**From:** Richard S. Holmes (*rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu*)

**Date:** Thu Sep 27 2001 - 09:02:28 PDT

**Next message:**Anton Cox: "Re: modular arithmetic"**Previous message:**Glenn Overby II: "Reversal of 169:6 ruling"**Maybe in reply to:**Anton Cox: "modular arithmetic"**Next in thread:**Anton Cox: "Re: modular arithmetic"**Reply:**Anton Cox: "Re: modular arithmetic"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

I suppose it makes no difference that I'm the rule's author, but I'll mention that anyway, before saying: (1) "Modulo 5" was a mistake; I meant "modulo 6". I'm surprised I didn't lose style points for such a blunder. (2) Not being a mathematician, my original intent was that one should take the number of letters in a word, divide by six, and take the remainder, yielding a number in the range 0 to 5 inclusive. With the above error, my *intent* would have been to allow the range 0 to 4 inclusive. (3) However, intent, schmintent! And without throwing around scary phrases like "equivalence classes", I think Anton has a perfectly good argument, that the sentence in question can be interpreted as requiring only that the number on the die and the number of letters in the word be equal (or congruent) modulo 5, so that a word of 5 letters can be used to generate either a 0 or a 5. I therefore would support a reversal on 169:7, even though I too originally believed it violated my rule. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY -- Rule Date: 2001-09-27 16:02:47 GMT

**Next message:**Anton Cox: "Re: modular arithmetic"**Previous message:**Glenn Overby II: "Reversal of 169:6 ruling"**Maybe in reply to:**Anton Cox: "modular arithmetic"**Next in thread:**Anton Cox: "Re: modular arithmetic"**Reply:**Anton Cox: "Re: modular arithmetic"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

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