dailysudoku.com

[arkietech]

[Clement]

[tlanglet]

The Type 4 UR(89) is an obvious solution but I enjoyed an almost AIC.

AAIC: {(4=1)r1c5-(1=8)r5c5-(8=3)r5c8-(3=4)r6c7} = (9)r5c5-(9=2)r3c5-r9c5=(2-5)r8c6=(5-3)r8c8=r8c7-(3=4)r6c7; -4r1c7

Ted

[Marty R.]

I also used the obvious UR.

[arkietech]

[tlanglet]

[Luke451]

Hey, Ted, how are you?

I glad you had fun with the AAIC, needed or not! I'm terrible at finding those and I always end up poring over the puzzle when others post them to figure them out. A couple things.

First, I think if an AAIC component is comprised of an identifiable pattern, then that pattern should be noted with a label. In this case, we're looking at an XY chain, so stick that in there before the brackets. Not everyone is familiar with AAICs, but I'll bet a lot know what an XY chain is.

The only other thing is the brackets themselves. Curly brackets are seldom used. There was a time where they did not always display correctly, so [straight brackets] ended up becoming the norm.

Check out this treatment from one of our great manual solvers.

[tlanglet]

[arkietech]

[daj95376]

Ted,

I know that you like to show your results as a single chain, but I always end up translating them for a better understanding. Given the amount of discussions your chains generate, I can't help but wonder if others must do so as well.


AAIC: {(4=1)r1c5-(1=8)r5c5-(8=3)r5c8-(3=4)r6c7} = (9)r5c5-(9=2)r3c5-r9c5=(2-5)r8c6=(5-3)r8c8=r8c7-(3=4)r6c7; -4r1c7


I typically do two different translations on your chain.

[tlanglet]

[tlanglet]

[Luke451]

I can see why the Kraken cell approach might be a better way to sort out an AAIC like this. Problem is, Kraken cell doesn't speak to how the move could be found in the first place. It's more of an after-the-fact restructuring.

If one looked at r5c5 in this puzzle, what sort of clue would start one out on an examination of the Kraken's tentacles? A guess, maybe? That don't sound so attractive to me.

On the other hand, if a player looking for patterns noticed, "Hey, except for that (9)r5c5 there'd be an XY chain." Or a W-wing or a fish or whatever AIC. So bam, there's a potentially useful link that wasn't so obvious a second ago. That a pattern "almost" exists can be just as useful as a naked one.

If the AAIC approach is how one finds a move, then I don't see any problem with a single-line expression of it.

[tlanglet]

Luke,

I can't express my great appreciation for your comment about my AAIC solution for the Vanhegan Extreme September 25 puzzle. Your comments encourage me to continue posting on this site; I have seriously considered stopping.

If your travels bring you to the Sacramento area, I am just a short distance away and would truly enjoy meeting you.

Ted

[arkietech]

[aran]

On the matter of notation for almost structures :
the basic form is always :
Almost Element=Structure
or its equivalent
Structure=Almost Element
this form then develops into
[AE-.....=>z] = [S=>z] : => z.
Starting from there, some considerations on notation :
1. preference should be for the former version AE=S, since it immediately introduces the Almost Element, and therefore points the reader, if there is one, in the right direction at the outset
2. there is no escaping the fact that the logic for the conclusion z is that it is implied by both terms AE and S. To that extent, there might be an argument for making this clear by showing z as the conclusion of each term (rather than have the reader deduce this from a more concise version of each term)
3. using brackets to surround each term would probably add to clarity.

[Luke451]