| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Luke451
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 310
Location: Southern Northern California
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Asellus, Dan, thanks for the heads up on the NL error.
And since the r6c1<>9 is part of the pincer eliminations, then I wasn't as far down the hole as I thought. 
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
storm_norm
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1741
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not making this post to seem argumentative or just posting for the sake of posting.
Asellus knows I wouldn't take anything he has written out of context just to drag this discussion on and on.
I would like everyone to know why I don't write my grouped inference including the ERI cell on both sides.
he wrote.
| Quote: | As for the continuous loop... you can get into trouble if you don't notate the ER in a bidirectional manner. To me, it is not correct to write:
"...(9)r7c3=(9)r78c1..." since this only makes sense read left to right. It is better, in my opinion, to write:
"...(9)r7c13=(9)r78c1...", including the ERI cell r7c1 on both sides of the strong inference |
my only contention with this is writing the r7c1 cell on both sides of the strong link.
why?
because when I look at box 7 and I look at the 9's in that box, and when I try and form the chain...
the 9's are strongly inferenced between the 9's in r78c1 and the 9 in r7c3.
I know Asellus and I will disagree about that, but when I imagine the chain in my head, that is how I see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| storm_norm wrote: | I am not making this post to seem argumentative or just posting for the sake of posting.
Asellus knows I wouldn't take anything he has written out of context just to drag this discussion on and on.
I would like everyone to know why I don't write my grouped inference including the ERI cell on both sides.
my only contention with this is writing the r7c1 cell on both sides of the strong link. why? because when I look at box 7 and I look at the 9's in that box, and when I try and form the chain...
the 9's are strongly inferenced between the 9's in r78c1 and the 9 in r7c3.
I know Asellus and I will disagree about that, but when I imagine the chain in my head, that is how I see it. |
| Code: | +--------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3 2 6 | 45 45 78 | 9 78 1 |
| 47 48 1 | 79 689 6789 | 2 5 3 |
| 79 89 5 | 1 2 3 | 67 4 68 |
|--------------------+--------------------+--------------------|
| 5 1 8 | 3 7 2 | 46 69 469 |
| 6 7 3 | 49 489 89 | 5 1 2 |
| 249 49 29 | 6 1 5 | 8 3 7 |
|--------------------+--------------------+--------------------|
| 129 6 29 | 8 359 4 | 137 79 59 |
| 19 5 7 | 2 369 169 | 1346 689 4689 |
| 8 3 4 | 579 569 1679 | 16 2 569 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|
Your chain as an AIC:
| Code: | (9=7)r7c8 - (7)r1c8 = (7)r3c2 - (7=9)r3c1 - (9)r78c1 = (9)r7c3
|
What eliminations occur if we apply Myth Jellies conclusion for an AIC to your AIC?
MJ's conclusion: Either [r7c8]=9 is true or else [r7c3]=9 is true.
What eliminations occur in [r7] from MJ's conclusion?
[Edit: withdrew elimination [r6c1]<>9]
Last edited by daj95376 on Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:50 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storm_norm
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1741
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What eliminations occur in [r7] from MJ's conclusion? |
the 9 in r7c5 and the 9 in r7c9 are both eliminated.
| Quote: | | MJ's conclusion also supports [r6c1]<>9. |
right, I mentioned that before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| storm_norm wrote: | | Quote: | | What eliminations occur in [r7] from MJ's conclusion? |
the 9 in r7c5 and the 9 in r7c9 are both eliminated. You missed the 9 in r7c1 
|
Last edited by daj95376 on Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storm_norm
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1741
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| so you are saying that from MJ's conclusions that the 9 in r7c1 (as being part of the chain) is still vulnerable for elimination?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| storm_norm wrote: | | so you are saying that from MJ's conclusions that the 9 in r7c1 (as being part of the chain) is still vulnerable for elimination?? |
Yes!
[Edit: everything else withdrawn.]
Last edited by daj95376 on Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storm_norm
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1741
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
is there a place for this discussion to continue in the techniques and terminology section? instead of bloating this thread?
| Quote: | | Now, you're going to kill me. |
 ha !!!
but noooo. in fact I take your forcing chain analysis very seriously because a nicely programmed algorithm would probably save my eyes from popping out of my head and find all eliminations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Asellus
Joined: 05 Jun 2007
Posts: 865
Location: Sonoma County, CA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daj95376 wrote: | | I hate to tell you this, but this is forcing chain logic! |
Danny, I don't follow you. It is not at all necessary to make any assumption about the truth or falsity of the <9> in r7c8 to utilize this AIC. It is true that the True/False status of any node in an AIC alternates as the direction of propagation in the AIC alternates. That's a given. We don't need to re-discover this given every time we use an AIC! What matters are only the rules. Once a loop with an AIC is established, we only need to determine if it is (1) continuous, (2) discontinuous with a weak inference discontinuity, or (3) discontinuous with a strong link discontinuity.
The key lies in recognizing strong inferences within the grid. That is the "hurdle" over which one must leap to become proficient with AICs. I am pleased that you cite Myth Jellies in support of my view of the strong inference involved in an ER.
| Quote: | | Maybe he'll succeed to unify those who have differing interpretations on how AIC should be viewed. One can only hope. |
Well, from the extremely limited bit I've read by MJ on the subject, I am not aware of anything regarding AICs with which I am in disagreement with him (I'm trusting you on the gender because I don't know). One can only hope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storm_norm
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1741
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
alright,
I get it, I get it.
this all stems from the fact that I present my chains in Eureka.
I try my hardest to have a strong, weak, strong, weak pattern to them.
Danny, I get it that the way I might be presenting my AIC's is probably exactly like how one would find a forcing chain. and I totally understand now that you have felt very strongly about that. and I appreciate your constant drum beat on that very point so that I might see that also.
Asellus, I understand now that some of the inferences that are presented in my chains are probably not the correct way to present them.
I hope this is what you two have been seeing in these discussions lately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| storm_norm wrote: | Danny, I get it that the way I might be presenting my AIC's is probably exactly like how one would find a forcing chain. and I totally understand now that you have felt very strongly about that. and I appreciate your constant drum beat on that very point so that I might see that also.
|
Norm, my sincerest apologies  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
