View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
susume
Joined: 13 May 2011 Posts: 36 Location: Southeastern US
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've only just recently added BUG to my repertoire, so not surprising I missed something basic. Thanks for the reminder.
I googled "quantum" in the sudoku context but didn't find anything introductory level; any pointers to learn more about it? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterj
Joined: 26 Mar 2010 Posts: 974 Location: London, UK
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Susume, I would offer some input - but according to ronk I have it wrong anyway! So maybe he will chime in...
I saw your move as creating a naked pair (17)r78c4 and so eliminating r6c4<>7=8. But also there is the strong link on 8 so just ignore what I said! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008 Posts: 3854
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm even further confused. I thought it was a BUG+2.
FWIW, I would have written:
Code: | (4*=17)r8c5,r7c4 - (17=48)r8c4; *BUG => r8c5=4
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ronk
Joined: 07 May 2006 Posts: 398
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
daj95376 wrote: | I'm even further confused. I thought it was a BUG+2. |
It is, I cut & pasted without reading closely. Will edit my post and address the quantum term when I get to a real PC. Haven't learned how to do much on this iPad yet.
daj95376 wrote: |
Code: | (4*=17)r8c5,r7c4 - (17=48)r8c4; *BUG => r8c5=4
|
|
I don't understand that. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 Posts: 5770 Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | I'm even further confused. I thought it was a BUG+2. |
I'm not sure I should even join this discussion, but it sounds like the "X" in BUG+X refers to the number of cells only, even though there are three possibilities with one cell being a quad. Doesn't calling this a BUG+2 need some sort of qualifier, sort of like a BUG+2 with a man in motion?
Just trying to guess at the quantum thing. I wonder if it just means that it needs to be one more cell than the number of candidates, i.e., three cells for a quantum pair and four for a triple.
If these are the roof cells of a UR and one other cell in the same house, do we have a quantum pair? 126-127-67. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008 Posts: 3854
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ronk wrote: | daj95376 wrote: |
Code: | (4*=17)r8c5,r7c4 - (17=48)r8c4; *BUG => r8c5=4
|
|
I don't understand that. |
Yeah, it probably is a stretch. I was trying to indicate that r8c5<>4 leads to r8c4=48 and, with memory of the initial elimination, we could deduce that a BUG remains. Since this is a contradiction, we can conclude that r8c5=4.
Regards, Danny |
|
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
|