From: owner-frc-digest To: frc-digest@nvg.unit.no Subject: frc-digest V1 #76 Reply-To: frc Errors-To: owner-frc-digest Precedence: bulk frc-digest Tuesday, 13 December 1994 Volume 01 : Number 076 Re: invalidate 29:4 29:6 Re: invalidate 29:4 Congruence (congruency?) Re: Congruence (congruency?) Fantasy Rule 29:6 + correction Rule 29.1.2? Fantasy Rule 29:7 RE: Fantasy Rule 29:7 Rules Summary Rule, take II ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Sarrett Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 11:13:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: invalidate 29:4 Mainly because I don't like the "only FAxioms can have an FValue of Floyd" part, I also vote to invalidate 29:4. This brings up an interesting point. I'd like to post a rule which relies on 29:4 being invalid. Does this mean I have to wait 3 days before I can post it? This, in turn, brings up another point. By my reading of the Reg Ords., there is nothing to prohibit a Judge from changing his decision on a rule. In the past, this has been done by the Judge voting for a proprosal to reverse his judgement, but this always seemed silly to me. The Judge is the one who decides on a rule's validity. If the Judge changes his mind, I see nothing wrong with him later reversing his ruling. The Reg Ords say the Judge decides. They do not say the Judge may only decide once. Voting against one's own decision seems a waste of time. If the Judge has the power to declare a rule VALID or INVALID, he should also have the power to change that declaration. Of course, any rules which have been posted in the interim would be unaffected by this reversal, as has been standard operating procedure for decisions reversed by votes. Oerjan: If you now think the rule is INVALID, I think you should declare it so. - Peter ------------------------------ From: Stephen Turner Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 19:15:13 GMT Subject: 29:6 >>>>>> FAxiom 29.6.1: There are two FOperations called FLeft and FRight, that can operate on any finite number of FValues. They are denoted FL(FV0, FV1, ...) and FR(FV0, FV1, ...) where FV1, FV2, ... are the FValues the FOperations are operating upon. The FResult of these FOperations is determined as follows. The number of Frue's in the argument list minus the number of Talse's plus the sum of the positions of all the Floyd's (starting with the initial argument being reckoned as at postion 0) is calculated, and if the result is congruent to 1 modulo 3 then the FRight Foperation has Fvalue Talse, and FLeft has Fvalue Floyd; if the result is congruent to 2 modulo 3, FRight takes the Fvalue Floyd, and FLeft takes Frue; and if the result is congruent to 0 modulo 3, FRight has FValue Frue, and FLeft has the FValue Talse. For example, FR(Fr) has FValue Ta FR(Ta) has FValue Fl and FR(Fl) has FValue Fr; FL(Fr) has FValue Fl FL(Ta) has FValue Fr and FL(Fl) has FValue Ta. FAxiom 29.6.2: All FStatements in valid fantasy rules are considered to be true for the purpose of playing the fantasy rules game, whatever their FValue. FAxiom 29.6.3: All future valid fantasy rules will give the FValue of some FStatement in an earlier valid fantasy rule: furthermore, the FStatement must be one for which the FValue could not be deduced from previous information. If, however, a fantasy rule's being declared valid would mean that there was some player who had no such FStatements available to eim if e were to try and construct the next fantasy rule, that fantasy rule shall be declared invalid. FMethod 29.6.4: FMethod 29.1.1 has the FValue Frue. >>>>>> - -- Stephen R. E. Turner Stochastic Networks Group, Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge e-mail: sret1@cam.ac.uk WWW: http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/home.html "Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three." (Anon.) ------------------------------ From: Oerjan Johansen Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 20:29:11 +0100 (MET) Subject: Re: invalidate 29:4 On Mon, 12 Dec 1994, Peter Sarrett wrote: > Mainly because I don't like the "only FAxioms can have an FValue of > Floyd" part, I also vote to invalidate 29:4. > > This brings up an interesting point. I'd like to post a rule which > relies on 29:4 being invalid. Does this mean I have to wait 3 days > before I can post it? No. The Judge will consider both possibilities. > This, in turn, brings up another point. By my reading of the Reg Ords., > there is nothing to prohibit a Judge from changing his decision on a > rule. In the past, this has been done by the Judge voting for a > proprosal to reverse his judgement, but this always seemed silly to me. > The Judge is the one who