| 
 
	
		| View previous topic :: View next topic |  
		| Author | Message |  
		| keith 
 
 
 Joined: 19 Sep 2005
 Posts: 3355
 Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
 
 | 
			
				|  Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 1:58 pm    Post subject: Another good puzzle - 12/31 |   |  
				| 
 |  
				| Try this one: 
 
  	  | Code: |  	  | +-------+-------+-------+
 | . . . | . 7 1 | 6 . 9 |
 | 9 4 6 | 3 . 2 | . . . |
 | . 2 . | . . . | . 4 . |
 +-------+-------+-------+
 | . . . | . . 9 | 2 . 4 |
 | . 9 . | . . . | . 8 . |
 | 1 . 4 | 5 . . | . . . |
 +-------+-------+-------+
 | . 1 . | . . . | . 6 . |
 | . . . | 1 . 7 | 5 3 8 |
 | 8 . 7 | 9 6 . | . . . |
 +-------+-------+-------+
 
 
 | 
 
 Happy New Year!
 
 Keith
 |  |  
		| Back to top |  |  
		|  |  
		| David Bryant 
 
 
 Joined: 29 Jul 2005
 Posts: 559
 Location: Denver, Colorado
 
 | 
			
				|  Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:12 am    Post subject: Here's one way to get there ... |   |  
				| 
 |  
				| This puzzle was in the Rocky Mountain News this morning. 
 The first 22 moves were fairly routine, leading to this position, with 29 squares unresolved.
 
  	  | Code: |  	  | 35    358    358     4      7      1      6      2      9 9      4      6      3      58     2     178     57     15
 7      2      1      68     9     568     38     4      35
 356    3578   358    678     1      9      2      57     4
 56     9      2      67     3      4      17     8     156
 1      78     4      5      2      68     37     9      36
 4      1      35     2      58    358     9      6      7
 2      6      9      1      4      7      5      3      8
 8      35     7      9      6      35     4      1      2
 | 
 From here I solved the puzzle by considering a "double-implication chain" rooted in r6c8:
 
 r6c8 = 3 ==> r6c9 = 6 ==> r6c6 = 8
 and
 r6c8 = 3 ==> r3c8 = 8 ==> r3c4 = 6 ==> r5c4 = 7 ==> r4c4 = 8
 
 But this is a contradiction (two "8"s in the middle center 3x3 box), so we must have r6c8 = 7, and the puzzle is easily solved from there.  dcb
 |  |  
		| Back to top |  |  
		|  |  
		| keith 
 
 
 Joined: 19 Sep 2005
 Posts: 3355
 Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
 
 | 
			
				|  Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 4:12 am    Post subject: A simpler chain? |   |  
				| 
 |  
				| David, 
 There is a chain which you may consider simpler:
 
 From your position,
 
 Assume R3C6 is <5>, then R3C9 = <3>, R6C9 = <6>, R6C6 = <8>, leading to the contradiction:  R3C6 is pinned to be  <6>.
 
 So, R3C6 is not 5, the rest is trivial.
 
 Happy New Year!
 
 Keith
 |  |  
		| 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
 
 |