| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tlanglet
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 2468
Location: Northern California Foothills
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:54 am Post subject: Vanhegan Extreme 06/29/10 |
 |
|
I worked on this for some time before finding the key.......
| Code: | +-------+-------+-------+
| . 5 3 | 2 . . | . 7 . |
| 6 . . | 7 . 4 | . . 5 |
| . . . | . 6 . | . . 1 |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . 9 . | . 4 . | . 1 2 |
| . . 1 | 9 . 2 | 6 . . |
| 7 2 . | . 1 . | . 9 . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| 8 . . | . 2 . | . . . |
| 1 . . | 6 . 3 | . . 8 |
| . 6 . | . . 8 | 1 5 . |
+-------+-------+-------+
|
Play this puzzle online at the Daily Sudoku site
| Quote: | | ANP(68=4)r46c3 - (4=3)r6c9 - r79c9 = r7c7 - (3=47)r78c2 - (47=8)r3c2; r23c3<>8 |
Ted |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3355
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow. 
But, I sort of don't buy it.
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ted: a nice solution to an uncooperative puzzle.
Note: you can also add r5c2 to your list of elimination cells -- even though it's extraneous in the final analysis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mogulmeister
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1151
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sweet.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luke451
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 310
Location: Southern Northern California
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| keith wrote: | Wow.
But, I sort of don't buy it.
Keith |
Works for me. Maybe the last two nodes could be joined, though:
| Code: | *--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| 49 5 3 | 2 89 1 | 489 7 6 |
| 6 1 289 | 7 389 4 | 2389 238 5 |
| 249 478 24789 | 358 6 59 | 23489 2348 1 |
|----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
| 35 9 68 | 358 4 567 | 3578 1 2 |
| 345 348 1 | 9 3578 2 | 6 348 347 |
| 7 2 468 | 358 1 56 | 3458 9 34 |
|----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
| 8 347 4579 | 1 2 579 | 347 6 3479 |
| 1 47 59 | 6 59 3 | 247 24 8 |
| 239 6 279 | 4 79 8 | 1 5 379 |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------* |
(68=4)als:r46c3 - (4=3)r6c9 - r79c9 = r7c7 - (3=478)als:r378c2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Luke451 wrote: | Works for me. Maybe the last two nodes could be joined,
(68=4)als:r46c3 - (4=3)r6c9 - r79c9 = r7c7 - (3=478)als:r378c2
|
The als notation often leaves me searching for which values are "active" and which values are "passive". (Similar to which cells are true and which cells are false as you read left-to-right and right-to-left in an AIC containing an Empty Rectangle with an ERI cell.)
I would be tempted to cut out the passive values in this chain and compact it to:
(8=4)r46c3 - (4=3)r6c9 - r79c9 = r7c7 - (3=8)r378c2
But then I'd get into trouble from all directions. _ 
An alternate chain with compact passive values:
(4=3)r45c1 - r9c1 = r9c9 - (3=4)r6c9 => r6c3<>4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luke451
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 310
Location: Southern Northern California
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like it, Danny. storm norm and others have made the same suggestion.
ALS notation seems to fall into two categories. It seems to me each asks something of the reader.
The way I used presents all components of the ALS and leaves it to the reader to discern the operative values.
The way you suggest presents the operative values and leaves it to the reader to discern the ALS components. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