decides on a rule's validity. If the Judge > changes his mind, I see nothing wrong with him later reversing his > ruling. The Reg Ords say the Judge decides. They do not say the Judge > may only decide once. Voting against one's own decision seems a waste of > time. If the Judge has the power to declare a rule VALID or INVALID, he > should also have the power to change that declaration. Of course, any > rules which have been posted in the interim would be unaffected by this > reversal, as has been standard operating procedure for decisions > reversed by votes. > > Oerjan: If you now think the rule is INVALID, I think you should declare > it so. OK, I'll do, breaking with prior Custom.. It makes things easier. > - Peter Greetings, Oerjan. ------------------------------ From: Peter Sarrett Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 11:43:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Congruence (congruency?) For the non-mathematicians among us (for whom high school math is rapidly fading from memory), could someone please define "congruent" in our context? Keep it simple, please. Also, just for a sanity check: 0 mod 3 = 0, 1 mod 3 = 1, and 2 mod 3 = 2, right? Just want to make sure that MY mod is the same as your modulo. - Peter ------------------------------ From: Oerjan Johansen Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 21:40:08 +0100 (MET) Subject: Re: Congruence (congruency?) On Mon, 12 Dec 1994, Peter Sarrett wrote: > For the non-mathematicians among us (for whom high school math is rapidly > fading from memory), could someone please define "congruent" in our > context? Keep it simple, please. Sure. A number x is congruent to a number y modulo a number n, written as x = y (mod n) ^actually 3 horizontal lines if n divides (x-y). This is again equivalent, in the computer sense, to (x mod n) = (y mod n) > Also, just for a sanity check: 0 mod 3 = 0, 1 mod 3 = 1, and 2 mod 3 = 2, > right? Just want to make sure that MY mod is the same as your modulo. It is true that if x = (y mod n) in the computer sense, then x = y (mod n) in the mathematical sense. Note that congruence in mathematics is a relation, not an operation. > - Peter Greetings, Oerjan. ------------------------------ From: Oerjan Johansen Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 21:40:55 +0100 (MET) Subject: Fantasy Rule 29:6 + correction **** Correction: The Judge hereby changes his judgement on 29:4 into INVALID. Given the current votes, this will probably not make much difference, but still, if anyone wants to claim this is illegal, be my guest. **** Fantasy Rule 29:6 Stephen Turner, Mon Dec 12 20:18:49 1994 VALID, 1.5 Points ==== FAxiom 29.6.1: There are two FOperations called FLeft and FRight, that can operate on any finite number of FValues. They are denoted FL(FV0, FV1, ...) and FR(FV0, FV1, ...) where FV1, FV2, ... are the FValues the FOperations are operating upon. The FResult of these FOperations is determined as follows. The number of Frue's in the argument list minus the number of Talse's plus the sum of the positions of all the Floyd's (starting with the initial argument being reckoned as at postion 0) is calculated, and if the result is congruent to 1 modulo 3 then the FRight Foperation has Fvalue Talse, and FLeft has Fvalue Floyd; if the result is congruent to 2 modulo 3, FRight takes the Fvalue Floyd, and FLeft takes Frue; and if the result is congruent to 0 modulo 3, FRight has FValue Frue, and FLeft has the FValue Talse. For example, FR(Fr) has FValue Ta FR(Ta) has FValue Fl and FR(Fl) has FValue Fr; FL(Fr) has FValue Fl FL(Ta) has FValue Fr and FL(Fl) has FValue Ta. FAxiom 29.6.2: All FStatements in valid fantasy rules are considered to be true for the purpose of playing the fantasy rules game, whatever their FValue. FAxiom 29.6.3: All future valid fantasy rules will give the FValue of some FStatement in an earlier valid fantasy rule: furthermore, the FStatement must be one for which the FValue could not be deduced from previous information. If, however, a fantasy rule's being declared valid would mean that there was some player who had no such FStatements available to eim if e were to try and construct the next fantasy rule, that fantasy rule shall be declared invalid. FMethod 29.6.4: FMethod 29.1.1 has the FValue Frue. ==== The Judge is confused. And somewhat amused. **** Greetings, Judge Oerjan. ------------------------------ From: Joshua Howard Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 15:07:20 PST Subject: Rule 29.1.2? RULE START FMethod 29.1.2: All undefined FStatments have an FValue of Null (N). RULE END FAxiom 29.1.5 merely says Frue and Talse are values, not that they are the only