Re: Re: 201:3, and stuff VALID +1.5

From: Alan Riddell (peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jan 28 2003 - 00:18:06 PST


Again sorry, everything should be sent to the list now
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Willson" <jkvw3_at_yahoo.com>
To: "frc" <frc_at_trolltech.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 6:33 AM
Subject: Fwd: Re: 201:3, and stuff VALID +1.5


> Presumably this is for the whole list
>
> --- Alan Riddell <peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > From: "Alan Riddell" <peekee_at_blueyonder.co.uk>
> > To: "James Willson" <jkvw3_at_yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: 201:3, and stuff VALID +1.5
> > Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:54:18 -0000
> >
> >
> > ----- 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
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2003-01-28 06:34:08 GMT

-- 
Rule Date: 2003-01-28 08:18:19 GMT


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST