From owner-frc@trolltech.com Thu Mar 23 21:43:46 2000 Received: from lupinella.troll.no [195.0.254.19] by svfile1.win.tue.nl (8.9.3) for id VAA06718 (ESMTP). Thu, 23 Mar 2000 21:43:45 +0100 (MET) Received: by trolltech.com id ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 21:43:10 +0100 Sender: owner-frc@trolltech.com Precedence: list X-Loop: frc X-Lotus-FromDomain: ADP From: cleonhar@adpims.com To: frc@trolltech.com Message-ID: <852568AB.0071AF21.00@mail.adpims.com> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 15:41:43 -0500 Subject: Final Summary of Round 132: "Numerology" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Status: O Final Summary of Round 132: "Numerology" _Player_Standings_ Nicholson Neisler 2000-03-25 00:39:55 GMT +1.5 * {Jeremy D. Selengut} 2000-03-23 20:28:12 GMT +1.0 {new players} 2000-03-23 00:49:36 GMT 0.0 {Ed Murphy} {2000-03-22 00:49:36 GMT} +0.5 {Aron Wall} {2000-03-21 01:11:17 GMT} +2.0 ^ * next round's judge ^ next round's wizard _Rule_Summary_ 132:1 (Nicholson Neisler, 2000-03-13 00:49:36 GMT) VALID +1 132:3 (Aron Wall, 2000-03-13 01:11:17 GMT) VALID +1.5 132:i (Jeremy D. Selengut, 2000-03-13 18:52:56 GMT) INVALID +1 132:4 (Jeremy D. Selengut, 2000-03-13 20:28:12 GMT) VALID +0 132:17 (Nicholson Neisler, 2000-03-15 00:39:55 GMT) VALID +0.5 132:ii (Aron Wall, 2000-03-15 05:29:40 GMT) INVALID -1 132:iv (Ed Murphy, 2000-03-20 19:07:06 GMT) INVALID +0.5 132:iii (Aron Wall, 2000-03-21 04:43:57 GMT) INVALID +1.5 _Rules_and_Judgements_ 132:1 (Nicholson Neisler, 2000-03-13 00:49:36 GMT) VALID +1 >I have discovered in my recent studies that all FRC members have a unique >integer associated with them between 1 and 567,845. My integer is 4321. > >Interesting enough, 43 means "Maker" and 21 means "First Rule". > >-Nick Validity: No problems here. VALID. Style: Not particularly restrictive, but does begin to sketch out a tentative framework for the round. Solidly on-topic. STYLE +1. 132:3 (Aron Wall, 2000-03-13 01:11:17 GMT) VALID +1.5 >>>>>> >132:3 > Shame on you, Nick! From now on we must number our rules with their true >values. > Every one of the 567,845 Cannonical Objects in the Universe has a different >number associated with it. This number encapsulates that Object's properties >and destiny in a very efficient way. Each prime number also corrosponds to a >Quality. An Object has a quantity if and only if the Object's number is >divisible by the Quality's number (e.g. 3 is the number of Reflexivity. Since >this rule's number is 3, it must somehow refer to itself. Lo and behold, 3 >does refer to 3, proving that it has 3). > Since we know that the number of Mrs. Enumerat's murderer is 666, this >ought to help us pin him down. >>>>>> Validity: I don't think a rule has the power to dictate rule-numbering, but then Aron doesn't tell me how I have to number them, just how our players must do so, which seems fine. Nevertheless, I shall endeavor to stick with the same numbering scheme as our players to avoid confusion. I may, however, have to renumber the invalid rules, to ensure that we have a unique reference for each rule. At any rate, this rule appears VALID. Style: A bit on the complex side for so early in the round, but nothing too onerous, I don't think. I assume the rule's reference to 'quantity' was meant to be 'quality,' as I can make no sense of the sentence in question otherwise. While I wouldn't wish to encourage others to allow quantity to make up for a lack of quality in their rule submissions, I think I'll let this pass. STYLE +1.5. 132:i (Jeremy D. Selengut, 2000-03-13 18:52:56 GMT) INVALID +1 >****132:2**** > >When Nick said "unique" he meant that no 2 members may have the same >associated integer ("AI") at the same time. > >In fact, under some conditions, members may be forced to abandon their >former AI and immediately become associated with a new AI (to "change" AI's). > >No one who does not explicitly and correctly state the AI of another member >may not do anything which forces that member to change AI's. > >****132:2**** Validity: This rule states that "no one who does not explicitly and correctly state the AI of another member may not do anything which forces that member to change AI's." No rule thus far (including this one) does anything which forces any member to change AI, therefore these rules must state the AI of all members, which they do not. Not what the author intended, I suspect, but the phrasing is unambiguous. INVALID. Style: Tripping oneself up with a triple negative strikes me as one of the more stylish ways one could submit an invalid rule. STYLE +1. N.B. I'll be renumbering invalid rules with incrementing roman numerals, to ensure that we have a unique reference for each which does not conflict with the numbering for valid ones. 132:4 (Jeremy D. Selengut, 2000-03-13 20:28:12 GMT) VALID +0 >****132:4**** > >A number has the property of being lucky if its prime factors sum to a >prime number. > >For instance, my present associated integer ("AI") is 146965, whose prime >factors (19,17,13,7 and 5) sum to the prime number 61. > >Only those members with lucky AI's may cause the AI of another member to be >changed if that member's number is lucky. > >****132:4**** Validity: So objects have qualities, properties, destinies, and associated integers, while those integers themselves have properties of their own? I can live with that. But, please, let's not start roping in properties with qualities and destinies with associated integers; this is the numerology round, not the 'scope resolution' round! VALID. Style: "Of course, determining whether a particular number is lucky requires finding the prime factors..." Hmmm, yes, what fun for me. No points off here, but anyone wishing to capitalize on the lucky/nonlucky status of a number in a subsequent rule would be wise to spare the judge this computational treat (in a private note, at least). A penalty is imposed, however, for the last line; the notion of changing people's associated integers in a numerology round strikes me as no more stylish than changing people's zodiacal signs in an astrology round (which is to say, not very stylish at all). The ability of one's AI to 'encapsulate one's destiny' seems a bit compromised if it can fluctuate so. STYLE +0. 