View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008 Posts: 3854
|
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 12:33 am Post subject: Puzzle 10/10/06: A VH |
|
|
Code: | +-----------------------+
| . . 5 | . 1 . | . . 2 |
| . 4 . | 7 . 2 | . . . |
| 1 . . | . 5 4 | . . 6 |
|-------+-------+-------|
| . 1 . | 6 . 5 | . 3 . |
| 8 . 2 | . . 3 | . . . |
| . 6 3 | 1 2 7 | . 4 . |
|-------+-------+-------|
| . . . | . . . | 5 . . |
| . . . | 2 . 1 | . . 4 |
| 4 . 6 | . . . | . 2 3 |
+-----------------------+
|
Play this puzzle online at the Daily Sudoku site |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 Posts: 5770 Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | UR (15) pseudo cell 67 forms naked pair
Remote Pairs (79) |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
JC Van Hay
Joined: 13 Jun 2010 Posts: 494 Location: Charleroi, Belgium
|
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | To prevent DP (15)R25C89 : => r5c9<>15=7
To prevent DP (49)R57C45 : => r7c5<>49=67
BUG+1 : SIS[(9)r13c8,(9)r3c7] : => r2c7<>9 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
tlanglet
Joined: 17 Oct 2007 Posts: 2468 Location: Northern California Foothills
|
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Three steps. The first two were identical to those by JC, and my last step was the same as Marty's last step.
Quote: | Type 1 UR(15)r25c89; r5c9<>15=7
Type 1 UR(49)r57c45; r7c5<>49
RP(79)r7c8 => r3c3; r3c8<>79=8 |
Ted |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tlanglet
Joined: 17 Oct 2007 Posts: 2468 Location: Northern California Foothills
|
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JC Van Hay wrote: | Quote: | To prevent DP (15)R25C89 : => r5c9<>15=7
To prevent DP (49)R57C45 : => r7c5<>49=67
BUG+1 : SIS[(9)r13c8,(9)r3c7] : => r2c7<>9 |
|
JC,
I still find myself on shaky ground sometimes trying to determine if I have a valid BUG pattern; this is a example of that situation. I concluded it was not a valid BUG because of the four occurrences of digit 9 , but if it had been valid, I would have labeled it a BUG+3, not BUG+1 since three cells had were not bivalues.
Would you please explain your last step?
Ted |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JC Van Hay
Joined: 13 Jun 2010 Posts: 494 Location: Charleroi, Belgium
|
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ted, the last step should have been :X Wing (7)C37 : => r3c8<>7
BUG+1 or BUG+2 (?) : SIS[(9)r1c8,(9)r3c7] (otherwise BUG) : => r2c7,r3c8<>9 However, Kite (7)R8C6 was sufficient after the 1st step !
Regards, JC |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|