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?