Vanhegan Fiendish January 12, 2013

Post puzzles for others to solve here.

Re: Vanhegan Fiendish January 12, 2013

Postby Leren » Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:04 am

Don m Wrote: There seems to be some confusion in naming being introduced here. If one is using the original ALS naming then if there are 2 sets such as in the above, then it is ALS xz-rule (not xz-wing), if 3 sets then ALS xy-wing, if greater than 3 sets, then ALS xy chain.


I'll amend my post in the interests of avoiding confusion.

Leren
Leren
 
Posts: 2896
Joined: 03 June 2012

Re: Vanhegan Fiendish January 12, 2013

Postby pjb » Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:13 am

Marty R's type 3 UR offers possibilities:

(6=8)URr23c26 - 8 - (8=6)r2c3 - 6 - r1c3 = 6 = r1c56.

Since the 6's in row 9 must be in r9c56, this constitutes an X-wing, => r2c56 <> 6; stte

Phil
pjb
2014 Supporter
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: 11 September 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Vanhegan Fiendish January 12, 2013

Postby DonM » Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:33 am

tlanglet wrote:Why solve an usually non-extreme puzzle with a non-extreme solution. Here is one that is at least longer and messier...... ;) :P

Type 4 UR(37)r13c35 => r1c35<>3 which is not very useful. However, looking at the internal SIS we find: 6r1c3 & 569r1c5

6r1c3-ALS(2346)r1c169[6r1c6=2r1c9]-(2=4)r9c9-(4=5)r8c8 => r8c5<>5
569r1c5: quantum naked quad (1569)r1279 => r8c5<>5
Thus, r8c5<>5 to complete the puzzle

Ted

Editorial Note: Given the recent discussion on pseudocells, I decided to use the term "quantum" for the first time. No idea if it is proper in this circumstance. :?


Ted, I had trouble following the notation to figure what is going on. If I have it right, this is one way I Iook at the notation. Does it represent what you had in mind?

SIS: UR(37)r13c35 (6)r1c3=(569)r1c5

naked quad(1569)279, [URsis(569)r1c5=(6)r1c3]-als(6-234)r1c169-(2=4)r9c9-(4=5)r8c8 => r8c5<>5

If so, it looks to me like you are actually using the strong link (SIS) provided by the UR rather than the pseudo-cell. If so, it wouldn't really be a quantum, but I could be missing something. In any event it's a remarkable solution!

(edited to clarify notation)
DonM
2013 Supporter
 
Posts: 475
Joined: 13 January 2008

Re: Vanhegan Fiendish January 12, 2013

Postby eleven » Sun Jan 13, 2013 2:16 pm

pjb wrote:(6=8)URr23c26 - 8 - (8=6)r2c3 - 6 - r1c3 = 6 = r1c56.

Since the 6's in row 9 must be in r9c56, this constitutes an X-wing, => r2c56 <> 6; stte

You have 6r2c6 on the left side, so you only get r2c5 <> 6.

btw i have seen that the verse was also quoted as
"He jumped on his horse and rode madly off in all directions". Probably the author of my book then changed the "he" to "the hero". Nice to have found that.
eleven
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: 10 February 2008

Re: Vanhegan Fiendish January 12, 2013

Postby Luke » Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:21 pm

DonM wrote:Ted, I had trouble following the notation to figure what is going on. If I have it right, this is one way I Iook at the notation. Does it represent what you had in mind?

SIS: UR(37)r13c35 (6)r1c3=(569)r1c5

naked quad(1569)279, [URsis(569)r1c5=(6)r1c3]-als(6-234)r1c169-(2=4)r9c9-(4=5)r8c8 => r8c5<>5

If so, it looks to me like you are actually using the strong link (SIS) provided by the UR rather than the pseudo-cell. If so, it wouldn't really be a quantum, but I could be missing something. In any event it's a remarkable solution!

(edited to clarify notation)


Code: Select all
 *--------------------------------------------------------------------*
 | 34     1     *37+6   | 459   *37+569 346    | 25     8      24     |
 | 9      248    68     | 1245   156    246    | 7      45     3      |
 | 5      24    *37     | 8     *37     24     | 9      6      1      |
 |----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
 | 48     48     5      | 6      2      9      | 3      1      7      |
 | 7      6      9      | 3      8      1      | 4      2      5      |
 | 1      3      2      | 7      4      5      | 6      9      8      |
 |----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
 | 28     5      4      | 129    19     7      | 128    3      6      |
 | 6      7      1      | 245    35     2348   | 258    45     9      |
 | 238    9      38     | 1245   156    2468   | 1258   7      24     |
 *--------------------------------------------------------------------*

I agree with Don, in that I'm not sure there is any need to utter the Q-word in this case.

As for Ted's notation, I see it as a variation of vertical notation.

