Reversal of 169:7 ruling

From: Glenn Overby II (
Date: Thu Sep 27 2001 - 09:47:54 PDT


0 modulo 5 does in fact "equal" 5 modulo 5.  I hit Drexel University's "Ask Dr.
Math" site to research the modular arithmetic questions.  (Incidentally, the
professor answering one of the key questions used both congruent and equal as
equivalent to each other in this context.)

So a five- (or ten-, or fifteen-) letter word will allow a roll of 0 OR 5 under rule

(Regarding my reflections: "Of course" is not "of course".  Of course.)

The 10 rolled by Aron is thus quite possible, if the last VALID rule was 169:6 being
VALID, and there is no other reason to judge 169:7 INVALID.

Therefore, given the ruling on 169:6 has been reversed, I must reverse the ruling
on 169:7 which hinged only on 169:6 being INVALID.

Rule 169:7 is VALID.

Da Tired Judge

Rule Date: 2001-09-27 16:49:19 GMT

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