| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JV
Joined: 09 Jan 2011
Posts: 24
Location: Devon, England
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I guess most people won't buy a rather Luddite argument, but here goes.
I think I probably (almost) instinctively look for ALSs that have at least 2 candidates in common with the aligned pair first in the box, & then in the line. That's about finding an APE deletion. Then I'd want to validate it somehow, and that's the Luddite part: writing out allowable pairs has a sort of old-fashioned feel - nothing to do with chains or Eureka.
(I'm sure Asellus is right, that APEs can be expressed simply as ALS - xz, and thus in Eureka if you want, but that doesn't alter how one finds something, or how one checks it.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ronk
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 398
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Asellus wrote: | [Edit to add the following, and to include r7c5 in the listed eliminations above:]
Perhaps I somehow missed it, though I don't believe so: it appears that ronk's original post of the doubly-linked loop above was edited to add in additional resulting eliminations that were not noted when I wrote my responses. Not knowing this makes some of my responses appear even more incoherent than they might otherwise be. |
My only edit was tagged as an edit, and it's what you quoted in your first response. Your post with "incoherent" details occurred another 24+ hours later. |
|
| 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