values. An undefined FStatement does not have the value of Frue or Talse, as they have not been explicitly given those Fvalues (Per FAxiom 29.1.3), so giving undefined FStatements a default FValue of Null does not give an FStatement more then one FValue (per FAxiom 29.1.2). As soon as an FStatement is described, becoming defined, and this not undefined, it gets a new value (or not), but still only has 1 value.) Good theme! Joshua ------------------------------ From: Oerjan Johansen Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 22:43:40 +0100 (MET) Subject: Fantasy Rule 29:7 **** Fantasy Rule 29:7 Joshua Howard, Mon Dec 12 22:10:24 1994 INVALID, 0 Points ==== FMethod 29.1.2: All undefined FStatments have an FValue of Null (N). ==== Contradicts 29.3.4 and 29.6.3. It seems as if you cannot have received these? In case this is the reason, I won't withdraw any points. **** Greetings, Oerjan. ------------------------------ From: Oerjan Johansen Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 23:23:37 +0100 (MET) Subject: RE: Fantasy Rule 29:7 On Mon, 12 Dec 1994, Joshua Howard wrote: > just got them - I hate this time lag thing > > When a rule is submitted, then invalidated by another rule which was > crafted first, is there a formal way to retract the rule? (assuming the > submitted rule had not yet been recieved or is Invalid.) I'm not sure, up until now we've always managed to avoid that question. When it's a bit more obvious than in this case, I (we?) use to call it UNSUCCESSFUL instead of INVALID. Anyhow, all you lost was a days eligibility (Sunday), so I hope it doesn't matter too much. > Joshua Greetings, Oerjan. ------------------------------ From: Oerjan Johansen Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 23:47:19 +0100 (MET) Subject: Rules Summary On Mon, 12 Dec 1994, Don Blaheta wrote: > Could you mail me a copy of all the Rules so far this round? I just > managed to delete my copy. Here you are. > Vanyel Greetings, Oerjan. ************************** * Round 29 * * Theme: Logic * * Judge: Oerjan Johansen * * Wizard: Doug R. Steen * ************************** ==== Style Points and Eligibilities ==== Wizard Doug R. Steen 0.5 Mon Dec 19 08:39:09 1994 Joshua Howard 0 Sun Dec 18 08:39:09 1994 Peter Sarrett -1 Mon Dec 19 11:44:24 1994 Stephen Turner 1.5 Mon Dec 19 20:18:49 1994 Vanyel -2.5 Mon Dec 19 19:30:48 1994 All others: 0 Mon Dec 19 08:39:09 1994 **** List of Rules **** Fantasy Rule 29:1 Wizard Doug R. Steen, Mon Dec 12 08:39:09 1994 VALID, 1/2 Point ==== FAxiom 29.1.1: All valid fantasy rules this round will contain _only_ a list of uniquely labeled Fantasy Statements (FStatements) which are consistent with the FStatements from previous valid fantasy rules. FAxiom 29.1.2: All FStatements will have exactly _one_ FValue. FAxiom 29.1.3: Any FStatement which is not demonstrated to have a certain FValue does _not_ have that FValue. FAxiom 29.1.4: FAxioms, FLemmas, FTheorems, and FMethods are all FStatements. FAxiom 29.1.5: Frue (F) and Talse (T) are FValues. FMethod 29.1.1: If an FStatement starts with the same three words as an FStatement which is known to be Frue, then it too is Frue. **** Fantasy Rule 29:2 Peter Sarrett, Mon Dec 12 10:19:18 1994 VALID, -1/2 Point ==== FAxiom 29.2.1: FStatements which assign values to themselves, other statements, or other classes, categories, or types of statements must be FMethods. Nothing else may be an FMethod, and FMethods may be nothing else. FAxiom 29.2.2: FStatements which define, restrict, or otherwise relate to the form or construction of FLogic (including the definition of terms) must be FAxioms. Nothing else may be an FAxiom, and FAxioms may be nothing else. **** Fantasy Rule 29:3 Peter Sarrett, Mon Dec 12 11:44:24 1994 VALID, -1/2 Point ==== FAxiom 29.3.1: FVariables are any symbols used to represent FValues. FAxiom 29.3.2: FOperations are processes involving the change, manipulation, or evaluation of FValues (or the FVariables representing them). FOperations evaluate to an FValue, called the FResult. FAxiom 29.3.3: FOperands are symbols used to represent FOperations. FAxiom 29.3.4: FValues must be declared in an FAxiom before they may be used in other FStatements. Stating that something is an FValue declares that FValue. FAxiom 29.3.5: FOperands must be defined in an FAxiom before they may be used in other FStatements. Defining an FOperand consists of naming the FOperation that FOperand performs, providing a symbol for the FOperand, and defining the FOperation. FAxiom 29.3.6: FOperations must be defined in an FAxiom before they may be used in other FStatements. Defining an FOperation consists of providing a format or series of formats showing how the