Round 122 is Finished.

Karl Low is the Wizard and Judge for the next round. Please contact the
FRC Main Office and official take over these responsibilities.

If there are any errors in this document please contact me directly.
Otherwise, may the powers that be offical record this.

-Judge Neisler



Rules:

122:1 1999-09-17 10:08:31 GMT Ronald  VALID    +1
122:2 1999-09-17 18:43:40 GMT Jesse   VALID    +.5
122:3 1999-09-17 22:15:23 GMT John    VALID    +.5
122:4 1999-09-18 13:53:50 GMT Ed      VALID    +.5
122:5 1999-09-18 16:31:00 GMT Karl    VALID    +.5
122:6 1999-09-19 01:18:40 GMT Aron    INVALID  +1
122:7 1999-09-22 05:46:54 GMT Ed      VALID    +1
122:8 1999-09-23 14:27:58 GMT Karl    VALID    +.5
122:9 1999-09-24 11:22:13 GMT Ronald  VALID    +.5
122:10 1999-09-30 14:21:54 GMT Karl   VALID    +1 JUDGE

Style:

Jesse       +.5
John        +.5
Aron        +1
Ed          +1.5
Karl        +2 WIZARD
Ronald      +1.5

Rules Posted:

121:1

Ronald Kunne wrote:

> I take the liberty to breach tradition, but I know what I wanted
> to try with the theme.
>
> >>>>>>>
> All rules must include the explanation of the symbolic expression
> given in another rule in this round.
>
> The expression of this rule:    Z => Z+1
>
> The expression of rule 122:3 means: all rules must contain a number.
> >>>>>>>
>
> Greetings,
> Ronald
>
> --
> Rule Date: 1999-09-17 10:08:31 GMT

Rule 122:1 is Valid

Notes:
Decent first rule that encourages participation in interpretation from
others.
the definition of a 'symbolic expression' might be a little gray.
I can see this round might become difficult to judge.  We shall see.

Style = (+1)

--
Rule Date: 1999-09-17 22:44:04 GMT

122:2

Jesse Welton wrote:

> ----- Begin
>
> The expression of 122:1 represents a succession rule, indicating that

> the value of Z in one rule will be the value of Z+1 in the following
> rule.
>
> The expression of this rule:   M == Z>10
>
> ----- End
>
> -Jesse
>
> --
> Rule Date: 1999-09-17 18:43:40 GMT

Rule 122:2 is Valid

This rule follows the restrictions laid forth in rule 122:1

I see no conflict in the interpretation of the expression 122:1

This rule follows the spirit of the theme.  Style +.5

--
Rule Date: 1999-09-17 23:13:27 GMT

122:3

John & Keli Goodman wrote:

> Well, here's my first foray back into the FRC.  Hope it's at least
valid
>
> Begin Rule>>>
>
> Unfortunantly, the expression in this rule:
>
> Rcurrent(rules) == #
>
> is incorrect and therefore untrue.  As written, it would in fact mean
that
> all rules within the current round must contain a number, as can be
seen by
> the 'must contain' symbol: ==
>
> It is correctly written (and therefore true) in the next valid rule,
and
> shows that all rules must explain a symbol.
>
> <<<End Rule

This rule was Judged valid by time-out.

I believe this rule is also valid.  It however does present some
serious
problems.

'Rcurrent(rules) == #' seems to match fine with rule 122:1's
"The expression of rule 122:3 means: all rules must contain a number."
(To the loose level that we have defined explanation so far.)

There is in fact a small problem here.  rule 122:1 states "122:3 means:
all
rules must contain a number" while rule 122:3 states it's meaning is
"all rules
within the current round must contain a number".  This seems to be a
small
discrepancy.  I am not sure if the 2 are interchangeable.  And since
the rule
is judged valid by time-out, I shall have to let it pass.  But, we have
not
defined the difference in meaning and explanation, nor limited only one

meaning/ explanation per expression, so there is certainly some leeway
here
still.

I have some difficulty in understanding what you mean by incorrect and
untrue.
There are 2 ways off the top of my head that I can interpret it.  One
is true
means it is in fact the case (and so has rule binding power).  The
other is
'true' is a truth value that a expression can have.  So far, I have
only seen
expressions as a collections of symbols, not necessarily neither true
nor
false.

Anton brings up the valid point in his email.

" It is the final sentence that I think causes problems. Earlier in the

rule, a distinction is implied between expressions and symbols
("Rcurrent(rules) == #" is an expression, and contains the symbol
"=="). But the first two rules only explain whole expressions and not
symbols, contrary to this present rule."

