View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008 Posts: 3854
|
Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:50 pm Post subject: Puzzle 10/06/15: (C) XY |
|
|
Code: | +-----------------------+
| 4 . 7 | 9 . . | . 8 . |
| . 3 . | . 7 . | 6 . 4 |
| . . . | 1 . . | . 9 . |
|-------+-------+-------|
| 7 . 2 | . . . | . . . |
| . 8 . | . 1 . | . . . |
| . 1 . | . . 4 | . . . |
|-------+-------+-------|
| . 5 . | 8 . . | 1 . . |
| . . 1 | . . . | 9 . 8 |
| 2 4 . | . . . | . 3 . |
+-----------------------+
|
Play this puzzle online at the Daily Sudoku site
Code: | after basics
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 4 26 7 | 9 2356 2356 | 235 8 1 |
| 1 3 9 | 25 7 8 | 6 25 4 |
| 8 26 5 | 1 4 236 | 237 9 237 |
|-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------|
| 7 9 2 | 356 8 56 | 4 1 356 |
| 356 8 4 | 23567 1 9 | 235 2567 2356 |
| 356 1 36 | 23567 256 4 | 8 2567 9 |
|-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------|
| 9 5 36 | 8 236 7 | 1 4 26 |
| 36 7 1 | 4 2356 2356 | 9 256 8 |
| 2 4 8 | 56 9 1 | 57 3 567 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
# 66 eliminations remain
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterj
Joined: 26 Mar 2010 Posts: 974 Location: London, UK
|
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For me this was a real BBDB+ and involved probably one too many glasses of Pouilly Fuisse... My first pass had more finned fish then I can remember, but an intentionally more xy route was this one - for six steps!
Quote: | w-wing(56) (using a pair) (6=5)r9c4 - r2c4=r2c8 - (5=26)r7c9|r8c8; r9c9<>6
grouped x-chain(2) (2)r2c8=r2c4 - r56c4=r6c5 - r78c5=r8c6 - r8c8=r7c9; r3c9<>2, r8c8<>2
finned x-wing(2) r26c48 fin r6c5; r5c4<>2
w-wing(25) (5=2)r2c4 - r6c4=r6c5 -(2=5)r8c5; r1c5<>5
xy-wing(357) r1c6; r3c7<>7
BUG+1; r5c8=5 |
Feel sure someone will come up with some UR/DP action... but not me. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008 Posts: 3854
|
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My solver found five necessary steps ... three extraneous steps ... and the lone XY level step was in the middle of the necessary steps.
Peter, nice job of plowing through a rough puzzle! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mogulmeister
Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1151
|
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Step 1 is an overeach but I stick it out there just to test a new way of text formatting and how not to be beguiled:
1)HUR @ r13c26 and to prevent DP can we really say {356} exists in r134c6 so r8c6 =2 ? ( )
Code: | +-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
| 4 26 7 | 9 2356 26+35 | 235 8 1 |
| 1 3 9 | 25 7 8 | 6 25 4 |
| 8 26 5 | 1 4 26+3 | 237 9 237 |
+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
| 7 9 2 | 356 8 56 | 4 1 356 |
| 356 8 4 | 23567 1 9 | 235 2567 2356 |
| 356 1 36 | 23567 256 4 | 8 2567 9 |
+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
| 9 5 36 | 8 236 7 | 1 4 26 |
| 36 7 1 | 4 2356 2356 | 9 256 8 |
| 2 4 8 | 56 9 1 | 57 3 567 |
+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+ |
2)After clean up, Skyscraper on 5s in rows 2 and 8 to complete puzzle but no cigar.
PS I will still be sticking up my coloured grids from time to time. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterj
Joined: 26 Mar 2010 Posts: 974 Location: London, UK
|
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mm, my undestanding fwiw is that the UR forms a single pseudo-cell of (35) and so to lock the candidates {356} you need two more cells containing only those candidates - not just the one. But I could easily be completely wrong! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mogulmeister
Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1151
|
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quite so Peter. I did say it was a lesson on how not to be beguiled. So yes.
It is a good example of a false positive. Something we have all experienced in the 9x9 game.
[Ed]Just looking at that original HUR (without external implications) the only safe elimination that can be made is that the DP will be made if we place 2 into r1c6 so r1c6<>2 but that doesn't advance us very far. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterj
Joined: 26 Mar 2010 Posts: 974 Location: London, UK
|
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry misunderstood!
One of the problems of using SS rather than paper IMO is you can accidentally (or intentionally ) try those eliminations, find they are hugely constructive and then spend 30 minutes desperately trying to justify them... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008 Posts: 3854
|
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ouch!!! I missed the necessity of the grouped 2-String Kite. This puzzle was harder than I'd planned. Sorry!!!
Code: | r26\c48 finned X-Wing <> 2 r5c4 -or-
r2 b6 Empty Rectangle <> 2 r5c4
r2c6 2-String Kite (grouped) <> 2 r8c8
r29\c48 Sashimi X-Wing <> 5 r8c8 -or-
r2 b8 Empty Rectangle <> 5 r8c8
W-Wing (5=2)r2c4 - r6c4 = r6c5 - (2=5)r8c5 => r1c5<>5 -or-
W-Wing (5=2)r2c4 - r3c6 = r8c6 - (2=5)r8c5 => r1c5<>5
<35+7> XY-Wing r1c7/r3c9+r9c7 <> 7 r3c7,r9c9
BUG+1 = 5 r5c8
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mogulmeister
Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1151
|
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An excellent puzzle Danny - especially if it generates talking points! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterj
Joined: 26 Mar 2010 Posts: 974 Location: London, UK
|
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was the lack of "BBDB" label that had me working hard at it - thinking there must be a quicker way.
