dailysudoku.com Forum Index dailysudoku.com
Discussion of Daily Sudoku puzzles
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Puzzle 11/07/19: ~ XY
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    dailysudoku.com Forum Index -> Puzzles by daj
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
daj95376



Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3855

PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:57 pm    Post subject: Puzzle 11/07/19: ~ XY Reply with quote

Code:
 +-----------------------+
 | 4 8 1 | 9 . . | . . . |
 | 9 6 . | 2 . . | . . . |
 | 5 . 3 | . 8 . | 9 . . |
 |-------+-------+-------|
 | 8 9 . | 3 2 . | . . 4 |
 | . . 2 | 5 9 . | . . . |
 | . . . | . . . | . . 9 |
 |-------+-------+-------|
 | . . 6 | . . . | 4 . 8 |
 | . . . | . . . | . 6 3 |
 | . . . | 6 . 9 | 1 2 7 |
 +-----------------------+

Play this puzzle online at the Daily Sudoku site
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tlanglet



Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 2461
Location: Northern California Foothills

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My first pass was three steps.........

Quote:
w-wing (16)r3c9+r4c6 GSL(1)r234c8; r3c6<>6
w-wing (14)r2c5+r8c2 sl (3)r9c25; r8c5<>1
BUG+1 ; r8c4=7

Ted
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marty R.



Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5119
Location: Rochester, NY, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does this chain count as Remote Pairs based on Keith's post here?

http://www.dailysudoku.co.uk/sudoku/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2030

I used this chain as Remote Pairs, but don't know if it's valid or a lucky mistake: 16-67-16-16. If not valid, then I go back to the drawing boards.

Remote Pairs (16); r3c6<>16
XYZ-Wing (147); r8c4<>1
BUG+2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Luke451



Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 310
Location: Southern Northern California

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marty R. wrote:
Does this chain count as Remote Pairs.....?
Code:
 *--------------------------------------------------------------------*
 | 4      8      1      | 9      3567   3567   | 67     37     2      |
 | 9      6      7      | 2      134    13     | 38     1348   5      |
 | 5      2      3      | 147    8      167    | 9      147   #16     |
 |----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
 | 8      9      5      | 3      2     #16     |*67    *17     4      |
 | 167    17     2      | 5      9      4      | 38     38    #16     |
 | 16     3      4      | 178    167    1678   | 2      5      9      |
 |----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
 | 127    157    6      | 17     1357   12357  | 4      9      8      |
 | 127    147    9      | 1478   147    1278   | 5      6      3      |
 | 3      45     8      | 6      45     9      | 1      2      7      |
 *--------------------------------------------------------------------*

Cool, Marty, why not? The (16) in r4c78 can be looked at as the missing link, a psuedo-cell.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ronk



Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 397

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Luke451 wrote:
Marty R. wrote:
Does this chain count as Remote Pairs.....?
Code:
 *--------------------------------------------------------------------*
 | 4      8      1      | 9      3567   3567   | 67     37     2      |
 | 9      6      7      | 2      134    13     | 38     1348   5      |
 | 5      2      3      | 147    8      167    | 9      147   #16     |
 |----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
 | 8      9      5      | 3      2     #16     |*67    *17     4      |
 | 167    17     2      | 5      9      4      | 38     38    #16     |
 | 16     3      4      | 178    167    1678   | 2      5      9      |
 |----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
 | 127    157    6      | 17     1357   12357  | 4      9      8      |
 | 127    147    9      | 1478   147    1278   | 5      6      3      |
 | 3      45     8      | 6      45     9      | 1      2      7      |
 *--------------------------------------------------------------------*

Cool, Marty, why not? The (16) in r4c78 can be looked at as the missing link, a psuedo-cell.

I believe Marty R is referring to ...

Code:
(1=6)r3c9 - (6)r5c9 = (6)r4c7 - (6=1)r4c6 ==> r3c6<>1
  (6)r3c9 = (6)r5c9 - (6)r4c7 =   (6)r4c6 ==> r3c6<>6

... a co-located w-wing and x-chain (a kite in this case).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marty R.



Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5119
Location: Rochester, NY, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Please forgive my denseness, but forgetting about pseudo cells, W-Wings and chains, can 16-67-16-16 be played as Remote Pairs the same as if it were 16-16-16-16?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ronk



Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 397

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marty R. wrote:
... can 16-67-16-16 be played as Remote Pairs ...?

Only if the chain of cells holding those bivalues meet a requrement you haven't stated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marty R.



Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5119
Location: Rochester, NY, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ronk wrote:
Marty R. wrote:
... can 16-67-16-16 be played as Remote Pairs ...?

