SudoCue Users

OK, I see we have a disagreement with terminology not the technique--that's what I wanted clarified. It's just two ways of looking at the same logic (the same way in regular sudoku there's always a corresponding [complementary] naked subset for every hidden subset & vice versa). I think much of ...

Yes, that's the same technique described in the entry on Sudopedia; it's just a much simpler version (I haven't put in an example of that yet). There's a description of just the simpler version here:

http://www.ndorward.com/blog/?page_id=95

in the 2nd section (see the diagram).

I wrote an article about it a few weeks back for the Sudopedia: Hidden Killer Subset . It still needs a "simple" example (I wanted to use a JC Godart puzzle I once solved but it seems to have been removed from his site). I do encourage people to add to the Sudopedia to expand the sections ...

Pretty straightforward after the past couple of weeks' puzzles. Step 1. R56C8 = {16|34} (cannot be {25} as this would block all combos in the 9(3) cage above) => R234C8 = {2(16|34)}. The two cages together block {12346} in the rest of C8 => R8C89 = [52], R179C8 = {789} => R7C78 = [19|37]. Step 2. R8...

Thanks--I don't think you can omit such a lengthy amount of permutation, involving extensive trial & error, in a walkthrough--otherwise the walkthrough doesn't really explain how you got your result.

Haven't proofed this yet but here's a walkthrough. Step 1. 12(4) cage at R4C3 = {1236|1245}. 29(4) cage at R4C6 = {5789}. R78C6 = {12}. R1C78 = {59|68}. 22(3) cage at R2C4+R3C34 = {589|679}. Step 2. 18(3) cage at R6C7 must have 2 cells containing {56789}. (If it had only one, then the max cage-sum w...

Hm. Just been working through the walkthrough, & I must confess I don't really understand the ordering of steps or the key stage at step 20. Re: the ordering: I don't understand why you've consistently chosen the most complicated & laborious innie-outies & combinations, & neglected t...

Yeah this is an eeevil one. Not sure there's any way to solve it that doesn't use extensive T&E. I'm still only halfway through it. I was pleased though to see it has a patch of "hidden subset elimination" (the technique I was using in my most recent puzzle) in column 7. (R145C7 = {567...

Oh, of course--I forgot about that.

Hm, I'm still wondering what Ruud has in mind for the solving-path--I can't see any elegant way of dealing with this puzzle. It's solvable but not pretty.

I've just been working through the rest of the solving path to see if those flaws really made a difference after all. Unfortunately they do: 18b. outies can’t be 16 (no 7 in outies). So innies can’t be 6. This step falls foul of the logical flaw mentioned earlier, as the 7 isn't excluded. More impor...

2g. 45 on N3, 2 outies R2C6 + R4C8= 17 -->> no 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 in R2C6 and R4C8 2h. 45 on N7, 2 outies R6C2 + R9C4 = 8 -->> no 4,8,9 in R6C2 and R8C4 2i. 45 on N9, 2 outies R6C8 + R8C6 = 14 -->> no 1,2,3,4,7 in R6C8 and R8C6 The first line is an instance of what I mean: just shorten the conclusion to...

Well one way to shorten it is to rejig the lists of exclusions as lists of inclusions. For instance in the first step you list every exclusion from 14(2) which isn't needed: just say 14(2)={59|68}.

Hm, well, I just solved it but failed to discover any really elegant way of doing so--just picked away at it bit by bit until it cracked. Ruud's comment with the puzzle implies that there are some techniques that can solve it more efficiently so I'd be interested to know of any better way of crackin...

I find with these type of arrangements you get a good kick into the solution looking at "lined up" cages. Consider the 14(2) 17(3) and 11(2) in r5. 14(2) can only be {59} or {68} so we can't have {58} or {69} in the other cages on this row. This doesn't help us looking at them individuall...

Glad you enjoyed the puzzle! -- The {56} thing was really the turning point for getting it done (in that it's the point in the puzzle where all the hard work on N789 pays off & starts to have an effect on the rest of the grid); I'd been trying a different approach before & it never worked ou...