| rkral
| | Joined: 21 Oct 2005 | | Posts: 233 | | : | |
Items |
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ruud wrote: | | ...as a result of leaving out some candidates, additional conjugate pairs have been found by kranser.. |
If you mean ... "as a result of leaving out some candidates, invalid conjugate pairs have been found by kranser" ... then I agree.
But there are obviously more candidates than shown in the illustration, so one should not even attempt to identify additional conjugate pairs. How obvious? Reasonably so IMHO.
| Code: |
x1x xxx xxx
xx1 xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
1xx xxx x1x
111 xxx xxx
1xx xxx xx1
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx |
All three candidate positions in the intersect of col 1 and box 4 means box 5 does not yet have a 1. Where are the candidates for box 5? Answer is ... "not shown" ... and they might lie in rows 4 or 6, invalidating the conjugate pairing of r4c1 to r4c8 and/or r6c1 to r6c9.
But this is all a digression from the author's lesson. The author identifies conjugate pairs in box 1, col 2, and col 3. Using coloring this places conjugate colors in box 4, eliminating all other candidates that might exist in box 4. And this elimination is true, whether or not any other candidates are identified, and whether or not other actual conjugates are colored.
| Ruud wrote: | I think Simes is just testing us. If you can spot the inconsistency, you understood the principles of coloring and passed the test.  |
If not so intended, that's what it turned out to be. |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
Log in to check your private messages