132:17 (Nicholson Neisler, 2000-03-15 00:39:55 GMT) VALID +0.5 >Once a person's AI is known, it cannot be changed. >Aron's AI is a "Lucky" Number. >Every rule has a number. This rule's number is 17. Validity: I see no problems here. VALID. Style: Half of this rule seems wasted, given that we already know that all rules must be numbered (per 132:3). STYLE +0.5. 132:ii (Aron Wall, 2000-03-15 05:29:40 GMT) INVALID -1 >>>>>> >132:567845 > The Atlantean alphabet is just like the English one except for the >addition of one other symbol, for a total of 27. The number of >different ways of multiplying a single digit by a power of 100 to get a >number between 1 and 567,845 is also 27. This is no coincidince! There >is in fact a one to one corrospondance between such numbers and the the >Atlantean letters. This provides a simple method of determining any >named individual's AI: just add up the numbers corrosponding to the >letters in their first and last names, making sure to multiply the >values of capital letters by 10. >>>>>> Validity: The validity of this rule hinges on two questions. The first is whether a combination of values corresponding to the letters [jermyslngut] exist such that "Jeremy Selengut" evaluates to 146965 (Jeremy's AI, per 132:4). Specifically, whether the expression 10j+4e+r+m+y+10s+l+n+g+u+t=146965 can be true if all variables must be unique values obtained by multiplying a digit by 1, 100, or 10,000. The second question is whether the names of all FRC members can be similarly resolved such that each evaluates to a unique value of 567,845 or less. As it seems reasonable to assume that these things *might* be so (although I'm disinclined to go to the effort of determining that they *are* so), I'm going to judge this provisionally valid, until such a time that someone proves one or both of them not to be. VALID. [REVISED: As Anton points out, not only must these things be true, but "Nicholson Neisler" must evaluate to 4321, and Aron's own AI must evaluate to a 'lucky' number. While any one or two of these assumptions might not be unreasonable, the product of their combined probabilities is sufficiently unlikely as to no longer strike me as being a reasonable assumption. I therefore reverse my prior ruling, until such a time as Aron can prove all of these assumptions to be true. INVALID.] Style: Had Aron shown his work, this rule would have been rather stylish indeed. Sadly, its award is saddled with two penalties: one stringent, the other merely harsh. The greater is for forcing the committee to work this ghastly puzzle out for themselves, and the lesser for not even enlightening the poor judge. Both of these penalties are subject to revision should Aron elect to provide either myself or the group with sufficient data to establish that this rule is in fact valid. STYLE -1. 132:iv (Ed Murphy, 2000-03-20 19:07:06 GMT) INVALID +0.5 >----- begin 132:142857 ----- > >11 is the number of Palindromicity. > >13 is the number of Synchronicity. > >The next rule shall explain what 37 is. > >Any rule that determines Mrs. Enumerat's number, and also determines which >member murdered her, shall win the round. However, a rule cannot determine >either of these things unless it determines both of them. > >------ end 132:142857 ------ Validity: I take the reference here to a rule's "winning the round" to indicate that that rule shall cause the round to be won by someone, although not necessarily the rule's author. RO5 would seem to indicate that the only rule which can cause someone to win a round is one which reduces the number of eligible players to one, but I see no problem here. VALID. [REVISED: 142857 is divisible by 3. This rule is therefore Reflexive per 132:3, and must refer to itself, which it does not do. INVALID. ] Style: I can hazard a guess at what the quality of Palindromicity might entail; an explanation of Synchronicity would have been welcome, however. STYLE +0.5. 132:iii (Aron Wall, 2000-03-21 04:43:57 GMT) INVALID +1.5 >>>>>> >132:123 >Why, an irregular prime, of course. >The Very Sacred Digit must never be mentioned by any other name or >specific reference except for "The Very Sacred Digit". Nor may The Very >Sacred Digit be mentioned in the same rule with any other specific >number except for those containing only the 3 Holy Digits. Furthermore, >lest another digit take upon itself the pride to bind itself with >similar secrecy, any number which is mentioned but not determined must >contain The Very Sacred Digit. In addition to INVALIDATING their rule, >anyone who violates any of these rules of The Very Sacred Digit shall >never be mentioned by name or number in a rule. >>>>>> Validity: 132:3 requires that any object having a particular quality (i.e., corresponding to a number divisible by the number corresponding to that quality) must manifest that quality. 123 being divisible by 3, the number of Reflexivity, this rule "must somehow refer to itself" as 132:3 did. It does not, however. INVALID. Style: The most restrictive restriction we've seen in quite some time (in a good way). Not as complicated as it seemed at first glance, either. STYLE +1.5. -- Rule Date: 2000-03-23 20:43:10 GMT