| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
 Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 4:40 pm Post subject: Set XY_03 Puzzle 008 |
 |
|
| Code: | +-----------------------+
| . 7 . | 1 . 6 | 4 . 9 |
| 6 . . | . 4 . | 2 . . |
| . . 3 | . . 8 | 7 6 . |
|-------+-------+-------|
| 3 . . | 4 . . | . . . |
| . 9 . | . 8 2 | . . . |
| 8 . 6 | . 7 . | . 2 . |
|-------+-------+-------|
| 1 6 2 | . . . | 9 . . |
| . . 8 | . . 4 | . . . |
| 4 . . | . . . | . . 8 |
+-----------------------+
|
Play this puzzle online at the Daily Sudoku site |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
storm_norm
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1741
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Danny,
found another "almost w-wing"
the cells marked "w" below would contain a w-wing on {56} with conjugate 6's in column 5 if the 3 was false in r9c7. right?
if the W-wing is true
{(5=6)r4c9 - (6)r4c5 = (6)r9c5 - (5=6)r9c7} means r6c7 <> 5
| Code: | .------------------.------------------.------------------.
| 2 7 5 | 1 3 6 | 4 8 9 |
| 6 8 1 | 7 4 9 | 2 35 35 |
| 9 4 3 | 5 2 8 | 7 6 1 |
:------------------+------------------+------------------:
| 3 2 7 | 4 W16 15 | 8 9 W56 |
| 5 9 4 | 36 8 2 | 13 137 367 |
| 8 1 6 | 9 7 *35 |3-5 2 4 |
:------------------+------------------+------------------:
| 1 6 2 | 8 5 *37 | 9 4 *37 |
| 7 35 8 | 36 9 4 | 1356 135 2 |
| 4 35 9 | 2 W16 137 |W356 357 8 |
'------------------'------------------'------------------' |
if the w-wing is false, then the 3 in r9c7 is true
leads too the cells marked "*"
(w-wing false) = (3)r9c7 - (3=7)r7c9 - (7=3)r7c6 - (3=5)r6c6; means r6c7 <> 5
both ways say r6c7 <> 5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wapati
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 472
Location: Brampton, Ontario, Canada.
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That is both good and funny.
ALS, various Almost URs and now Almost W-wings.
Are there Almost Almost deductions yet ?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| storm_norm wrote: | Danny,
found another "almost w-wing"
the cells marked "w" below would contain a w-wing on {56} with conjugate 6's in column 5 if the 3 was false in r9c7. right?
if the W-wing is true
{(5=6)r4c9 - (6)r4c5 = (6)r9c5 - (5=6)r9c7} means r6c7 <> 5
| Code: | .------------------.------------------.------------------.
| 2 7 5 | 1 3 6 | 4 8 9 |
| 6 8 1 | 7 4 9 | 2 35 35 |
| 9 4 3 | 5 2 8 | 7 6 1 |
:------------------+------------------+------------------:
| 3 2 7 | 4 W16 15 | 8 9 W56 |
| 5 9 4 | 36 8 2 | 13 137 367 |
| 8 1 6 | 9 7 *35 |3-5 2 4 |
:------------------+------------------+------------------:
| 1 6 2 | 8 5 *37 | 9 4 *37 |
| 7 35 8 | 36 9 4 | 1356 135 2 |
| 4 35 9 | 2 W16 137 |W356 357 8 |
'------------------'------------------'------------------' |
if the w-wing is false, then the 3 in r9c7 is true
leads too the cells marked "*"
(w-wing false) = (3)r9c7 - (3=7)r7c9 - (7=3)r7c6 - (3=5)r6c6; means r6c7 <> 5
both ways say r6c7 <> 5 |
Right!
Rambling:
Since everything hinges on [r9c7]=3 or [r9c7]<>3, it works as a forcing chain for me:
(3)r9c7 = ( <56> W-Wing ) - (5)r6c7
(3)r9c7 - r7c9 = r7c6 - (3=5) r6c6 - (5)r6c7
I'm guessing this approach was more fun than using the Skyscraper r67\c6 on <3> and then performing the W-Wing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storm_norm
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1741
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm guessing this approach was more fun than using the Skyscraper r67\c6 on <3> and then performing the W-Wing. |
sure, it would be fun to accomplish those steps.
but naturally as soon as the statement is made that they were fun, then someone would post that it wasn't fun.
and...
naturally, if the statement was made that those steps weren't fun, then a post is almost assuredly coming that claims the steps were fun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| storm_norm wrote: | | Quote: | | I'm guessing this approach was more fun than using the Skyscraper r67\c6 on <3> and then performing the W-Wing. |
sure, it would be fun to accomplish those steps.
but naturally as soon as the statement is made that they were fun, then someone would post that it wasn't fun.
and...
naturally, if the statement was made that those steps weren't fun, then a post is almost assuredly coming that claims the steps were fun. |
Well, it looks like I stepped in it with my statement. I was just expecting you to say that it was more fun for you.
My apologies, Danny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storm_norm
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1741
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daj95376 wrote: | | storm_norm wrote: | | Quote: | | I'm guessing this approach was more fun than using the Skyscraper r67\c6 on <3> and then performing the W-Wing. |
sure, it would be fun to accomplish those steps.
but naturally as soon as the statement is made that they were fun, then someone would post that it wasn't fun.
and...
naturally, if the statement was made that those steps weren't fun, then a post is almost assuredly coming that claims the steps were fun. |
Well, it looks like I stepped in it with my statement. I was just expecting you to say that it was more fun for you.
My apologies, Danny |
nah, you didn't step in it.
it was fun finding it.
I am only posting about this pattern in order to get it out into the court of public opinion. not because I think its really really fun. 
addictive is a better adjective.
a word in which you find very familiar when it comes to sudoku?? Danny? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| storm_norm wrote: | nah, you didn't step in it.
it was fun finding it.
I am only posting about this pattern in order to get it out into the court of public opinion.
|
Opinion: I find these patterns interesting, but only if they occur when other, more reasonable techniques aren't available. With the Skyscraper being present, it tarnishes your example (for me). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storm_norm
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1741
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daj95376 wrote: | | storm_norm wrote: | nah, you didn't step in it.
it was fun finding it.
I am only posting about this pattern in order to get it out into the court of public opinion.
|
Opinion: I find these patterns interesting, but only if they occur when other, more reasonable techniques aren't available. With the Skyscraper being present, it tarnishes your example (for me). |
I'd agree with you except that my example does solve your puzzle in one step. which means that the skyscraper is not needed to solve your puzzle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5770
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I used a W-Wing on 35, then looked at the possibilities on a Type 3 UR on 35. Two of the possibilities were invalid, reducing it to a Type 1 which finished it off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