Code: Select all
UR(37)r13c35 ==>r8c5<>5
 ||
NQ(1569)r1279c5
 ||
(6)r1c3-ALS(2346)r1c169[6r1c6=2r1c9]-(2=4)r9c9-(4=5)r8c8












Re: "Vengo del Barrio de Boedo"

This one is pretty much ready to go. After looking into the many videos of the original out there, here are some observations.

The original just alternates back and forth from verse to chorus. Vince, I understand we are changing that to verse-chorus-chorus, right?

If anyone is unsure of the melody on this one, it has the exact same chord structure and 90% of the melody of CCR's "Bad Moon Rising." It makes me wonder which came first.

Interesting (to me) side note: I'd say 3 out of every 4 major key futbol songs sung around the world are sung in in the key of B natural or C. This one is no exception. This is unfortunate for us baritones who can't hit E over middle C (it's too high!)
User avatar
Luke
2015 Supporter
 
Posts: 435
Joined: 06 August 2006
Location: Southern Northern California

Re: Vanhegan Fiendish January 12, 2013

Postby daj95376 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:15 am

tlanglet wrote:Type 4 UR(37)r13c35 => r1c35<>3 which is not very useful. However, looking at the internal SIS we find: 6r1c3 & 569r1c5

6r1c3-ALS(2346)r1c169[6r1c6=2r1c9]-(2=4)r9c9-(4=5)r8c8 => r8c5<>5
569r1c5: quantum naked quad (1569)r1279 => r8c5<>5
Thus, r8c5<>5 to complete the puzzle


Ignoring the Q-word, I see Ted's solution as:

Code: Select all
(1569)r1279c5 =37URr13c35= (6)r1c3 - (6=2)r1c169 - (2=4)r9c9 - (4=5)r8c8  =>  r8c5<>5

Translation of first strong inference: If the Naked Quad isn't true in [c5], then the potential <37> UR in r13c35 forces r1c3=6.


A [band 3] derivation for r8c5<>5:

Code: Select all
(5)r9c45 = (5-1)r9c7 = r9c45 - (19=2)r7c45 - (2=45)r8c48  =>  r8c5<>5
daj95376
2014 Supporter
 
Posts: 2624
Joined: 15 May 2006

Re: Vanhegan Fiendish January 12, 2013

Postby ArkieTech » Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:31 am

daj95376 wrote:
Code: Select all
(1569)r1279c5 =37URr13c35= (6)r1c3 - (6=2)r1c169 - (2=4)r9c9 - (4=5)r8c8  =>  r8c5<>5

Translation of first strong inference: If the Naked Quad isn't true in [c5], then the potential <37> UR in r13c35 forces r1c3=6.


elegance of quantum proportions :D
dan
User avatar
ArkieTech
 
Posts: 2654
Joined: 29 May 2006
Location: NW Arkansas USA

Re: Vanhegan Fiendish January 12, 2013

Postby DonM » Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:17 am

daj95376 wrote:
tlanglet wrote:Type 4 UR(37)r13c35 => r1c35<>3 which is not very useful. However, looking at the internal SIS we find: 6r1c3 & 569r1c5

6r1c3-ALS(2346)r1c169[6r1c6=2r1c9]-(2=4)r9c9-(4=5)r8c8 => r8c5<>5
569r1c5: quantum naked quad (1569)r1279 => r8c5<>5
Thus, r8c5<>5 to complete the puzzle


Ignoring the Q-word, I see Ted's solution as:

Code: Select all
(1569)r1279c5 =37URr13c35= (6)r1c3 - (6=2)r1c169 - (2=4)r9c9 - (4=5)r8c8  =>  r8c5<>5

Translation of first strong inference: If the Naked Quad isn't true in [c5], then the potential <37> UR in r13c35 forces r1c3=6.
[/code]


Hmm, the translation is strikingly similar to the notation I posted above:
SIS: UR(37)r13c35 (6)r1c3=(569)r1c5 (naked quad is underlined)
naked quad(1569)279, [URsis(569)r1c5=(6)r1c3]-als(6-234)r1c169-(2=4)r9c9-(4=5)r8c8 => r8c5<>5

Actually, I'm beginning to think that if one goes by the way Steve K used the term quantum, the above does fit the description. For instance, if the 6 had been in r3c3 rather than r1c3, I'm pretty sure, Steve would have called the quad a quantum, even though there was no pseudo-cell because the SIS, as used, forces 569 in r1c5.

edit: Now I'm sure Ted's is a quantum quad. Here is a quantum np I used in the solution of the UK Extreme #157 circa mid 2009:

sis: UR(27)r78c14[(4)r7c4=(19)r1c8]
(4)r7c4=qnp(19)r28c1-(9=7)r1c1-(7=2)r7c1 => -2r7c4