Only if the chain of cells holding those bivalues meet a requrement you haven't stated.

Sorry, I'm not understanding. Embarassed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Luke451



Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 310
Location: Southern Northern California

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ronk wrote:
Luke451 wrote:
Marty R. wrote:
Does this chain count as Remote Pairs.....?
Code:
 *--------------------------------------------------------------------*
 | 4      8      1      | 9      3567   3567   | 67     37     2      |
 | 9      6      7      | 2      134    13     | 38     1348   5      |
 | 5      2      3      | 147    8      167    | 9      147   #16     |
 |----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
 | 8      9      5      | 3      2     #16     |*67    *17     4      |
 | 167    17     2      | 5      9      4      | 38     38    #16     |
 | 16     3      4      | 178    167    1678   | 2      5      9      |
 |----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
 | 127    157    6      | 17     1357   12357  | 4      9      8      |
 | 127    147    9      | 1478   147    1278   | 5      6      3      |
 | 3      45     8      | 6      45     9      | 1      2      7      |
 *--------------------------------------------------------------------*

Cool, Marty, why not? The (16) in r4c78 can be looked at as the missing link, a psuedo-cell.

I believe Marty R is referring to ...

Code:
(1=6)r3c9 - (6)r5c9 = (6)r4c7 - (6=1)r4c6 ==> r3c6<>1
  (6)r3c9 = (6)r5c9 - (6)r4c7 =   (6)r4c6 ==> r3c6<>6

... a co-located w-wing and x-chain (a kite in this case).

A remote pair pattern is two co-located x-chains. Marty's pattern is also two co-located x-chains, both kites.
Code:
 (6)r3c9 = (6)r5c9 - (6)r4c7 =   (6)r4c6 ==> r3c6<>6 
 (1)r3c9 = (1)r5c9 - (1)r4c8 =   (1)r4c6 ==> r3c6<>1

Granted, one of the bivalue cells is stretched over two cells, but it still acts exactly like remote pairs. I don't know if "psuedo-cell" is the correct term for that, but it seemed appropriate at the time.

Marty, I don't see the need to include the 7 in the pattern at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kdelle



Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Posts: 59
Location: Hudson, NH

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marty R. wrote:
ronk wrote:
Marty R. wrote:
... can 16-67-16-16 be played as Remote Pairs ...?

Only if the chain of cells holding those bivalues meet a requrement you haven't stated.

Sorry, I'm not understanding. Embarassed


Marty,

I looked at the 16-16-67-16 as a chain (even number of cells)....strong links on 6.....so in any cell that sees both ends of the chain, the 6 can be eliminated. Is that what you mean?

Ronk...Did you mean that Marty should have stated the "strong link on 6" as a requirement of the bivalves?

Kathy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
daj95376



Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3855

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marty R. wrote:
Does this chain count as Remote Pairs based on Keith's post here?

http://www.dailysudoku.co.uk/sudoku/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2030

I used this chain as Remote Pairs, but don't know if it's valid or a lucky mistake: 16-67-16-16. If not valid, then I go back to the drawing boards.

Yes. Your endpoint cells and the strong links on <6> qualify as a general Remote Pair.

Quote:
Please forgive my denseness, but forgetting about pseudo cells, W-Wings and chains, can 16-67-16-16 be played as Remote Pairs the same as if it were 16-16-16-16?

No. The contents of the cells alone is insufficient information. You must also know that there are three strong links present for <6>.

Luke451: Ron's two chains are equivalent to Keith's definition of a general Remote Pair using four cells. The give-away is the identical bivalue cells as endpoints of an X-Chain where all inferences are strong links. In this case:

Code:
[r4] 16-67 is a strong link on <6>
[b6] 67-16 is a strong link on <6>
[c9] 16-16 is a strong link on <6>

-alternately, a second example using the same endpoint cells-

[r4] 16-17 is a strong link on <1>
[b6] 17-16 is a strong link on <1>
[c9] 16-16 is a strong link on <1>


Last edited by daj95376 on Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:52 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marty R.



Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5119
Location: Rochester, NY, USA

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote:
Please forgive my denseness, but forgetting about pseudo cells, W-Wings and chains, can 16-67-16-16 be played as Remote Pairs the same as if it were 16-16-16-16?

No. The contents of the cells alone is insufficient information. You must also know that there are three strong links present for <6>.

Thanks Danny, that's the reassurance that I needed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ronk



Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 397

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Luke451 wrote:
A remote pair pattern is two co-located x-chains.

