double link, aals- 2rc, als-xy {2x & triple link rule}, aaals-3rc,dds, DDS with * rule.

depending on how the code is construct ive seen very wide range of variations of what is or isnt a sue de coq or a deathblossom

anyone on here actually have a concrete definition

DDS with full elimination rules seems to match the most and correctly can find the oddity aaaals versions that can happen in 2/3 sectors that other constructs tend to miss.