From: Alan Riddell (peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jan 28 2003 - 00:16:48 PST
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Riddell" <peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk> To: "James Willson" <jkvw3_at_yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:54 AM Subject: Re: 201:3, and stuff VALID +1.5 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Willson" <jkvw3_at_yahoo.com> > To: "frc" <frc_at_trolltech.com> > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 7:58 PM > Subject: 201:3, and stuff > > > > --- "Richard S. Holmes" <rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu> wrote: > > > > > > My own misguided efforts reminded me of that which I tend to forget, > > > which is that you get into trouble talking about rule x being > > > inconsistent with rule y; what you really need to consider is whether > > > the proposed rule set is inconsistent -- it may be, even if no two > > > rules are inconsistent with one another. > > > > > Quite right. Whoops. > > Fortunately it is going to fail. > > > > > > Does anyone else think there is something odd about 201:1 being valid? > > > > No VALID fantasy rule in this round may be consistant with all of the > > restrictions in this Fantasy rule. > > > > If it disobeys this restriction, then it is invalid. If it obeys this > > restriction, then it disobeys another of its restrictions, making > > it invalid. > > Lets see if I can think this through. Seperate concepts of being consistent > with a rule and being consistent with its restrictions. This means that > another rule could be consistent with an earlier rule but obey none of its > restrictions. What would it take for a rule to be inconsistent with an > earlier rule? Do restrictions in this manner actually "restrict" at all? > no. Bugger... time for a rethink. Ok, for the time being I will seperate > "restrictions" from "normal rule stuff" (ah now that would have made a good > proposal at the start of the round), then things might workout... Sorry, > really wish I had more time to think this over. > > > I'm not sure how to proceed, but I'll try this > > > > 201:3 > > >>>>> > > Keine UNZULÄSSIGE Phantasierichtlinie ist mit dieser Beschränkung > > gleichbleibend. > > > > Höchstens Hälfte der GÜLTIGEN Phantasie werden Richtlinien in eine Sprache > > geschrieben, die vom Latein abgeleitet wird. > > > > Höchstens erwähnen zwei GÜLTIGE Phantasierichtlinien Potentiometer. > > >>>>> > > Assuming the translation is. > > ==== > No INVALID fantasy rule is consistent with this restriction. > > At most half of the VALID fantasy rules are written in a language that is > derived from Latin. > > At most two VALID fantasy rules mention potentiometers. > ==== > > Is happy as far as 201:1, if fact who cares if it is consistent with the > restrictions it will be VALID regardless with my current scheme of things. > This makes the rule trvially valid. I am quite curious if anyone can submit > an INVALID rule under my current line of thinking. > > Style, although I really doubt these restrictions will make any difference > they are quite interesting. +1.5 > -- Rule Date: 2003-01-28 08:17:10 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST