dailysudoku.com Forum Index dailysudoku.com
Discussion of Daily Sudoku puzzles
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Questionable Logic

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    dailysudoku.com Forum Index -> Solving techniques, and terminology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tlanglet



Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 2468
Location: Northern California Foothills
PostPosted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 7:51 pm    Post subject: Questionable Logic Reply with quote
Here is the code after basics for Danny's puzzle 10/07/01: VH.

Code:
+-------------+------------+-----------------+
| 3  4   1    | 26  5   8  | 7     9   26    |
| 8  26  7    | 246 1   9  | 246   5   3     |
| 9  26  5    | 7   3   46 | 18    246 18    |
+-------------+------------+-----------------+
| 46 7   2    | 1   46  3  | 5     8   9     |
| 46 1   3    | 8   9   5  | 246   246 7     |
| 5  89  89   | 46  2   7  | 3     1   46    |
+-------------+------------+-----------------+
| 1  589 4689 | 3   468 46 | 24689 7   24568 |
| 7  58  468  | 9   468 2  | 1468  3   14568 |
| 2  3   4689 | 5   7   1  | 4689  46  468   |
+-------------+------------+-----------------+

Play this puzzle online at the Daily Sudoku site

Note the two AURs: AUR 89 in r67c23 & AUR 18 in r38c79
Both of these two AURs create a pseudocell (456)

Looking at the AUR 18 we make the following observations:
1. The pseudocell in r8c79 can be viewed as (46=5)
2. The contents of r9c9 can be viewed as (8=46)
3, Thus a short chain may be formed: (8=46)r9c9 - (46=5)r8c79 - (5=8)r8c2; r8c79,r9c3<>8

A similr step is possible for AUR 89.

Question: Is my logic valid?

Ted
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ronk



Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 398
PostPosted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Questionable Logic Reply with quote
tlanglet wrote:
Looking at the AUR 18 we make the following observations:
1. The pseudocell in r8c79 can be viewed as (46=5)
2. The contents of r9c9 can be viewed as (8=46)
...

In order to have a pair of candidates on one or both sides of a strong inference, there has to be a pair of cells. R9c9 is a single cell, so it obviously doesn't qualify. The r8c79 pseudocell is a pair of cells that behaves like a single cell, so it doesn't qualify either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
daj95376



Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
PostPosted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ronk wrote:
In order to have a pair of candidates on one or both sides of a strong inference, there has to be a pair of cells.

Good point!

Ted: you need an ALS relationship.

(8=46)r9c89 - UR(46=5)r8c79 - (5=8)r8c2; r8c79,r9c3<>8
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ronk



Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 398
PostPosted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
daj95376 wrote:
ronk wrote:
In order to have a pair of candidates on one or both sides of a strong inference, there has to be a pair of cells.

Ted: you need an ALS relationship.

(8=46)r9c89 - UR(46=5)r8c79 - (5=8)r8c2; r8c79,r9c3<>8

I didn't think this exeption would surface so quickly. Surprised For the pseudocell r8c79, we have the valid strong inference (46=5) r8c79 with a pair of candidates on one side of the inference. A pseudocell behaves like a single cell, so how is this possible?

A pseudocell with three candidates is effectively an AALS, and an AALS may be doubly-linked to an ALS. In this context "doubly-linked" means there are two "restricted commons." As written, there is an implied logical 'and' (&) between the candidates ...

(8=4&6)r9c89 - UR(4&6=5)r8c79

... at least when read left-to-right. Written below in the opposite direction, there is an implied logical 'or' (|) between the candidates ...

(5=4|6)r8c79 - (4|6=8)r9c89
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tlanglet



Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 2468
Location: Northern California Foothills
PostPosted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ron & Danny,

Thanks for the feedback. I need to chew on the info some more to (hopefully?) understand it since my fundamentals are still weak.

In fact, when I first saw the two patterns, I formed as ALS using the bivalue (46) in r7c6 and r9c8 respectively. However while preparing to post that solution, I got thinking about the alternate and decided to post it instead.

Thanks again..........

Ted
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
daj95376



Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
PostPosted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ronk wrote:
I didn't think this exeption would surface so quickly. Surprised For the pseudocell r8c79, we have the valid strong inference (46=5) r8c79 with a pair of candidates on one side of the inference. A pseudocell behaves like a single cell, so how is this possible?

