## this puzzle is weird to me..

Post the puzzle or solving technique that's causing you trouble and someone will help
ronk wrote:
daj95376 wrote:(8)r6c2=(8)r5c2-(8=2)r5c7-(2=9)r8c7-(9)r9c9=(9-8)r9c5=(8)r6c5-(8)r6c2 => [r5c6],[r6c46]<>8

Note: The third entry is a continuous AIC loop.

ronk: Sorry, but my thoughts have switched from NL notation to Eureka/AIC/??? notation anymore.

Why anyone would want to clutter the notation -- parentheses, often writing the same candidate twice, and writing the same cell twice for AHSs -- is beyond me. BTW in AIC notation it's 'loop' not 'continuous loop', and it's frequently written as ...

(8)r6c2=(8)r5c2-(8=2)r5c7-(2=9)r8c7-(9)r9c9=(9-8)r9c5=(8)r6c5-loop => [r5c6],[r6c46]<>8

I see you're hanging on to those square brackets for the eliminations though. Cool

Thanks for the update on using loop at the end. I like it!

I originally stayed with NL notation because the Eureka notation was often longer and the original examples I saw were complex with imbedded structures like AUR and ahp and AARFTCP. (AARFTCP -> almost almost realistic for the common person)

However, NL notation left me cold when it came to identifying some inferences as either strong or weak. I'm much more comfortable reading/writing chains now because the inferences stand out for common chains in Eureka notation.

Yes, I'm holding onto the square brackets for the eliminations. I feel that it helps delineate the chain from the eliminations. Just a quirk of mine.

In order to reduce the notation when an X-Chain occurs inside a Eureka chain, I shorten the notation to (n){...} when practical.

Finally, I was expecting a comment from someone on the fact that the last two cells in my first chain could have been written ... (2)r8c7-(2=9)r9c9. Is there a preferred choice here?
daj95376
2014 Supporter

Posts: 2624
Joined: 15 May 2006

daj95376 wrote:Finally, I was expecting a comment from someone on the fact that the last two cells in my first chain could have been written ... (2)r8c7-(2=9)r9c9. Is there a preferred choice here?

I'm not an AIC notation afficionado, but I think it's the later.
ronk
2012 Supporter

Posts: 4764
Joined: 02 November 2005
Location: Southeastern USA

daj95376 wrote:Finally, I was expecting a comment from someone on the fact that the last two cells in my first chain could have been written ... (2)r8c7-(2=9)r9c9. Is there a preferred choice here?

IMO, not really all that important, though some may prefer it -the above is how I usually do it though if the chain allows it, I usually start the chain with the bivalue cell strong link. There's a lot of flexibility in the Eureka/AIC notation and people vary in the way they express these sorts of things. fwiw: A lot of people may not be aware that Myth Jellies own notation predated the Eureka notation. It was after Ruud, with the help of several people, including Myth (as I recall) fine-tuned the Eureka notation, that Myth 'converted' also.

Here's an example:
Eureka notation: (3)r2c7=(3-7)r6c7=(7)r6c3...
Myth's original: 3[r2c7]=3[r6c7]-7[r6c7]=7[r6c3]... (this example is from the period when I started converting myself so I was never totally familiar with all aspects of Myth's notation. He probably did the above as 3[r2c7]=(3-7)[r6c7]=7[46c3]...

And another: 3[r2c7]=3[r6c7]-(3=2727)[r46c3]-2[r456c1]... ie. an als->group.
DonM
2013 Supporter

Posts: 475
Joined: 13 January 2008

ronk wrote:Why anyone would want to clutter (...) often writing the same candidate twice (...)

ronk wrote:I'm not an AIC notation afficionado

Clutter detected.
aran

Posts: 334
Joined: 02 March 2007

*** off-topic ***

aran wrote:
ronk wrote:Why anyone would want to clutter (...) often writing the same candidate twice (...)
...
I'm not an AIC notation afficionado
Clutter detected.

Well, there are fine points ... and then there are very fine points. Surely you know it takes an afficionado for the latter.
ronk
2012 Supporter

Posts: 4764
Joined: 02 November 2005
Location: Southeastern USA

::Off Topic::
DonM wrote:Here's an example:
Eureka notation: (3)r2c7=(3-7)r6c7=(7)r6c3...
Myth's original: 3[r2c7]=3[r6c7]-7[r6c7]=7[r6c3]... (this example is from the period when I started converting myself so I was never totally familiar with all aspects of Myth's notation. He probably did the above as 3[r2c7]=(3-7)[r6c7]=7[46c3]...
And another: 3[r2c7]=3[r6c7]-(3=2727)[r46c3]-2[r456c1]... ie. an als->group.

Why don't: [3]r2c7=[3-7]r6c7=[7]r6c3... no need to use "Shift key"

ttt
ttt

Posts: 185
Joined: 20 October 2006
Location: vietnam

::Off Topic::
ttt wrote:Why don't: [3]r2c7=[3-7]r6c7=[7]r6c3... no need to use "Shift key"

You apparently never used a german keyboard
hobiwan
2012 Supporter

Posts: 321
Joined: 16 January 2008
Location: Klagenfurt

### Sorry..............

I m very sorry to interfere in such a wonderful comments, but I am trying to find out a very short chain here.
`.---------------------.---------------------.---------------------.| 1      3569   35    | 4      2      69    | 56     8      7     || 679    679    57    | 156    689    18    | 2      3      4     || 2      4      8     | 56     7      3     | 1      9      56    |:---------------------+---------------------+---------------------:| 3679   1      357   | 8      346    47    | 5679   56     2     || 8      67     2     | 9      1      5     | 67     4      3     || 3679   35679  4     | 236    36     27    | 5679   1      8     |:---------------------+---------------------+---------------------:| 4      8      1     | 7      569    69    | 3      2      59    || 5      2      6     | 13     389    18    | 4      7      19    || 37     37     9     | 12     45     24    | 8      56     156   |'---------------------'---------------------'---------------------'`