| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bud
Joined: 06 May 2010
Posts: 47
Location: Tampa, Florida
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:40 pm Post subject: ER Multidigit Extension Example |
 |
|
000002090070000504050009000004290080600030002020070100000800050501920060080400000
After basic moves the puzzle is as shown in the diagram below. The 9 ER cells are marked with * and the 156 extension cells are marked with #. For the ER. The extensions begin at each end of the ER. One or both of these (r6c9 or r7c2) must be 9. Since (9)r6c9=(6)r6c4 or (9)r7c2=(1)r5c2=(5)r5c4, this implies that r6c4<>5 and r7c9<>9.
| Code: |
+--------------------+---------------------+--------------------+
| 1348 1346 368 | 13567 14568 2 | 3678 9 13678 |
| 12389 7 23689 | 136 168 16 | 5 123 4 |
| 12348 5 2368 | 1367 1468 9 | 23678 1237 13678 |
+--------------------+---------------------+--------------------+
| 137 13 4 | 2 9 156 | 367 8 3567 |
| 6 19* 5789 | 15# 3 48 | 79* 47 2 |
| 389 2 3589 |-56# 7 48 | 1 34 3569* |
+--------------------+---------------------+--------------------+
| 23479 3469* 23679 | 8 16 1367 | 23479 5 137-9 |
| 5 34 1 | 9 2 37 | 3478 6 378 |
| 2379 8 23679 | 4 156 13567 | 2379 1237 1379 |
+--------------------+---------------------+--------------------+ |
I have found several examples of extended turbot fish patterns as well as other single digit 4 cell non-turbot fish patterns. This is one of the simpler ones.
Last edited by Bud on Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:16 pm Post subject: Re: ER Multidigit Extension Example |
|
|
| Bud wrote: | | (9)r7c2=(1)r5c2 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Asellus
Joined: 05 Jun 2007
Posts: 865
Location: Sonoma County, CA, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The elimination of <5> in r6c4 depends upon the <9>s in b6 being a conjugate pair. The ER based elimination in r7 is an unrelated coincidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bud
Joined: 06 May 2010
Posts: 47
Location: Tampa, Florida
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi DAJ aqnd Asellus.
Asellus, the relationship between the two eliminations is that they are both dependent on the fact that r7c2 inclusive-or r6c9 = 9. If this were not true, neither elimination can be made. On the other hand it is a coincidence that this particular extension occurred. However, I have found several other distinct useful extensions in other puzzles. I misplaced one of these that had a total of 4digit eliminations. When I locate this, I will post it.
I was getting ready to post an extended purple cow example which is related to this because both the purple cow elimination and the extended elimination are dependent on the ends of a single digit 4-cell AIC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bud,
What you have are two chains with a few cells and candidates in common. It's nothing noteworthy. In addition, it's r6c9<>6 and not r6c4<>5 as you indicate.
| Code: | (9)r6c9 = r5c7 - (9 )r5c2 = (9)r7c2 => r7c9<>9 (simple turbot pattern)
(9)r6c9 = r5c7 - (9=1)r5c2 - (1=5)r5c4 - (5=6)r6c4 => r6c9<>6
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Asellus
Joined: 05 Jun 2007
Posts: 865
Location: Sonoma County, CA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daj95376 wrote: | | In addition, it's r6c9<>6 and not r6c4<>5 as you indicate. |
The elimination of <5> in r6c4 or of <6> in r6c9 are equivalent since each is a consequence of the other. As Bud wrote it using the "ER pincers" (edited slightly by me for clarity), it is the elimination of <5> in r6c4 that is the most direct result:
(9)r6c9 => (6)r6c4 and/or (9)r7c2 => (1)r5c2 => (5)r5c4
The <5> elimination works precisely because the <9>s in box 6 and the <6>s in r6 are conjugate pairs with one end of each pair sharing the cell r6c9 (that is, have a weak inference). The AIC:
(5=1)r5c4 - (1=9)r5c2 - (9)r5c7=(9-6)r6c9=(6)r6c4; r6c4<>5
My point was that this elimination would not work in the general case of an ER in box 6. Suppose there were a <9> candidate in r4c9. We'd still have the ER elimination of <9> in r7c9 but would no longer have the <5> elimination. That's because we have no weak inference between (6)r6c9 and the grouped <9>s in c9 of box 6. (That's why I put "ER pincers" in quotes above. The general case would have to consider any or all of (9)r456c9 as the other pincer.) As daj points out, it is the pincers of a Turbot Fish that are being extended here (except that, as the AIC shows, we don't really need to go all the way to the r7c2 pincer to eliminate that <5>).
More generally, the term in green above could be replaced with any grouping of <9>s in r5c789. So what is actually essential is that (9)r6c9 be conjugate with the <9>s of r5 of b6. This allows some of the possible ER configurations but not all of them.
[Edit to fix typo, shown in red.]
Last edited by Asellus on Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
[Withdrawn: My point seemed to overlay Asellus' in too many respects.]
Last edited by daj95376 on Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
