| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jabejochke
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 21
Location: Reading
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject: April 4th - More than a Medium |
 |
|
April 4th puzzle feels more than a Medium. After 60 minutes, I'm still searching.
Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TKiel
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 292
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jack,
Seems to be nothing but naked and hidden singles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Bryant
Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Posts: 559
Location: Denver, Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:28 pm Post subject: The "3" was hard to spot |
|
|
| Once I noticed that r2c2 = 3 the rest fell into line. dcb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jabejochke
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 21
Location: Reading
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tracy, David,
Thanks. I'm finding that I don't recognize hidden singles early enough.
Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TKiel
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 292
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jack,
Are you a pencil and paper solver, by any chance? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jabejochke
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 21
Location: Reading
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tracy,
Yes - my notations are numerous. However, from the 'learnings' I am picking up on this site, that's changing. And it's exciting.
Today's puzzle, April 5th, I was able to solve by working with only 2 rows, 5 columns and 1 block - no profiling at all. This resulted primarily from the insights that I have gained from Alan's Mandatory Pair discussion back in October coupled with the "19-Jan-2006 classic logic question" discussion.
Some day................. no paper ?
Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alanr555
Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 198
Location: Bideford Devon EX39
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Code: |
> This resulted primarily from the insights that I have gained
> from Alan's Mandatory Pair discussion back in October ...
Mandatory Pairs is based upon "Strong Links" within the boxes.
There is discussion (someone else may be able to post the URL)
in the "other puzzles" section with a link to a contribution by
someone with moniker "Harvard" which goes into a lot of detail
on the use of Strong Links (coupled with buddies).
They are all based on the fundamental concept of the binary.
When it is 'on' its partner is 'off' and when it is 'off' its partner
is 'on'. - a very simple but immensely powerful concept.
Mandatory Pairs is a simple way to record strong Links when
they occur in regions. Where it fails is when the Strong Links
are in different regions. Then one has to start shoving data
into short term memory (human memory!) as part of the
playing with patterns. If one can use different colour pens
then it would be possible to extend the Mandatory Pairs
concept to Strong Links in rows and columns as well as in
regions so that more of the "Very Hard" become "Quite Easy"!
The October paper on Mandatory Pairs seems a little naive in
retrospect but six months have brought in a lot of experience
on how to apply the technique. That said, the fundamental
principle (using binary properties) stands firm.
I would commend the dissertation on Strong Links. It seems
to be a way to cut through quite a bit of verbiage about some
of the advanced techniques. My own view is that if one can get
a simple principle applied in practice, that is preferable to a
whole set of complex procedures.
As an aside, cosmologists and others have been postulating
multiple dimensions (eleven?) to explain the universe. This
would seem to be introducing far too much complexity - just
to reconcile Quantum rules with gravity. There is possibly a
much simpler solution which needs only three dimensions
(the ones we can see, feel and touch!) but it depends on an
admission that science took a wrong turning a few decades
ago. We know that such wrong turns are sometimes taken
but Einsteins predictions were verified by the 1919 eclipse
and so everybody chased down that path. What does not
seem to have had much consideration is the concept of
negative mass. I am told that allowing for this concept
would permit reconciliation of quantum effects in the small
with gravity in the big without multiple dimensions. Whilst
that may be wrong, the counter-argument appears to be
a reluctance to change rather than deep research. It may
be even that the dark matter conundrum will have some light
thrown on it in the process!
Alan Rayner BS23 2QT
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
