dailysudoku.com

[daj95376]

[tlanglet]

Taking them as they come..........

[Marty R.]

Type 1 UR (56)
XY-Wing (275)
XY-Wing (572)
W-Wing (27) + pincer transport

[peterj]

Three VH steps to ease into a Sunday morning..

type 1 UR(56) r24c89; r2c9<>56
xy-wing(27-5) r2c9; r2c8<>5, r3c6<>5
xy-wing(57-2) r3c7; r2c3<>2

[Edit] Didn't seem to need a w-wing...

[Mogulmeister]

There's an almost als situation:

[ronk]

[daj95376]

[ronk]

[strmckr]

after basics
a fun move just cause i can

[daj95376]

[Mogulmeister]

I had a feeling that might set the hares loose before I went to the mountains......

Unfortunately Danny, I, like the majority of those left on this board I suspect, don't remember any of Oaxen's solutions because I never saw one. I do remember his gnomic answers and, as you may recall, I did point out to him that his pronouncements were akin to Fermat's famous note in the margin. You explained that because of the method he uses, an explanation that was postable wasn't possible - or similar. So yes, like Ronk I did wonder about your own gnomic renmark. So glad you went on to explain - at least I exposit my solutions.

I believe that there are possibly many chains out there which employ "false" implications on their way to eliminations or fin based operations. Cells which turn out to have different "actuals" when the solution is made.

In this case with this method we arrive not knowing if there is a 2 in that cell or not. It is a quasi fin situation. My objective was to logically show that the existence or otherwise of the 2 did not affect the outcome.

Ronk - your point about my epexegesis - it must be the anally retentive orthoganalist in me. Like many a murderer I am compelled to explain to my victims.

[daj95376]

[Luke451]

<Opening Webster's New Collegiate; rifling pages; finding "epexegesis.">

Ah, yes. I can go on now that I've got that one under my belt .

Hi, Mog. If you'd like to use your almost ALS in a different way, you can. Try out this rule:
At least one of any three values in an AALS must be true.

[Mogulmeister]

[ronk]

Mogulmeister, I didn't see your answer to the below. If you did, would you please rephrase in a style that is more direct and less opaque

[ttt]

[ronk]

[Luke451]

ttt, thanks for the hidden pair perspective. With ronk's graphic, it's become clearer to me the difference btwn AALS and AAHS.

I use the AALS because this is the way I first learned about how to take advantage of "almost almost" sets. Check out this similar move ("April 30, 2009 2:26 am") by ronk. This example is similar to the one I presented in that the three "hidden set" values only appear one time each. It makes finding a useful deduction a little easier, IMO.

I'd like to add that while AALS and AAHS is a pretty big stick with which to beat this puzzle, it's a very powerful weapon to know. ttt, I've seen you frequently use AALS/AAHS in your nets to take down some of the toughest puzzles in the world.

Also, AALS/AAHS nets do not carry the same "assumptivity baggage" associated with moves like kraken cell/row/column/box.

[Mogulmeister]

I admit I'm something of a logodaedalus but I have never come across the most marvellous phrase "assumptivity baggage" which I am afraid I will steal at some point Luke because it is so good.

I am enjoying this thread and the resultant discussion from my philosophical trespass. I especially appreciate the xsudo diagram.

Ronk, your earlier answer and repeated question made it clear to me that you had in fact had a glimpse at my response to your original question. Opaque ? Surely not. English is a rich and descriptive language.

However - epexegesis is "by way of further explanation".

I have said elsewhere on this board that when I was a newbie to these and other pages there was sometimes a lot of "assumptivity baggage" when answers are given. I like to think that if someone encountered these pages they should be able to follow very clearly what has been postulated.

We have in these forums already had at least one notation discussion which has recognised the need for better demonstrating certain aspects of the game.

What I am doing in showing two separate solve routes in the way I do is to give a bit more of a narrative and explicitly show what happens. I apologise for being the only person you know who does this or if it appears a tad tautological - but my nonconformity is not purely based on cussedness. Please feel free to show your (undoubtedly better) alternative. I'd like to see others who are ascending the learning curve feel that they could venture here.

This would have been most helpful to me in the early days. Encountering some sudoku boards was sometimes a bit like watching the last eight remaining speakers of Livonian discussing the weather.

[daj95376]

The various AA* scenarios are interesting, but I find the presence of <3> in most of them unsettling.

To me, <3> is locked in r2c34 with one of four possible truths remaining: