Re: 176:9 INVALID, -1.0

From: Alan Riddell (pkpeekee_at_hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 06 2002 - 11:16:40 PST


>Judgement: Fails in the same way as 176:8, by using the word "zero". Also,
>doesn't use "QED" as demanded by 176:2.
>
>Style: There are some good things about this rule. I still like the notion
>of introducing more fantasy numbers, although these ones have really weird
>properties! And using the number a is cute.
>   However, this rule also has the appearance of being written in haste. It
>is invalid in careless ways. And although it progresses the game by making
>new maths, it doesn't (at least explicitly) constrain future rules. Lastly
>you got your rule number wrong in the header of your mail. Weighing it all
>up, I balance it out slightly negative, at -1.0.

Urm, I never recieved 176:8 (or 150:8) or a judgement on such a rule?  Dont
think my spam filters would have filtered it out? So what is all this about
zero? (I accept about QED though)

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

--
Rule Date: 2002-02-06 19:16:59 GMT


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