Image

btw: I second ArchieTech's post above: Ted's is an elegant, clever solution and it's that sort of subtle logic that can help solve far more difficult puzzles.
DonM
2013 Supporter
 
Posts: 475
Joined: 13 January 2008

Re: Vanhegan Fiendish January 12, 2013

Postby David P Bird » Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:13 pm

Don, I've no problems with the use of quantum things when looking for a deduction or explaining how a discovery was made. When it comes to notating the deductions though, if they can be reduced to their elements they are easier to follow. This is how I would notate the two chains you discuss:

(5)r8c8 = (5-4)r2c8 = (4)r1c9 - (34=6)r1c16 - (6=37)r13c3 -[UR]- (37)r13c5 = (3)r8c5 => r8c5 <> 5
or
(5)r8c8 = (5-4)r2c8 = (4)r1c9 - (34=6)r1c16 - (6)r1c2 =[(37)UR:r13c58]= (3)r8c5 => r8c5 <> 5

These are reversed because that’s the way I often find better routes and simplifications easier to spot.

(4=27)r78c4 -[UR]- (27)r78c1 = (19)r28c1 - (9=7)r1c1 - (7=2)r7c1 => r7c4 <> 2
or
(4=27)r78c4 -[UR]- (27=19#1)r78c1 - (19=7)r12c1 - (7=2)r7c1 => r7c4 <> 2

The underlined links show overlapping nodes in the first chain and a truth count in the second:
(1 or 9 true in r78c1) – (1 & 9 both true in r12c1)
David P Bird
2010 Supporter
 
Posts: 960
Joined: 16 September 2008
Location: Middle England

Re: Vanhegan Fiendish January 12, 2013

Postby DonM » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:34 pm

David P Bird wrote:Don, I've no problems with the use of quantum things when looking for a deduction or explaining how a discovery was made. When it comes to notating the deductions though, if they can be reduced to their elements they are easier to follow. This is how I would notate the two chains you discuss:

(5)r8c8 = (5-4)r2c8 = (4)r1c9 - (34=6)r1c16 - (6=37)r13c3 -[UR]- (37)r13c5 = (3)r8c5 => r8c5 <> 5
or
(5)r8c8 = (5-4)r2c8 = (4)r1c9 - (34=6)r1c16 - (6)r1c2 =[(37)UR:r13c58]= (3)r8c5 => r8c5 <> 5

These are reversed because that’s the way I often find better routes and simplifications easier to spot.

(4=27)r78c4 -[UR]- (27)r78c1 = (19)r28c1 - (9=7)r1c1 - (7=2)r7c1 => r7c4 <> 2
or
(4=27)r78c4 -[UR]- (27=19#1)r78c1 - (19=7)r12c1 - (7=2)r7c1 => r7c4 <> 2

The underlined links show overlapping nodes in the first chain and a truth count in the second:
(1 or 9 true in r78c1) – (1 & 9 both true in r12c1)


I have been lobbying for the retention of a few notation standards that have been in place for some time, but that subject was not on my mind here. Ted specifically mentioned that he was using the term quantum for the first time and wondered 'aloud' if it was appropriate so, finding it hard to follow his notation, I tried to come up with a notation that mirrored as closely as possible (for me) what I thought his logic flow was, so I could best answer his implied question. To me the discussion of the use of the quantum approach vs. something else is another subject, one I'd rather not address here.

That said, I see your first notation (ie. the one not referring to the chain I posted as a quantum example) as not so much as a notation of Ted's chain, but as an entirely different- though perfectly legitimate- approach which even uses some different cells.

edit: eliminated some of my post that was irrelevant after clarification from eleven below. :)
Last edited by DonM on Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DonM
2013 Supporter
 
Posts: 475
Joined: 13 January 2008

Re: Vanhegan Fiendish January 12, 2013

Postby eleven » Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:04 pm

The second part is about your example.
But why do i read that all ?
eleven
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: 10 February 2008

Re: Vanhegan Fiendish January 12, 2013

Postby DonM » Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:19 pm

eleven wrote:The second part is about your example.
But why do i read that all ?

Why indeed? But thanks anyway.
DonM
2013 Supporter
 
Posts: 475
Joined: 13 January 2008

Re: Vanhegan Fiendish January 12, 2013

Postby David P Bird » Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:40 pm

Don you made a bad job of your notation here:
DonM wrote:SIS: UR(37)r13c35 (6)r1c3=(569)r1c5 (naked quad is underlined)
naked quad(1569)279, [URsis(569)r1c5=(6)r1c3]-als(6-234)r1c169-(2=4)r9c9-(4=5)r8c8 => r8c5<>5

Re-read it and see how many mistakes you can spot.
It was what caused me to take on the role of the dust cart after the Lord Mayor's show.

