yzfwsf wrote:Hi champagne,

Do you have any new progress on this issue? I've been following this topic, thank you.

Hi yzfwsf,

I have to answer, “yes and no”, announcing a long development.

You gave several examples of “small TLG0 logics, and I wanted to explore this field.

I have leading indicators for the multi floors patterns, but nothing for MSLS

IMO, it is better to start with easy cases and then to increase the difficulty, so I decided to explore the “low size” side.

I implemented a truth links solver “as of Allan Barker” to try to work out leading indicators,

I implemented solving rules “in Allan Barker mood” for basic moves (naked and hidden …; XY wing, XYZWing; XWing…) with as leading indicator the solving potential of a unit, of a band ..

This is tested and works well, although I did not make benchmarks against the previous solving approach.

I then tried to implement the Fish Guide. This is what I am doing slowly for the time being. My surprise, reading the fish guide has been to see how it was close to what I wrote, not only on the TLG0 approach, but also on the TLG-1 plus uncovered cases.

I have seen also (if I got it) the same conjecture as mine: a valid sudoku cannot produce a rank -1 logic.

I thought a while of a “generic implementation” of the fish guide, but the number of possibilities to explore is already very big (n truths out of 9 rows + 9 column + 9 box), so I started an implementation “on identified patterns”.

I also as you know open the door to a “tlg rank 0 logic with a triple point”.

Where I am,

I think better to first implement the rest of the fish guide and to test it

Then to continue with small pattern in the families shown by you

And at the end, to try to apply this to wider scopes.

As I am now an old man working slowly with others constraints; I can not say how long it will take before I am in a position to improve the search for big TLG’s