I believe that's the first time I've seen that definition for a "remote pair." Pseudo remote pair would be more appropriate ... for that and what [edit: keith termed] a general remote pair.

This forum seems to be the home for ad hoc definitions of the "remote pair." Something in the air maybe.

[edit: add the below]
Kdelle wrote:
Did you mean that Marty should have stated the "strong link on 6" as a requirement of the bivalves?

Yes, daj95376 phrased it well in a post above.


Last edited by ronk on Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Luke451



Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 310
Location: Southern Northern California

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ronk wrote:
This forum seems to be the home for ad hoc definitions of the "remote pair." Something in the air maybe.

They don't call me Mr. Pseudoku fer nuthin'... Very Happy

I agree. A remote pair is a remote pair. Variations being called "remote pairs" can lead to confusion.

These days I don't see remote pairs anyways, but oddagons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marty R.



Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5119
Location: Rochester, NY, USA

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Ronk...Did you mean that Marty should have stated the "strong link on 6" as a requirement of the bivalves?

No mollusks here Kathy, with or without requirements. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
daj95376



Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3855

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ronk wrote:
... for that and what daj95376 calls a general remote pair.

This forum seems to be the home for ad hoc definitions of the "remote pair." Something in the air maybe.

It's not what ***I*** call it, it's what Keith called it in a Dec 29, 2007 post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ronk



Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 397

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

daj95376 wrote:
It's not what ***I*** call it, it's what Keith called it in a Dec 29, 2007 post.

Thanks, I stand corrected and have edited that post. I thought of you because you've probably used the 'general remote pair' term more than anyone else recently.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
susume



Joined: 13 May 2011
Posts: 36
Location: Southeastern US

PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

skyscraper (6)r3c9=r3c6-r4c6=r4c7 => r5c9<>6=1
Code:
+---------+---------------+--------+
| 4  8  1 | 9     56   56 | 7 3  2 |
| 9  6  7 | 2     14   3  | 8 14 5 |
| 5  2  3 | 14    8    7  | 9 14 6 |
+---------+---------------+--------+
| 8  9  5 | 3     2    1  | 6 7  4 |
| 6  7  2 | 5     9    4  | 3 8  1 |
| 1  3  4 | 78    67   68 | 2 5  9 |
+---------+---------------+--------+
| 27 15 6 | 17    3    25 | 4 9  8 |
| 27 14 9 | 48+17 17+4 28 | 5 6  3 |
| 3  45 8 | 6     45   9  | 1 2  7 |
+---------+---------------+--------+

BUG+3 (17)r8c4=(4)r8c5-(4=5)r9c5-(5=6)r1c5-(6=7)r6c5-(7=8)r6c4 => r6c4=8
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
peterj



Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Posts: 974
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

susume, that's a real interesting BUG move! Don't often see this sort of move and still being able to notate it as a chain.

Some would use a "quantum naked pair" notation to make the elimination clearer in the case of (17)r8c4 i.e.
Code:
qnp(17)r78c4=(4)r8c5 ...

Fwiw the chain part can just be extended to make the elimintation without the uniqueness constraint if you wish....
Code:
(7=1)r7c4 - (1=5)r7c2 - (5=4)r9c2 - (4=5)r9c5 - (5=6)r1c5 - (6=7)r6c5 ; r6c4<>7=8
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ronk



Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 397

PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

susume wrote:
Code:
+---------+---------------+--------+
| 4  8  1 | 9     56   56 | 7 3  2 |
| 9  6  7 | 2     14   3  | 8 14 5 |
| 5  2  3 | 14    8    7  | 9 14 6 |
+---------+---------------+--------+
| 8  9  5 | 3     2    1  | 6 7  4 |
| 6  7  2 | 5     9    4  | 3 8  1 |
| 1  3  4 | 78    67   68 | 2 5  9 |
+---------+---------------+--------+
| 27 15 6 | 17    3    25 | 4 9  8 |
| 27 14 9 | 48+17 17+4 28 | 5 6  3 |
| 3  45 8 | 6     45   9  | 1 2  7 |
+---------+---------------+--------+

BUG+3 (17)r8c4=(4)r8c5-(4=5)r9c5-(5=6)r1c5-(6=7)r6c5-(7=8)r6c4 => r6c4=8

Pretty, but don't forget that eliminations can be made in the cells with extra candidates.

BUG+3:(17)r78c4=(4)r8c5 ==> r8c4<>4, r8c5<>17

The naked pair (17)r78c4 is not quantum because it is in two cells rather than three.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    dailysudoku.com Forum Index -> Puzzles by daj All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
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