denis_berthier wrote:
.There has never been any "tridagon search hype" - because there has never been any tridagon search at all.
What there has been is a search for T&E(3) puzzles. .
and now
The fact that the tridagon is present or not in the solution grid is irrelevant to the way it can be solved - or to the difficulty of solving.
This is devoid of any meaning and it relies on no statistics of effective resolution.
What I think dishonest is making claims that rely on nothing.
I'll have to comment on these niece pieces.
Not the first time to read strong sentences
We have plenty examples of puzzles in mith's file where the start PM does not show the "loki" pattern.
In the last example that I posted, applying pairs was enough to get it.
is it enough to write
The fact that the tridagon is present or not in the solution grid is irrelevant to the way it can be solved - or to the difficulty of solving.Surely not and the charge of the stats proving the contrary when the simple logic is there is the burden of the one claiming that.
The proof that the door is open is very simple.
1) if the "loki" pattern is not in the solution grid:
then, any rules clearing a candidate of the solution grid would be a bug, and we have a minimum of 2 candidates not in the "loki" pattern
2) if the "loki" pattern is in the solution grid.
The SE set of rules solves the grid. Following the path, you'll find eliminations clearing the guardians not in the "loki" pattern.
The path can be very hard, but also relatively easy. What is sure is that this set of rules can be oriented to clean all guardians in excess.
=====================
As usual in the sudoku field, most of the puzzles will ask for relatively simple rules, but not all.
In my first tests, it seems that a huge majority of puzzles in mith's collection reach the "simple guardian" using locked sets and fishes.
I'll have in some days a test done in several steps (adding rules) to run on the entire file of mith,
This will give a precise answer to claims done without any number