daj95376 wrote:Let's try to reach an agreement on two candidates before jumping into deeper water.

No, it's short sighted to come up with a new symbols that handles only pairs of digits. Whatever symbol conventions are adopted they should be able to represent any of the true/false conditions that can occur in any number of cells. You therefore need to consider how any alternatives would work over a whole variety of situations.

DPB wrote:Changing subject, here's the existing convention for group nodes (nodes that consist of more than one cell)

(1)r1c123 true when any of these cells holds 1, false otherwise

(12)r1c123 true when two of these hold 1 AND 2, false otherwise

(123)r1c123 true when together these cells hold 1 AND 2 AND 3, false otherwise

Therefore there are implied logical AND operations between the listed candidates which saves having to write (1&2&3)r1c123

(1|2)r1c123 uses a logical OR symbol to mean true when these cells hold either candidate, false when they hold when neither of them.

So when the candidates in a cell are 123 we can write (1=2|3)r1c1 and the link to the next node then becomes 2 OR 3.

This can be used in group nodes too eg (12=3|4)r1c12

Myth Jellies suggested using (12=34#1)r1c12 where #1 signifies the minimum number of truths to be held by 3 & 4 to make the second term true.

Checking this out, 12 will be false when one or both of these digits is false, so 34#1 will be true when one or both of them are true.

I like this because it stands out better and (123#2) is awkward to express using logical operators. I've been using this for several years now and it handles the AAHS situations that concern you.

I wrote that

<Here> and have referred to it since. These understandings are the ones you need to improve on to make them clearer - simply matching them wouldn't win the day.

daj95376 wrote:The whole point of

( a + b ) was to introduce a term that could be used in an AIC.

- Code: Select all
` ( a+b = c+d ) cells12`

If both "a" and "b" are assumed/forced false, then both "c" and "d" must be true.

The possible alternative (ab/cd) notation for SK Loops is because they are

NOT AICs and the logic covers three divisions of the truths not two.

DAJ wrote:It seems there is some agreement on a new symbol being needed to express SK-Loop and V-Loop logic. Obviously, my throwing out (+) as the symbol went over like a lead balloon. What single symbol would (plural) you suggest?

Four people are hardly a quorum here and it would require a lot more support before any change could be made.

Your posts of late seem to swaying whichever way the wind is blowing. One minute you're trying to make notations as terse as possible and the next you're extending them with extra symbols.

While I'm on the subject, you're also talking in terms of discontinuous loops which belong to Nice Loops and using Eureka AIC notations for them where a un-branched chain is either an open chain or a closed loop. You shouldn't be mixing the terminology for NLs and AICs when advising newcomers on their solutions.

DPB