DonM wrote:edit: Now I'm sure Ted's is a quantum quad.

So it appears you now have a personal understanding of what a quantum pattern is. Perhaps you can precisely define it. Used conceptually they may give insights, but if they are simply composed of Almost-Almost patterns they don't need an over-elaborate way of being integrated into AICs.

When AIC segments are replaced by cited patterns, alternating inferences are often lost making the logic difficult to follow. Then confusion can reign over what pattern names and identifiers are appropriate.

I would promote preceding an AIC with the name of a pattern which will be found underlined within the full notation. This presents the logic clearly while indicating the pattern elements to look for in other puzzles.

I feel that otherwise our notations will become barriers that discourage outsiders from joining a clique of insiders. What you and others are doing is mystifying things, whereas my aim would be to simplify them as I'd like the forum to prosper.

DonM wrote:
eleven wrote:The second part is about your example.
But why do i read that all ?

Why indeed? But thanks anyway.

eleven's second remark, which you echoed, was personal and disrespectful. Both comments are contemptible and that's why I've taken so long to provide a measured response.
David P Bird
2010 Supporter
 
Posts: 960
Joined: 16 September 2008
Location: Middle England

Re: Vanhegan Fiendish January 12, 2013

Postby tlanglet » Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:05 pm

First, I need to apologize for not responding earlier to the many posts regarding my use of the Q-word, but I never received any notification that additional posts had occurred.

Don, Luke , Danny and all others, thankfully you have all interpreted by notation correctly. Yes, I used the strong link 6r1c3=569r1c6 and Yes, I presented it in the format noted by Luke. In turn, I readily understood the alternate notational schemes offered and am willing to adopt any but which one?

Thanks for the encouraging remarks regarding my solution. I am only sorry that after all the discussion I am still confused about the proper use of the Q-word but will pursue the issue as I have the time.

Ted
tlanglet
2010 Supporter
 
Posts: 538
Joined: 29 May 2010

Re: Vanhegan Fiendish January 12, 2013

Postby DonM » Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:31 pm

David P Bird wrote:Don you made a bad job of your notation here:
DonM wrote:SIS: UR(37)r13c35 (6)r1c3=(569)r1c5 (naked quad is underlined)
naked quad(1569)279, [URsis(569)r1c5=(6)r1c3]-als(6-234)r1c169-(2=4)r9c9-(4=5)r8c8 => r8c5<>5

Re-read it and see how many mistakes you can spot.
It was what caused me to take on the role of the dust cart after the Lord Mayor's show.

Sigh! Once again: the above was an attempt to interpret what Ted was trying to do (ie. using the UR strong link) as part of my response to his post. Apparently from his post below, it was clear to him so it served it's purpose. As notation goes, I don't think it's very good (probably something vertical works better) and I'm not interested in dissecting it.

DonM wrote:edit: Now I'm sure Ted's is a quantum quad.

David P Bird wrote:So it appears you now have a personal understanding of what a quantum pattern is. Perhaps you can precisely define it. Used conceptually they may give insights, but if they are simply composed of Almost-Almost patterns they don't need an over-elaborate way of being integrated into AICs.

I think I have about as good an understanding of the term 'quantum' -as Steve K used it- as anyone. He posted a lot about his use of the term on the AU forum and I filled a manilla envelope with almost all of it. In addition, a number of us used the term in solving the UK extremes over at least 2 years and everyone seemed comfortable in their understanding of its use.

As far as a personal understanding goes, I can't say. I've tried to get quantum to open up a bit, but was told that he tries to avoid getting too personal. :)

David P Bird wrote:When AIC segments are replaced by cited patterns, alternating inferences are often lost making the logic difficult to follow. Then confusion can reign over what pattern names and identifiers are appropriate. I would promote preceding an AIC with the name of a pattern which will be found underlined within the full notation. This presents the logic clearly while indicating the pattern elements to look for in other puzzles. I feel that otherwise our notations will become barriers that discourage outsiders from joining a clique of insiders.


David, did you miss all those discussions about the term 'quantum' that occurred on the UK forum and even on this forum (eg. thread started by Luke) some time ago? I'm too weary to go through the discussion again. Besides, it is a train that has left the station: the term has been successfully and clearly used for some time as a simple way to indicate 'virtual', 'effective' (insert favorite adjective) constructs such as pseudo-cells in URs etc.

What you and others are doing is mystifying things, whereas my aim would be to simplify them as I'd like the forum to prosper.

Well, that remains to be seen. No one here seems particularly mystified. Besides, contrary to its being mystifying, once it is clear what 'quantum' refers to, it can be used to simplify notation just as it has been for some time.
DonM
2013 Supporter
 
Posts: 475
Joined: 13 January 2008

PreviousNext

Return to Puzzles