In some ways it's good not to have the label give too much away - makes it more of a surprise! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mogulmeister
Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1151
|
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008 Posts: 3854
|
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I (typically) use BBDB on puzzles where my solver seems to need more than four steps. On XY puzzles, I tend not to use BBDB unless there are more than five steps. When I originally counted five steps for this puzzle, I decided to drop the BBDB from the title.
FWIW: I include the BBDB so you won't unexpectedly tackle a puzzle that might be time consuming. This was a problem I heard about previous to using BBDB.
Regards, Danny |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 Posts: 5770 Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I used three ERs (5,2,6). After that it was coloring on 2, or something akin to coloring. It might've had an AIC component, but that's not exactly my forte, so I'll leave it at coloring.
P.S. I may have screwed up since I can't re-create my solution using Danny's post-basics grid.
But you tell me if this is valid.
Here's Danny's grid after my three ERs.
Code: |
+-----------+----------------+---------------+
| 4 26 7 | 9 2356 2356 | 235 8 1 |
| 1 3 9 | 25 7 8 | 6 25 4 |
| 8 26 5 | 1 4 236 | 237 9 237 |
+-----------+----------------+---------------+
| 7 9 2 | 35 8 56 | 4 1 356 |
| 356 8 4 | 357 1 9 | 235 2567 2356 |
| 356 1 36 | 2357 256 4 | 8 57 9 |
+-----------+----------------+---------------+
| 9 5 36 | 8 23 7 | 1 4 26 |
| 36 7 1 | 4 235 235 | 9 26 8 |
| 2 4 8 | 6 9 1 | 57 3 57 |
+-----------+----------------+---------------+
|
Play this puzzle online at the Daily Sudoku site
r7c5=2
r7c9<>2
r8c8=2
r2c8<>2
r2c4=2
r6c4<>2;
r6c5<>2
P.P.S I get the feeling it's not kosher. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008 Posts: 3854
|
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Marty R. wrote: | r7c5=2 r7c9<>2 r8c8=2 r2c8<>2 r2c4=2 r6c4<>2; r6c5<>2
P.P.S I get the feeling it's not kosher.
|
Almost kosher:
r7c5=2 r7c9<>2 r8c8=2 r2c8<>2 r2c4=2 r6c4<>2 r6c5=2; r7c5<>2
As an AIC:
(2): r7c9 = r8c8 - r2c8 = r2c4 - r6c4 = r6c5; r7c5<>2 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 Posts: 5770 Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Danny, but I'm all screwed up now. If r7c5=2, then r6c4<>2. If r6c4=2, then r7c5<>2. So with opposite polarity, r6c5<>2. However, maybe that just works out in this case by accident and doesn't have to work out that way as conventional coloring using strong links would. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008 Posts: 3854
|
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marty R. wrote: | Thanks Danny, but I'm all screwed up now. If r7c5=2, then r6c4<>2. If r6c4=2, then r7c5<>2. So with opposite polarity, r6c5<>2. However, maybe that just works out in this case by accident and doesn't have to work out that way as conventional coloring using strong links would. |
The conclusion is based on the contradiction of assuming r7c5=2 and arriving at r6c5=2 as well. Since this can't be the case, the original assumption of r7c5=2 must be wrong. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mogulmeister
Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1151
|
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marty - you have a discontinuous loop with an inherent contradiction (a Baphomet ! )
Just extending on Danny's point a little:
Follow your loop round and you will see that if you start r7c5 as 2 or true when you follow the loop around it becomes false which is a contradiction so r7c5 <>2.
I have colour coded your logic below. Start on the target cell (purple) as true for 2 then follow your sequence. Green is true for 2 and orange is false.
In notation it can be shown as an extension of Danny's chain:
IS 2.........NOT 2......IS 2.........NOT 2.......IS 2
(2)r7c5-r7c9 = r8c8 - r2c8 = r2c4 - r6c4 = r6c5-(2)r7c5 so r7c5<>2
Last edited by Mogulmeister on Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:52 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 Posts: 5770 Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Danny and MM. I'll have to pay more attention to that stuff. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mogulmeister
Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1151
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008 Posts: 3854
|
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marty R. wrote: | Thanks Danny and MM. I'll have to pay more attention to that stuff.
|
If you start by assuming that something is true, then the only acceptable outcome is that the assumption is false. This is a common approach used by ronk, Asellus, and others. In Mogulmeister's chain:
Code: | assumed to found to conclusion
be true be false
********** ********* **********
(2)r7c5 - r7c9 = r8c8 - r2c8 = r2c4 - r6c4 = r6c5 - (2)r7c5 => r7c5<>2
|
The other option is to start by assuming that something is false and finding another place where it is true. Anything that sees both must be false. This is how Myth Jellies documented the AIC ... and it's what I use 99.99% of the time. Using this approach, MM's chain is shortened to:
Code: | assumed to found to conclusion
be false be true
********** ********* **********
(2)r7c9 = r8c8 - r2c8 = r2c4 - r6c4 = (2)r6c5 => r7c5<>2
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|