dailysudoku.com

Asellus, had I expected a cynical response, I wouldn't have bothered to answer your question.
Not cynical... a failed attempt, it seems, at lighthearted humor. If you felt ridiculed, I apologize. T ...

If you prefer a Boolean outlook of the AIC, there is little difference.
Ah... then I definitely prefer the Boolean outlook, with the sky being the limit on the nature of the objects on either end of ...

Just to satisfy my curiosity... Why would someone consider it fine to notate a locked set object on one end of a strong inference but not on one end of a weak inference? Logically, both make sense: ...

The puzzle of this thread has all sorts of opportunities for the transport of wing pincers for those who want to practice such things.

Take, for instance, the 246 XYZ-Wing in boxes 3 and 6. The gr ...

Sounds like it might be what is referred to as Braid Analysis, also perhaps called "moving pairs" or something like that. I can't recall the details other than it had to do with certain pat ...

I was traveling this past month so didn't see this thread. As someone who occasionally spots and utilizes Sue de Coq, I would quibble only slightly with the definition above as being over-determined, ...

Keith,

Your "Inverse Finned Pair", besides being a continuous AIC loop, is once again a Sue de Coq (4589 in r7c567|r9c4). Besides eliminating <5> in r9c5, it eliminates <8> i ...

Due to the ER in box 4, that 279 XY-Wing eliminates <2> from r5c9 as well as from r4c2 thus accomplishing the same as the W-Wing.

I suspect that all of these transported XYZ-wings are loops, since the pincered cell must be in the same house as two of the others in the chain.
In my experience, transported "XYZ-Wing" pi ...

Marty's solution is also a closed loop and makes an additional elimination:
159ALS[(1)r1c68=(5)r1c6] - (5=1)r5c6 - (1)r5c5=(1)r1c5 - Loop; r1c29<>1|r2c6<>5

Note that it would also elim ...

Question for ronk: Do these oddagons occur in true near-BUG grids or only, as here, in predominantly bivalue grids which are not capable of becoming BUGs?

It's even easier to see as an ER (or conjugate pair) in box 2 resulting in r1c3<>6. (Same as Peterj again.)

Or, you could state the external UR inference as (6)r13c2=(6)r1c6 and get r1c3< ...

It is basically APE. It can also be viewed as a pair of ALS eliminations:
(6=9)r1c3 - ALSr1b3|r3c9[(9)r1c8=(6)r1c78]; r1c5<>6
and
(3=2)r3c9 - ALSr1c3789[(2=3)r1c789]; r2c8<>3

Perhap ...

It is multi-coloring for the overall AIC, so I find these statements confusing. IOW r8c3 might ultimately be neither <2> nor <1>.
Yes, of course. (Or better, r8c3 cannot be BOTH <2> ...

Maybe this is what Asellus meant by "a little coloring". These strong links caught his attention as well, maybe.
Actually, I meant coloring, starting with <2>s:
+-----------------+-- ...

There is a 12356 Sue de Coq in b5 and c5 that removes <5> from r56c4 and r6c6. It doesn't solve the puzzle, but is interesting.

A little coloring led quickly to:
(3=1)r2c1 - (1)r8c1=(1-2)r8c3=(2)r9c2 - (2=3)r5c2; r12c2|r46c1<>3

It can be boiled down rather elegantly to:
XYWing[(6)r2c6=(6)r3c1] - Skyscraper[(6)r3c2=(6)r1c7]; r1c146|r2c8|r3c68<>6

The <2>s also provide a Sashimi X-Wing (or grouped Skyscraper) in c36.

Within a continuous loop, the non-linking digits of an ALS also cause eliminations. Moreover, only one of the ALS linking digits is ultimately true, so the ALS may also be said to "become conjuga ...