by StrmCkr » Sat Jan 10, 2026 10:12 am
thanks, "thinking out loud here"
i believe my bug is subtle:
if this is how it should operate:
T1 list : {a,b}
T2{x}-> T1{a} union T{b} : check if T2(x) { a,b} if it has 1 representation for each combination set for [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] - [A,B] = pass | fail
T2{y}-> T1{a} union T{c} : check if T2(y) { a,c} if it has 1 representation for each combination set for [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] - [A,C] = pass | fail
T2 list: {x,y}
T3{z}-> union of T2{x} union T2{y} check if T3{ a,b,c} if it has 1 representation for each combination set for [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] - [A,B,C] = pass | fail
my actual code :
takes digits T{3}: {a,b,c} : if it has 1 representation for each combination set for [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] - [A,B,C] = pass |fail
which doesn't account for the fact T2{x,y} x | y could have failed on its own ... eg x invalidated as digit C has no representation. ... or y is invalid as digit B has no representation.
this check would skip checking digits A,B,C as it is "one" representation of the three digits. {false positive}
--- logical ? .. probably not...
Some do, some teach, the rest look it up.
stormdoku