If the next rule had to have the expression which meant "all rules must
explain
a symbol" and that expression was true.  And true was interpreted as
"Is in
fact the case in this round", then we could be in real trouble.  We
would have
a paradox: It would be true by definition, and false by actual
circumstance.
(Because it would seem the first 2 rules do not define symbols only
expressions.)   Anton brings up a good point, that if expressions are
themselves symbols, then there is no paradox.

Symbol: A visible sign or representation of an idea; anything which
suggests an
idea or quality, or another thing, as by resemblance or by convention;

So is an arrangement of symbols also a symbol?  I am not sure, but I
can see a
viable interpretation to that regard.  Certainly very complex symbols
with
complex meanings can be broken down into simpler symbols.

So, the best interpretation that I can follow, is to allow the normal
definition of true, to be "Is in fact the case."  Especially since it
was used
in a normal linguistic context.

I will also allow an expression of symbols, to also be a symbol.  I can
see
multiple ways for this to be the case.

As usual, I take no offense if someone wishes to overturn one of my
judgements.  Comments are welcome.

Style:  +1  Interesting.  Some problem with wording.

-Judge Neisler

122:4

Ed Murphy wrote:

> ----- begin rule 122:4 -----
>
> "Rcurrent(rules) == E(S)"
>
> There, was that expressive enough?  Note the reuse of the
"Rcurrent()"
> symbol which means "current restriction on".
>
> The next valid rule's expression means "a rule is invalid if it
> contains an expression that is untrue when the rule is posted, unless

> it states that the expression is untrue".
>
> ------ end rule 122:4 ------
>
> --
> Rule Date: 1999-09-18 13:53:50 GMT

Judgement:  Valid.  Continues well with the theme.  See the judgement
on
rule 122:3 for additional comments.  I see no other reason  than that
brought up by Anton to see this rule as being invalid.  We will see if
there is any problems with the defined expression in the last line.

Style:  +.5

--
Rule Date: 1999-09-22 01:51:43 GMT

122:5

gurugreat wrote:

>
> ------ Rule 122:5 ------
>
> This rule's expression:  r ?= M && M(!E) :  r = !V
>
> This rule's explanation:  Rule 122:2 states that an invalid
expression must
> contain greater than 10 characters.
>
> -------------------------
>
> --
> Rule Date: 1999-09-18 16:31:00 GMT

This rule fulfills the requirements of defining a symbol and an
expression.

"r ?= M && M(!E) :  r = !V" can be the expression that means "a rule is
invalid
if it contains an expression that is untrue when the rule is posted,
unless it
states that the expression is untrue"

The rules explanation works.  Especially since Expression 122:2 does
not have a
truth value.

Style:  + .5

-Judge Neisler

--
Rule Date: 1999-09-22 02:18:24 GMT

122:6

ron Wall wrote:

> >>>>>>>
> "Falsehood=={Rfuture(statements)==(Normal English)
> ++*==? ]]]122:OMEGA (yyu ^&8GHSV(expall)
> (122:D(symbols) = 112:D(explanation)) = (D = 122:OMEGA)
> (Judge)=?NOTE:(explanation = &quot(stuff)&unquot)"
> >>>>>>>
>
> Aron Wall
>
> --
> Rule Date: 1999-09-19 01:18:40 GMT

These are my current rules of translation:

121:1 Z => Z+1
121:2 M == Z>10
121:3 Rcurrent(rules) == #  {FALSE}
121:4 Rcurrent(rules) == E(S)   {TRUE}
121:5 r ?= M && M(!E) :  r = !V

122:1 A succession rule, the value of Z in one rule will be the value
of Z+1 in the following rule.
122:2 states that an invalid expression must contain greater than 10
characters.
122:3 All rules must contain a number. {all rules within the current
round must contain a number}
121:4 It is correctly written (and therefore true) in the next valid
rule, and shows that all rules must explain a symbol.
121:5 "a rule is invalid if it contains an expression that is untrue
when the rule is posted, unless it states that the expression is
untrue".