A pseudocell with three candidates is effectively an AALS, and an AALS may be doubly-linked to an ALS. In this context "doubly-linked" means there are two "restricted commons." As written, there is an implied logical 'and' (&) between the candidates ...

(8=4&6)r9c89 - UR(4&6=5)r8c79

... at least when read left-to-right. Written below in the opposite direction, there is an implied logical 'or' (|) between the candidates ...

(5=4|6)r8c79 - (4|6=8)r9c89

Yes, what a mess we end up with when compact expressions are used in notation. Let's write this thing out and reduce some of the clutter.

First: UR(4|5|6)r8c79 is my interpretation -- non-exclusive "or"

Second: als is really (8)r9c9 = (46)r9c89 -- thus the need for two cells

Leaving a left-to-right of:

(8)r9c9 = (46)r9c89 - UR(4|6=5)r8c79

Leaving a right-to=left of:

UR(5=4|6)r8c79 - (46)r9c89 = (8)r9c9

I give others credit for understanding the compact notation on the als, and I give them credit for understanding what is meant when I drop the (|) designator in the UR:

(8=46)r9c89 - UR(46=5)r8c79

I don't want to think of how many &'s and |'s you'd need to explain the left-to-right and right-to-left interpretations of Luke's last als term here. I still get nightmares from when Myth Jellies insisted on including the logical operators in his expressions! _ Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ronk



Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 398
PostPosted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
daj95376 wrote:
I give others credit for understanding the compact notation on the als, and I give them credit for understanding what is meant when I drop the (|) designator in the UR:

(8=46)r9c89 - UR(46=5)r8c79

I don't want to think of how many &'s and |'s you'd need to explain the left-to-right and right-to-left interpretations of ...

My detailing the logic of doubly-linking an AALS to an ALS is certainly not the same as suggesting logical '&' and '|' symbols be used in most AICs. Did I say that? Do I otherwise post AICs using the symbols? Did I not use twice use the word "implied"?

Besides, beyond producing clutter, over half the people using the symbols would just get it wrong, like you did when ...

you wrote:
Leaving a left-to-right of:

(8)r9c9 = (46)r9c89 - UR(4|6=5)r8c79
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
daj95376



Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
PostPosted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ronk wrote:
Besides, beyond producing clutter, over half the people using the symbols would just get it wrong, like you did when ...

you wrote:
Leaving a left-to-right of:

(8)r9c9 = (46)r9c89 - UR(4|6=5)r8c79


Hmmmmm!!! When I was taking logic, they taught us that:

not( A or B) ==>> not(A) and not(B)

Now, if I take my expression "- UR(4|6=5)r8c79" and spread the not operator across the operand containing the or operator, then I get the following logical expression:

If r8c79 does not contain <4> and r8c79 does not contain <6>, then r8c9 must contain <5>.

Regards, Danny

[Edit: replaced r8c79=5 with r8c9=5, and removed unnecessary comment.]

Last edited by daj95376 on Fri Jul 02, 2010 9:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ronk



Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 398
PostPosted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
daj95376 wrote:
ronk wrote:
Besides, beyond producing clutter, over half the people using the symbols would just get it wrong, like you did when ...

you wrote:
Leaving a left-to-right of:

(8)r9c9 = (46)r9c89 - UR(4|6=5)r8c79


Hmmmmm!!! When I was taking logic, they taught us that:

not( A or B) ==>> not(A) and not(B)

Believe it or not, I do understand Boolean logic and I understand your POV. Maybe we should change the AIC notation name to AIBE (Alternating Inference Boolean Expression). Smile I tend to look at chain notation as an inference stream, not a Boolean expression. That's probably also why I still prefer nice-loop notation for chains, where the above would look like ...

-8- r9c89 -46- UR:r8c79 -5-

Then it's '4&6' reading left-to-right and '4|6' reading right-to-left, without question. IOW r9c89 holds 4 and 6 reading L2R, r8c79 holds 4 or 6 reading R2L.

BTW there's no need to yell.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
daj95376



Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
PostPosted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ronk wrote:
daj95376 wrote:
not( A or B) ==>> not(A) and not(B)

BTW there's no need to yell.

I'm sorry if it seemed like yelling. I'm accustomed to seeing mathematical expressions in bold.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    dailysudoku.com Forum Index -> Solving techniques, and terminology All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
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