Sudoku Players' Forum (clone)

When looking for hidden triples, should I look for a minimum of 5 unsolved squares in any given block/row/square?

HockeyDad wrote:When looking for hidden triples, should I look for a minimum of 5 unsolved squares in any given block/row/square?

I guess you mean unsolved cells.

But with 5 unsolved cells, a hidden triplet is linked to a naked pair.
With 6 cells a hidden triplet is linked to a naked triplet

So I would say that you have to consider rows, columns, block with more than 6 unsolved cells, assuming that you can not miss naked triplets.

Thanks!

I have occasionally noticed a hidden triple in a house with only 4 unsolved cells. Only in that way did I notice the resulting naked single. Thump -- I could have had a V-8. Duh!

Bill Smythe

my way, the hardest are the naked singles

smythe

"I could have had a V-8. Duh!"

that is so 80's !! makes me feel good that i am not the only one to remember those commercials. or maybe even early 90's.

How about this one? "Looking for something?" "Nope, found it. Best taste yet in a filter cigarette."

That goes back quite a bit farther than the 80's.

Bill Smythe

They're ba-a-a-a-ack. I saw a "could've had a V-8" commercial just this morning.

A young mother was trying to get her infant son to eat a french fry. The kid thumped the mother on the forehead with the heel of his hand, as the announcer intoned, "Could have had a V-8".

Bill Smythe