From: Stephen Turner (sret1_at_ntlworld.com)
Date: Fri Feb 01 2002 - 11:59:39 PST
Great to see five players already -- any more want to join in?
Here is the complete state of play.
ROUND 176 Round start: Wed 2002-01-30 15:32:50
Player Style Valid until
------ ----- -----------
Rich Holmes + 2.0 Fri 2002-02-08 02:42:41
Factitious + 2.0 Fri 2002-02-08 00:23:06
Ed Murphy - 1.5 Wed 2002-02-06 19:44:52
Jonathan Van Matre - 2.5 Wed 2002-02-06 18:03:06
Alan Riddell + 2.0 Wed 2002-02-06 16:50:44
Others 0 Wed 2002-02-06 15:32:50
All times are in GMT and base ten.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule By whom When Judgement Style
---- ------- ---- --------- -----
176:1 Alan Riddell Wed 2002-01-30 16:50:44 VALID + 2.0
176:2 Jonathan Van Matre Wed 2002-01-30 18:03:06 VALID - 2.5
176:3 Ed Murphy Wed 2002-01-30 19:44:52 VALID - 1.5
176:4 Factitious Wed 2002-02-01 00:23:06 VALID + 2.0
176:5 Rich Holmes Wed 2002-02-01 02:42:41 VALID + 2.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
176:1 VALID +2.0
Alan Riddell 2002-01-30 16:50:44
>>>>>
Future rules shall write all numbers in base 11. e.g.
0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,a,10,11,... and therefore for rest of this round, the
round shall be known as "round 150".
<<<<<
Judgement: No problems.
Style: A promising start, setting a direction and yet leaving future rules
plenty of options. Nice and short too -- I like short rules. I give it +2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
176:2 VALID -2.5
Jonathan Van Matre 2002-01-30 18:03:06
>>>>>
Define S as a set containing all base 11 numbers.
Define U as a set containing the letter "R".
Define US as the union of set S and set U.
Then,
All your base 11, "R", belong to US. QED.
Future Fantasy Rules must use the term "QED", or its lengthier expression
"quod erat demonstrandum".
<<<<<
Judgement: Note that eleven is spelled "10". "11" is twelve. However, that
doesn't invalidate this rule.
Style: Sorry, but I dislike this rule. "All your base are belong to us" is
rather a tired joke by now. It can still be funny (you must have a look at
http://www.randomdrivel.com/media/ayb3.swf
some time) but this is just a feeble -- and ungrammatical -- contrived pun
because the first rule happened to have the word "base" in it.
In addition, the rule doesn't advance the round much: the restriction is
easy to obey. "QED" is used wrongly (it should follow a proof, not a plain
statement). And marks off for using "11" when you probably meant "10".
I'm a judge who is not afraid to use the full range of style points. But
I don't quite give this one the minimum because JVM is a newish player and
because I realise that humour is subjective. -2.5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
176:3 VALID -1.5
Ed Murphy 2002-01-30 19:44:52
>>>>>
A + a = 15
(A + a) - a = 15 - a
A + (a - a) = 15 - a
A = 15 - a
A = 6 QED
To avoid further alphanumeric confusion, future rules shall choose
algebraic symbols from the ISO-6842 alphabet. This is the same as
the standard English alphabet, except with these symbols omitted:
O I Z E H S G L B Q A
o i z e h s g l b q a
<<<<<
Judgement: A tough one to judge but I'm calling it invalid. The problem is
the "ISO-6842". 6842 = 9000 base 10, and ISO 9000 is a well-known standard
about business processes and quality control. Nothing to do with alphabets
at all. I might have let you get away with it if this was one of the story
telling rounds where we build a fantasy world, but here you should perhaps
have chosen an unused number, or not tried to name a standard at all.
Re-judgement: OK, I accept that I made a mistake here. I did consider this
point -- that rules are only obliged to be consistent with previous rules,
not with reality -- and concluded that to some extent at least, rules _do_
have to be consistent with reality. Otherwise whenever a rule was invalid,
you could just say "ah, but the word means the opposite in my world". What
I failed to take into account in this case, however, was that the word was
_explicitly_ redefined in the fantasy world, and that has to be allowed. I
reverse my previous judgement.
Style: Again, we don't seem to be making much progress. In fact, the maths
appears to be the same as in our real world -- why should the symbols +, -
and = have their normal interpretations, for example? Also failing to obey
your own restrictions is always unstylish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
176:4 VALID +2.0
Factitious 2002-02-01 00:23:06
>>>>>
Fantasy math is equipped to deal with problems others consider
insolvable. For example, dividing by 0 is often considered to be taboo. We
can get around this by defining the constant j as the inverse of 0, so that 0
times j is equal to 1. This makes possible new solutions to many difficult
equations, as can be shown by the following proof that there is a value x
satisfying 0x - 4 = 9:
0x - 4 = 9
0x = 12
x = 12j
QED
Numbers containing j are not considered real, but are part of the set of
fantasy numbers. Future rules must each contain at least 1 fantasy number.
<<<<<
Judgement: No problems.
Style: Great, we've now got some new fantasy maths introduced -- we'll see
what effect introducing infinities has in future. Also makes a restriction
on future rules. And it uses base 11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
176:5 VALID +2.0
Rich Holmes 2002-02-01 02:42:41
>>>>>
A classic "proof" that 0 = 1 goes as follows:
1j = 1j property of equality
1j-1j = 0 subtract 1j from both sides
(1-1)j = 0 distributivity of subtraction
0j = 0 1-1 = 0
j = 0/0 = 0j divide both sides by 0
1 = 0 QED divide both sides by j
The fallacy is of course that fantasy subtraction (and addition) are
not distributive. Future rule writers would do well to bear this in
mind.
<<<<<
Judgement: Valid. The usual phrase is "multiplication is distributive over
addition" but the meaning is obvious here, so that's not enough to make it
invalid.
Style: A very nice reply to 176:4, working out the consequences of the new
maths introduced there. You're absolutely right, of course, distributivity
must fail when we allow infinities in our system.
However, although it's very clever I do doubt whether the restriction is
in fact restrictive at all. It may lead to some subtle traps but I suspect
that it won't in fact cause any trouble.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Stephen Turner, Cambridge, UK http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adelie/stephen/
"This is Henman's 8th Wimbledon, and he's only lost 7 matches." BBC, 2/Jul/01
--
Rule Date: 2002-02-01 19:59:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST