dailysudoku.com

keith · Last edited by keith on Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:20 am; edited 1 time in total

I have long been frustrated by the different notations used. So, here is a challenge: Is there a universal notation?

The rules are: I post a particular stage of Wapati's puzzle, and the notation wonks agree on notating that step. Then, we move on to the next step that needs a refined notation.

To start:

keith · Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:15 am Post subject:

keith · Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:19 am Post subject:

daj95376 · Joined: 23 Aug 2008 Posts: 3854

[Withdrawn: not sure of Keith's objective.]

keith · Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:21 am Post subject:

Danny,

Thank you!

I will wait a day or two for other responses before going further.

Keith

tlanglet · Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:55 pm Post subject:

Keith,

Yes we talked about this before but it never got past verbiage.

I would like to fully understand what you mean by notation. For example, Notation #1 could be a "Naked single" or "Forced". Are these examples of what you want?

Also, given multiple suggestions are offered for any condition, how is a decision made?

In any case, my initial suggestions are:

Notation 1: Naked single
Notation 2: Hidden single
Notation 3: Naked pair

Good Luck. I really hope something positive happens.

Ted

wapati · Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:26 am Post subject:

I like English.

It borrows from many languages.

There are sudoku methods that do the same.

Skyscraper is a Turbot and a sashimi-x-wing, and a finned-x-wing.

Oops, skys are also chains and other stuff.

I'm not sure what you want but I like the current variety in nomenclature.

wapati · Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:30 am Post subject:

I suspect that to get one convention all would be listed as chains, or worse.

I prefer bottom up, lots of methods and names moving towards .. chain>net>whatever.

To satisfy what you seem to want all steps would be top down...net/chain one or two step.

keith · Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:30 am Post subject:

All,

My suggestion here does not seem to have wings. (Pun intended.)

What I will do is start a thread on notation. This is the mathematical type of language that Norm and others use to explain their chains. A subset of this is how we use notation on the grids themselves.

There are two other issues, and maybe in a week or two we can start these discussions also:

1) A discussion of the names and variants of techniques. This seems to be Wapati's interest.

2) A classification of the "difficulty" of a technique, perhaps based on the number of unknowns involved. I started Ted down this path a few weeks ago, then dropped the ball.

Best wishes,

Keith