| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
arkietech
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Posts: 1834
Location: Northwest Arkansas USA
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:06 am Post subject: Vanhegen extreme 03/27/12 |
 |
|
| Code: |
*-----------*
|7..|5.8|2..|
|..6|2.7|.9.|
|...|...|4..|
|---+---+---|
|.4.|.73|...|
|..8|1.6|7..|
|...|49.|.3.|
|---+---+---|
|..5|...|...|
|.8.|3.1|9..|
|..3|7.5|..6|
*-----------*
|
Play/print online |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tlanglet
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 2468
Location: Northern California Foothills
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
After basics:
| Code: | *--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| 7 139 149 | 5 134 8 | 2 6 13 |
| 1348 135 6 | 2 134 7 | 1358 9 1358 |
| 1238 1235 12 | 6 13 9 | 4 1578 13578 |
|----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
| 12569 4 129 | 8 7 3 | 156 125 1259 |
| 239 239 8 | 1 5 6 | 7 24 249 |
| 156 67 17 | 4 9 2 | 1568 3 158 |
|----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
| 126 67 5 | 9 268 4 | 138 1278 12378 |
| 246 8 247 | 3 26 1 | 9 2457 2457 |
| 1249 129 3 | 7 28 5 | 18 1248 6 |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
|
(4)r2c1=(4-9)r1c3=r1c2-r9c2=r9c1; r9c1<>4
Ted |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arkietech
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Posts: 1834
Location: Northwest Arkansas USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tlanglet wrote: | (4)r2c1=(4-9)r1c3=r1c2-r9c2=r9c1; r9c1<>4
|
L-wing -- great minds think alike  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tlanglet
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 2468
Location: Northern California Foothills
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dan,
I am not sure about the "great" and I sometimes even wonder about the "mind", but finding a simple, clean solution is always rewarding. Also, I gave up naming patterns a long time ago.
Thanks,
Ted |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5770
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not particularly proud of this one, but look at the potential DP on 57 in boxes 39. One of the ways to kill it is 24 in r8c89. This leads to an invalidity; r8c89<>24.
Then that same DP becomes a Type 4 UR; r3c89<>5. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luke451
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 310
Location: Southern Northern California
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Marty R. wrote: | | Not particularly proud of this one, but look at the potential DP on 57 in boxes 39. One of the ways to kill it is 24 in r8c89. This leads to an invalidity; r8c89<>24. |
| Code: | *--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| 7 139 149 | 5 134 8 | 2 6 13 |
| 1348 135 6 | 2 134 7 | 1358 9 1358 |
| 1238 1235 12 | 6 13 9 | 4 1578 13578 |
|----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
| 12569 4 129 | 8 7 3 | 156 125 1259 |
| 239 239 8 | 1 5 6 | 7 24 249 |
| 156 67 17 | 4 9 2 | 1568 3 158 |
|----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
| 126 67 5 | 9 268 4 | 138 1278 12378 |
| 246 8 247 | 3 26 1 | 9 2457 2457 |
| 1249 129 3 | 7 28 5 | 18 1248 6 |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
|
Funny, I'm never ashamed to beat up on a DP
Still, can you help me out with this one? Are you talking about AUR (57)r38c89? I can't seem to reach your conclusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5770
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Luke451 wrote: | | Marty R. wrote: | | Not particularly proud of this one, but look at the potential DP on 57 in boxes 39. One of the ways to kill it is 24 in r8c89. This leads to an invalidity; r8c89<>24. |
| Code: | *--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| 7 139 149 | 5 134 8 | 2 6 13 |
| 1348 135 6 | 2 134 7 | 1358 9 1358 |
| 1238 1235 12 | 6 13 9 | 4 1578 13578 |
|----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
| 12569 4 129 | 8 7 3 | 156 125 1259 |
| 239 239 8 | 1 5 6 | 7 24 249 |
| 156 67 17 | 4 9 2 | 1568 3 158 |
|----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
| 126 67 5 | 9 268 4 | 138 1278 12378 |
| 246 8 247 | 3 26 1 | 9 2457 2457 |
| 1249 129 3 | 7 28 5 | 18 1248 6 |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
|
Funny, I'm never ashamed to beat up on a DP
Still, can you help me out with this one? Are you talking about AUR (57)r38c89? I can't seem to reach your conclusion. |
Luke, I really don't know how to go into detail, but I tested it again on Draw/Play. R8c89 is a 24 pseudo cell which combines with r8c15 for a 246 triple, setting r8c3=7. Just making eliminations from there results in an invalidity. Is my conclusion wrong about setting r8c89<>24? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronk
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 398
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Marty R. wrote: | | R8c89 is a 24 pseudo cell which combines with r8c15 for a 246 triple, setting r8c3=7. Just making eliminations from there results in an invalidity. Is my conclusion wrong about setting r8c89<>24? |
Have you ever seen a naked triple that was cannibalistic, i.e., eliminated a candidate of the triple? And what about the extra candidates in r3c89? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luke451
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 310
Location: Southern Northern California
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marty, the deductions appear valid. Are you going for one of those "contradiction networks?"
With the 5s locked in to r8c89, IF either 2 or 4 is in r8c89, 7 would be forced into r8c3, a contradiction to the solution.
Whichever way, your move doesn't seem to be dependent on the (57)AUR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5770
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ronk wrote: | | Marty R. wrote: | | R8c89 is a 24 pseudo cell which combines with r8c15 for a 246 triple, setting r8c3=7. Just making eliminations from there results in an invalidity. Is my conclusion wrong about setting r8c89<>24? |
Have you ever seen a naked triple that was cannibalistic, i.e., eliminated a candidate of the triple? And what about the extra candidates in r3c89? |
I'm sure I'm misunderstanding your point since in my little world any triple XYZ eliminates all other instances of XYZ in the same house. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronk
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 398
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Marty R. wrote: | | ronk wrote: | | Have you ever seen a naked triple that was cannibalistic, i.e., eliminated a candidate of the triple? And what about the extra candidates in r3c89? |
I'm sure I'm misunderstanding your point since in my little world any triple XYZ eliminates all other instances of XYZ in the same house. |
Partly that a cannibalistic elimination usually, but not always, indicates simpler logic exists for that same elimination. Mostly that you started an AUR deduction, but didn't finish with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
