| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Clement
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 1110
Location: Dar es Salaam Tanzania
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:43 pm Post subject: Jan 17 VH |
 |
|
| XY-Wing 36 39 69 removing the 6's in r89c6 solves it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dart45
Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 17
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Clement - That would be Jan 17 - LOL
(Edited: Title was Dec 17 - keith) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5770
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A W-Wing on 69 will do it too; r5c5<>9. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuskey
Joined: 10 Dec 2008
Posts: 141
Location: Pembroke, NH
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:22 pm Post subject: Jan 17 VH |
|
|
Marty, somehow this puzzle has given me the hives. Please point out the strong link on 6 for the W-wing.
thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5770
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:49 pm Post subject: Re: Jan 17 VH |
|
|
| kuskey wrote: | Marty, somehow this puzzle has given me the hives. Please point out the strong link on 6 for the W-wing.
thanks |
I have the strong link in column 4. Because there are two 6s in that column in box 5, I think it's referred to a a grouped strong link. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3355
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:53 pm Post subject: Re: Jan 17 VH |
|
|
| kuskey wrote: | Marty, somehow this puzzle has given me the hives. Please point out the strong link on 6 for the W-wing.
thanks |
After basics: | Code: | +----------------+----------------+----------------+
| 5 1 3 | 46 69# 469 | 8 2 7 |
| 6 4 8 | 7 5 2 | 1 9 3 |
| 2 9 7 | 38 1 38 | 6 5 4 |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| 1 56 456 | 4568 2 468 | 7 3 9 |
| 7 2 49 | 34 39 1 | 5 8 6 |
| 3 8 569 | 56 7 69* | 2 4 1 |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| 8 3 2 | 1 4 7 | 9 6 5 |
| 4 56 1 | 9 8 5-6 | 3 7 2 |
| 9 7 56 | 2 36* 35-6 | 4 1 8 |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+ |
I don't see it either.
However, the 69 cells are the basis of a M-wing, making the eliminations shown.
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5770
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:03 am Post subject: Re: Jan 17 VH |
|
|
| keith wrote: | | kuskey wrote: | Marty, somehow this puzzle has given me the hives. Please point out the strong link on 6 for the W-wing.
thanks |
After basics: | Code: | +----------------+----------------+----------------+
| 5 1 3 | 46 69# 469 | 8 2 7 |
| 6 4 8 | 7 5 2 | 1 9 3 |
| 2 9 7 | 38 1 38 | 6 5 4 |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| 1 56 456 | 4568 2 468 | 7 3 9 |
| 7 2 49 | 34 39 1 | 5 8 6 |
| 3 8 569 | 56 7 69* | 2 4 1 |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| 8 3 2 | 1 4 7 | 9 6 5 |
| 4 56 1 | 9 8 5-6 | 3 7 2 |
| 9 7 56 | 2 36* 35-6 | 4 1 8 |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+ |
I don't see it either.
However, the 69 cells are the basis of a M-wing, making the eliminations shown.
Keith |
Keith, if r1c4=6, then r1c5=9. If either of r46c4=6, then r6c6=9. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3355
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Marty,
Your logic is correct.
I suppose it is a grouped W-wing? I did not recognize it as a W-wing.
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Woods
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 304
Location: Dorset UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:07 pm Post subject: w wings |
|
|
I have always been slightly worried by the "strong link" aspect of w wings as the rule has been formalised elsewhere.
The original logic was "if both 69s were 6 then there is nowhere for a 6 in col 4" in the current example. i.e one of 69 must be 9 .....
so the strong wing in col 4 is sufficient but not strictly needed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3355
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
George,
Thank you for that!
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronk
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 398
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:35 pm Post subject: Re: w wings |
|
|
| George Woods wrote: | I have always been slightly worried by the "strong link" aspect of w wings as the rule has been formalised elsewhere.
The original logic was "if both 69s were 6 then there is nowhere for a 6 in col 4" in the current example. i.e one of 69 must be 9 .....
so the strong wing in col 4 is sufficient but not strictly needed |
That's a red-herring argument. If there weren't a strong link, there would be somewhere for a 6 in col 4. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