"Rcurrent()"    means "current restriction on".
'must contain' symbol: ==

The best translation I can give is below:

"Falsehood must contain  future restrictions on statements must contain

Normal English
++* must contain ? ]]]122:OMEGA (yyu ^&8GHSV(expall)
(122:D(symbols) = 112:D(explanation)) = (D = 122:OMEGA)
(Judge)=?NOTE:(explanation = &quot(stuff)&unquot)"

This rule does not contain sufficient meaning for me to judge it
valid.  I therefore judge it Invalid.


style:  +1

-Judge Neisler

--
Rule Date: 1999-09-22 02:23:06 GMT

122:7

Ed Murphy wrote:

> ----- begin rule 122:7 -----
>
> The expression of this rule is "Z !== whitespace".
>
> The expression of the next valid rule (if any) will mean "If a player

> posts a rule whose expression cannot be made false by any future
valid
> rule, then that player shall win the round."
>
> ------ end rule 122:7 ------
>
> --
> Rule Date: 1999-09-22 05:46:54 GMT

This rule follows the 2 current restrictions. (Since we have allowed an

expression to also be a symbols itself)

All rules must include the explanation of the symbolic expression given
in
another rule in this round.
All rules must explain a symbol

I can see no other reason to judge this rule as invalid.  I therefore
judge it VALID

I give it a style of +1.

-Judge Neisler

--
Rule Date: 1999-09-22 18:04:46 GMT

122:8

gurugreat wrote:

> ------- Rule 122:8 --------
>
> This rule's expression :   r ?= exp(true) !=> exp(false) : P = winner

>
> This rule's explanation:   While this rule is false, it demonstrates
the use
> of the "?=" and ":" symbol combination which mean
> "if the precedent satisfies the interior expression, the antecedent
is true.
> One of the future rules will provide the expression
> which requires each symbol to have only one meaning.
>
> -----------------------------
>
> Karl
> --
> Rule Date: 1999-09-23 14:27:58 GMT

This rule follows the current restrictions. (Since we have allowed an
expression to also be a symbol itself)

I see no problem with allowing "One of the future rules.." as
fulfilling

"All rules must include the explanation of the symbolic expression
given in
another rule in this round."

This rule declares an expression false (which is no problem.) It
defines 2
symbols and their usage (which is something new)

I can see no other reason to judge this rule as invalid.  I therefore
judge it VALID

Style +.5.

--
Rule Date: 1999-09-23 20:21:58 GMT

122:9

Ronald Kunne wrote:

> >>>>>>>
> expression: r=X => P != winner
> explanation of a few symbols:
>   r      a rule
>   P      the player which submitted the rule r in the same expression

>   !      a negation
>
> The first expression in 122:6 means that expressions must contain at
most one
> statement in Normal English.
> >>>>>>>
>
> --
> Rule Date: 1999-09-24 11:22:13 GMT

This rule follows the current restrictions. (Since we have allowed an
expression to also be a symbol itself)

All rules must include the explanation of the symbolic expression given

in another rule in this round.
All rules must explain a symbol

Both a symbol and an expression are explained.  No problem with
explaining an
expression in a Invalid rule.  It is a little difficult to tell where
the first
expression in 122:6 ends, but that does not effect this rules validity.

I can see no other reason to judge this rule as invalid.  I therefore
judge it VALID

Style +.5.

--
Rule Date: 1999-09-23 20:21:58 GMT

--
Rule Date: 1999-09-24 20:57:20 GMT

122:10

Karl Low wrote:

> ----------- Rule 122:10 --------------
>
> This rule's expression:  s !> 1(E)
>
> This rule's term definition:
>         !>  is the symbol for "not greater than"
>
> This rule's explanation:
>         The next valid rule must contain the true expression that all
future rules
> may only introduce one new symbol.
> ----------------------------------------
> --
> Rule Date: 1999-09-30 14:21:54 GMT

This rule just slides in timewise.

This rule follows the current restrictions.

All rules must include the explanation of the symbolic expression given

in another rule in this round.
All rules must explain a symbol (An expression is a symbol.)

The rule's explination includes a strong restriction in regard to
forming
expressions.  Expressions are symbols composed of symbols.

I see no reason to declare this rule invalid, I therefor declare it
VALID.

style +1

-Judge Neisler

--
Rule Date: 1999-10-01 00:50:17 GMT


Proposal 122:A (Passed 5/7)
Proposed by Aron
Votes:
FOR: Aron, David, Murphy, Garth, Jesse
AGAINST: Tich, Nick
ABSTAIN: John

-----Proposal 122:A------------

    This proposal will apply only to rounds 123-125.

    Any fantasy rule submitted within the first week of rounds 123-125 may be vetoed by
the Wizard of that round, provided the Wizard submits a message to that effect to the FRC
within three (3) days of the rule's submission.  If there are Co-Wizards, all of them must
veto a rule or there will be no effect.  Vetoed rules still affect eligibility and style
in accord with the Judges ruling on them.  For all other purposes however, they are
INVALID.  Vetoes may be overturned with a proposal to that effect.
----------------------------