operation is used, and providing a set of FResults and/or an English description such that for all possible FValues to which the FOperation might be applied, the resulting FResults can be determined. FAxiom 29.3.7: Floyd is an FValue. FMethod 29.3.1: All FAxioms have an FValue of Floyd. **** Fantasy Rule 29:4 Vanyel, Mon Dec 12 17:21:53 1994 INVALID, -1.5 Point ==== FAxiom 29.4.1: FP and FQ are FVariables. FAxiom 29.4.2: Frue, Talse, and Floyd are the only valid FValues, and may be abbreviated as follows: Frue Fr Talse Ta Floyd Fl FMethod 29.4.3: Only Axioms may have the FValue "Floyd". FAxiom 29.4.4: The operand '===' is representative of the FOperation FEqual, which is defined as follows: P Q P === Q Fl Fl Fl Fl Fr Ta Fl Ta Ta Fr Fl Ta Fr Fr Fr Fr Ta Ta Ta Fl Ta Ta Fr Ta Ta Ta Fr It (===) is used to show whether P and Q are identical, and whether one of them is axiomatic. FAxiom 29.4.5: The operand '(+)' is representative of the FOperation FXor, which is defined as follows: P Q P === Q Fl Fl Ta Fl Fr Fr Fl Ta Fl Fr Fl Fr Fr Fr Ta Fr Ta Fr Ta Fl Fl Ta Fr Fr Ta Ta Ta It ((+)) is used to show whether P and Q are different, and whether one of them is Frue. **** Fantasy Rule 29:5 Vanyel, Mon Dec 12 19:30:48 1994 VALID, -1 Point ==== FAxiom 29.5.1: P and Q are FVariables. **** Fantasy Rule 29:6 Stephen Turner, Mon Dec 12 20:18:49 1994 VALID, 1.5 Points ==== FAxiom 29.6.1: There are two FOperations called FLeft and FRight, that can operate on any finite number of FValues. They are denoted FL(FV0, FV1, ...) and FR(FV0, FV1, ...) where FV1, FV2, ... are the FValues the FOperations are operating upon. The FResult of these FOperations is determined as follows. The number of Frue's in the argument list minus the number of Talse's plus the sum of the positions of all the Floyd's (starting with the initial argument being reckoned as at postion 0) is calculated, and if the result is congruent to 1 modulo 3 then the FRight Foperation has Fvalue Talse, and FLeft has Fvalue Floyd; if the result is congruent to 2 modulo 3, FRight takes the Fvalue Floyd, and FLeft takes Frue; and if the result is congruent to 0 modulo 3, FRight has FValue Frue, and FLeft has the FValue Talse. For example, FR(Fr) has FValue Ta FR(Ta) has FValue Fl and FR(Fl) has FValue Fr; FL(Fr) has FValue Fl FL(Ta) has FValue Fr and FL(Fl) has FValue Ta. FAxiom 29.6.2: All FStatements in valid fantasy rules are considered to be true for the purpose of playing the fantasy rules game, whatever their FValue. FAxiom 29.6.3: All future valid fantasy rules will give the FValue of some FStatement in an earlier valid fantasy rule: furthermore, the FStatement must be one for which the FValue could not be deduced from previous information. If, however, a fantasy rule's being declared valid would mean that there was some player who had no such FStatements available to eim if e were to try and construct the next fantasy rule, that fantasy rule shall be declared invalid. FMethod 29.6.4: FMethod 29.1.1 has the FValue Frue. **** Fantasy Rule 29:7 Joshua Howard, Mon Dec 12 22:10:24 1994 INVALID, 0 Points ==== FMethod 29.1.2: All undefined FStatments have an FValue of Null (N). **** ------------------------------ From: blahedo@quincy.edu (Don Blaheta) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 18:08:08 -0600 (CST) Subject: Rule, take II >>>>> FAxiom 29.8.1: All FValues may be abbreviated by using the first two letters of that FValue. For example, "Frue" may be abbreviated "Fr". No two FValues have the same first two letters. FAxiom 29.8.2: The FOperand '===' represents the FOperation FEqual, and is defined as follows: P === Q is Fl iff P is Floyd and Q is Floyd. Otherwise, if P and Q have the same FValue, P === Q is Frue. If P and Q do not have the same FValue, P === Q is Talse. e.g. if P is Frue and Q is Floyd, P === Q is Talse. If P is Talse and Q is Talse, P === Q is Frue. FAxiom 29.8.3: The FOperand '(+)' represents the FOperation FXor, and is defined as follows: P (+) Q is Talse if P and Q have the same FValue. If one of P or Q is Frue and the other is not, P (+) Q is Frue. If P and Q are not the same, and neither is Frue, then P (+) Q is Floyd. e.g. if P is Frue and Q is Floyd, P (+) Q is Frue. If P and Q are both Talse, P (+) Q is Talse also. FMethod 29.8.1: FMethod 29.3.1 is Frue. >>>>> Vanyel =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Don Blaheta | GAT d?(--) H+ s-:- g-(+) p?>! !au a-- w+ v+ C++(+++) USL blahedo@quincy.edu| !3 E--- N++ K- W--- M++ !v -po+ Y+ t++>+++ 5- jx R(+) G+ dblaheta@aol.com | tv-- b+++ D--- B-- e(*)(+>+++) u++ h(*) f+ r-- n---- !y* =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ End of frc-digest V1 #76 ************************