View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 Posts: 5770 Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wrote:
Quote: | In boxes 47, the 12 UR is both a Type 2 and Type 4. As a Type 4, the 6 is a strong link in c3 and after removing the 1s, just one 1 remains in c3. |
I apologize to all who took the time and effort to respond to the above idiocy. I've executed hundreds of Type 4 URs--and have probably explained them to new players--but I just went brain-dead, probably due to creeping (galloping?) senility, by talking about the 6s as if they were one of the deadly candidates. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005 Posts: 3355 Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | keith: Do you have an example of a UR Type 4 w/o this X-Wing pattern? |
No, I do not.
Code: | +------------------------------------+
| / 123 / | / / 124| / / 18 | < no 2 in /
| . 167 . | 15 . . | . . . |
| . 12 . | . . 12 | . . . |
|------------+-----------+-----------|
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
|------------+-----------+-----------|
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
+------------------------------------+ | Every Type 4 UR is also an X-wing.
But, the logic for the example above is: One of the deadly candidates <12> cannot be in the UR cells in R1. If there are no other candidates <2> in R1, <2> must stay and <1> can be eliminated.
Of course, the X-wing is there, but we are really not using it.
To continue the controversy: The Type 4 UR eliminates the DP candidate that is NOT the X-wing candidate. So, what is the reason to do X-wings before UR's? I do not see how a UR can destroy an X-wing elimination.
Keith |
|
Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008 Posts: 3854
|
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
keith wrote: | Code: | +------------------------------------+
| / 123 / | / / 124| / / 18 | < no 2 in /
| . 167 . | 15 . . | . . . |
| . 12 . | . . 12 | . . . |
|------------+-----------+-----------|
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
|------------+-----------+-----------|
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
+------------------------------------+ | Every Type 4 UR is also an X-wing.
But, the logic for the example above is: One of the deadly candidates <12> cannot be in the UR cells in R1. If there are no other candidates <2> in R1, <2> must stay and <1> can be eliminated.
Of course, the X-wing is there, but we are really not using it.
To continue the controversy: The Type 4 UR eliminates the DP candidate that is NOT the X-wing candidate. So, what is the reason to do X-wings before UR's? I do not see how a UR can destroy an X-wing elimination.
|
Okay!!! I think we are finally on the same page.
I use Simple Sudoku to highlight candidates (and pairs) when I'm manually looking for patterns. (I'd die if I had to use P&P!) The second I spot an X-Wing pattern for a candidate, I stop to see if there's a UR Type 4 present. On rare occasions, I'll remember to check for a UR Type 6. So, I use the X-Wing pattern.
Yes. Neither the X-Wing nor the UR would influence each other. But finding an X-Wing might lead one to stop and immediately check for a UR Type 4/6 in the cells from the X-Wing.
Thanks for a great exchange, Danny |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|