Re: 167:17, VALID, +2.0
From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Thu Aug 23 2001 - 10:36:18 PDT
- Next message: Jeremy D. Selengut: "167:18, INVALID, -2.0"
- Previous message: Christopher Bartlett: "Re: 167:17, VALID, +2.0"
- In reply to: Christopher Bartlett: "Re: 167:17, VALID, +2.0"
- Next in thread: Christopher Bartlett: "Re: 167:17, VALID, +2.0"
- Reply: Christopher Bartlett: "Re: 167:17, VALID, +2.0"
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
[ attachment ]
Christopher Bartlett wrote:
>
> Do I incorrectly read one of the strictures of 167:12 to limit rules to 25
> words or less? If not, then 167:17 must be ruled invalid.
It is not the word count that must be 25 or less, but the length of a
rule's genetic sequence, which only counts words beginning with 'a',
'g', 'c', or 't'.
-Jesse
--
Rule Date: 2001-08-23 17:36:36 GMT
- Next message: Jeremy D. Selengut: "167:18, INVALID, -2.0"
- Previous message: Christopher Bartlett: "Re: 167:17, VALID, +2.0"
- In reply to: Christopher Bartlett: "Re: 167:17, VALID, +2.0"
- Next in thread: Christopher Bartlett: "Re: 167:17, VALID, +2.0"
- Reply: Christopher Bartlett: "Re: 167:17, VALID, +2.0"
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
[ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST