Re: 187:6 INVALID +1.5 (OVERTURNED)

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