From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Fri Jun 28 2002 - 18:30:01 PDT
Mark Nau wrote: > > I don't understand. > > HOWeVer It failS to state That only valid Rule scan be nearest precEdents. > > H - 1 > O - 1 > We - 2 > Ver - 3 > Itfail - 6 > Stostate - 8 > Thatonlyvalid - 13 > Rulescanbenearestprec - 21 > > This is exaclty fibonnaci, except with a 6 where the 5 should be. Hmm, yes, quite so. I hadn't thought to count this way, though I should have. As Karl Low pointed out, their absolute positions come out to a different series altogether, which is what I was looking at. Since this is every bit as sensible a specification of the pattern, I see no problem with this answer, after all. I overturn my initial rulings on 187:6, 187:7, and 187:8, as they are all VALID. I also return to 187:6 the half style point lost for miscounting, for a total of +2. -Judge Jesse -- Rule Date: 2002-06-29 01:30:12 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST