Hi,
I'm confused, why r6c7:3 -> r6c5:3 ->r1c5:3 ->r1c4:3 ->r4c4:3 => delete c4r8:3 is no X-Chain?
Please enlight me.
Best
Chitarup
chitarup wrote:Hi,
I'm confused, why r6c7:3 -> r6c5:3 ->r1c5:3 ->r1c4:3 ->r4c4:3 => delete c4r8:3 is no X-Chain?
Hajime wrote:chitarup wrote:Hi,
I'm confused, why r6c7:3 -> r6c5:3 ->r1c5:3 ->r1c4:3 ->r4c4:3 => delete c4r8:3 is no X-Chain?
r6c7≠3 -> r6c5=3 ->r1c5≠3 ->r1c4=3 ->r4c4≠3 does not lead to c4r8≠3
So this is not a viable Xchain
Leren wrote:To be more specific about your error. If r6c7 is not 3 then r6c5 is 3, but this makes 3 cells, r4c4, r4c5 and r1c5 all not 3. Thus, you can't conclude later on that r4c4 is 3, because you've already shown that it isn't 3.
Leren
chitarup wrote:
ok I understand. That is helpful. Does it mean I would need one strong link more for drawing conclusions? And in general, does it mean that you need always an even number of nodes in a x-chain?