205:5 (was 205:3) INVALID

From: Steve Gardner (gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au)
Date: Thu Mar 20 2003 - 19:31:22 PST


On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 nrussell_at_acsu.buffalo.edu wrote:

> I. No valid Rule may contain the seventeenth, twentyfourth, or 26th letters 
> of the alphabet.
> 
> II. All Rules whose number is 0 modulo three take precedence over all other 
> Rules; within those two groups, the lower numbered rule takes precedence.

VALIDITY:

205:2 No more than half the statements in the rule are claims of
      precedence -- OK. 
205:3 Tries to determine every possible case of precedence -- OOPS.

205:5 is INVALID (regardless of whether 205:A passes).

STYLE for 205:5

+0.5 for being on theme.
-0.5 for boring syntactic restriction in I.
+0.5 for interesting precedence claim in II.
----
+0.5 total

-- 


Steve Gardner                   | 
School of Computer Science      |      I've only just realized
 and Software Engineering       |      how self-conscious I am.
gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au   | 

-- 
Rule Date: 2003-03-21 03:31:42 GMT


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