dailysudoku.com

[Asellus]

It seems to me that there is a lot of not seeing the forest for the trees here. In order to be useful, an AIC must form a closed loop. That loop can be continuous or discontinuous.

In a continuous loop, the inferences alternate strong-weak all the way around the loop and there isn't really any starting or ending point. (And, there certainly aren't two strong inference ends. Clearly, Myth Jellies was not describing such a continuous loop AIC.) In a continuous loop all of the links become strong and eliminations can result at any of the previously weak link locations in the loop.

In a discontinous loop, there is one point, or "node," in the loop where there are matching inferences on either side of that node, the "discontinuity".

If the matching inferences at the discontinuity are weak, then the item(s) at the discontinuity are eliminated. The ends of the alternating portion of the AIC will be strongly linked to the AIC. (This is the situation Myth Jellies was describing.) AIC loops with weak link discontinuities are the sort most often encountered and thus most often discussed. Whether or not the weak link discontinuity is included in the Eureka notation is a matter of personal preference. I usually prefer to include the discontinuity because in some cases (as when the digits at the strong link ends of the AIC are dissimilar) it helps to make the elimination clearer.

If the matching inferences at the discontinuity are strong, then the item at the discontinuity must be true. In this case, the ends of the alternating portion of the AIC will be weakly linked to the AIC. But, it is still an AIC (and I am confident Myth would agree). I have never seen an AIC with a strong link discontinuity notated without including the discontinuity. Why is it that including the strong link discontinuity is non-controversial while including a weak link discontinuity is? It seems silly to me.

[daj95376]

[Withdrawn: letting it slide.]

[Asellus]