From: owner-frc-digest
To: frc-digest@nvg.unit.no
Subject: frc-digest V1 #76
Reply-To: frc
Errors-To: owner-frc-digest
Precedence: bulk
frc-digest Tuesday, 13 December 1994 Volume 01 : Number 076
Re: invalidate 29:4
29:6
Re: invalidate 29:4
Congruence (congruency?)
Re: Congruence (congruency?)
Fantasy Rule 29:6 + correction
Rule 29.1.2?
Fantasy Rule 29:7
RE: Fantasy Rule 29:7
Rules Summary
Rule, take II
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Sarrett
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 11:13:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: invalidate 29:4
Mainly because I don't like the "only FAxioms can have an FValue of
Floyd" part, I also vote to invalidate 29:4.
This brings up an interesting point. I'd like to post a rule which
relies on 29:4 being invalid. Does this mean I have to wait 3 days
before I can post it?
This, in turn, brings up another point. By my reading of the Reg Ords.,
there is nothing to prohibit a Judge from changing his decision on a
rule. In the past, this has been done by the Judge voting for a
proprosal to reverse his judgement, but this always seemed silly to me.
The Judge is the one who decides on a rule's validity. If the Judge
changes his mind, I see nothing wrong with him later reversing his
ruling. The Reg Ords say the Judge decides. They do not say the Judge
may only decide once. Voting against one's own decision seems a waste of
time. If the Judge has the power to declare a rule VALID or INVALID, he
should also have the power to change that declaration. Of course, any
rules which have been posted in the interim would be unaffected by this
reversal, as has been standard operating procedure for decisions
reversed by votes.
Oerjan: If you now think the rule is INVALID, I think you should declare
it so.
- Peter
------------------------------
From: Stephen Turner
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 19:15:13 GMT
Subject: 29:6
>>>>>>
FAxiom 29.6.1: There are two FOperations called FLeft and FRight, that
can operate on any finite number of FValues. They are denoted
FL(FV0, FV1, ...) and FR(FV0, FV1, ...) where FV1, FV2, ... are the
FValues the FOperations are operating upon.
The FResult of these FOperations is determined as follows. The number of
Frue's in the argument list minus the number of Talse's plus the sum of the
positions of all the Floyd's (starting with the initial argument being
reckoned as at postion 0) is calculated, and if the result is congruent to
1 modulo 3 then the FRight Foperation has Fvalue Talse, and FLeft has Fvalue
Floyd; if the result is congruent to 2 modulo 3, FRight takes the Fvalue
Floyd, and FLeft takes Frue; and if the result is congruent to 0 modulo 3,
FRight has FValue Frue, and FLeft has the FValue Talse.
For example, FR(Fr) has FValue Ta
FR(Ta) has FValue Fl
and FR(Fl) has FValue Fr;
FL(Fr) has FValue Fl
FL(Ta) has FValue Fr
and FL(Fl) has FValue Ta.
FAxiom 29.6.2: All FStatements in valid fantasy rules are considered to be
true for the purpose of playing the fantasy rules game, whatever their FValue.
FAxiom 29.6.3: All future valid fantasy rules will give the FValue of some
FStatement in an earlier valid fantasy rule: furthermore, the FStatement
must be one for which the FValue could not be deduced from previous
information. If, however, a fantasy rule's being declared valid would mean
that there was some player who had no such FStatements available to eim if
e were to try and construct the next fantasy rule, that fantasy rule shall
be declared invalid.
FMethod 29.6.4: FMethod 29.1.1 has the FValue Frue.
>>>>>>
- --
Stephen R. E. Turner
Stochastic Networks Group, Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge
e-mail: sret1@cam.ac.uk WWW: http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/home.html
"Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three." (Anon.)
------------------------------
From: Oerjan Johansen
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 20:29:11 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Re: invalidate 29:4
On Mon, 12 Dec 1994, Peter Sarrett wrote:
> Mainly because I don't like the "only FAxioms can have an FValue of
> Floyd" part, I also vote to invalidate 29:4.
>
> This brings up an interesting point. I'd like to post a rule which
> relies on 29:4 being invalid. Does this mean I have to wait 3 days
> before I can post it?
No. The Judge will consider both possibilities.
> This, in turn, brings up another point. By my reading of the Reg Ords.,
> there is nothing to prohibit a Judge from changing his decision on a
> rule. In the past, this has been done by the Judge voting for a
> proprosal to reverse his judgement, but this always seemed silly to me.
> The Judge is the one who decides on a rule's validity. If the Judge
> changes his mind, I see nothing wrong with him later reversing his
> ruling. The Reg Ords say the Judge decides. They do not say the Judge
> may only decide once. Voting against one's own decision seems a waste of
> time. If the Judge has the power to declare a rule VALID or INVALID, he
> should also have the power to change that declaration. Of course, any
> rules which have been posted in the interim would be unaffected by this
> reversal, as has been standard operating procedure for decisions
> reversed by votes.
>
> Oerjan: If you now think the rule is INVALID, I think you should declare
> it so.
OK, I'll do, breaking with prior Custom..
It makes things easier.
> - Peter
Greetings,
Oerjan.
------------------------------
From: Peter Sarrett
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 11:43:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Congruence (congruency?)
For the non-mathematicians among us (for whom high school math is rapidly
fading from memory), could someone please define "congruent" in our
context? Keep it simple, please.
Also, just for a sanity check: 0 mod 3 = 0, 1 mod 3 = 1, and 2 mod 3 = 2,
right? Just want to make sure that MY mod is the same as your modulo.
- Peter
------------------------------
From: Oerjan Johansen
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 21:40:08 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Re: Congruence (congruency?)
On Mon, 12 Dec 1994, Peter Sarrett wrote:
> For the non-mathematicians among us (for whom high school math is rapidly
> fading from memory), could someone please define "congruent" in our
> context? Keep it simple, please.
Sure.
A number x is congruent to a number y modulo a number n,
written as
x = y (mod n)
^actually 3 horizontal lines
if n divides (x-y).
This is again equivalent, in the computer sense, to
(x mod n) = (y mod n)
> Also, just for a sanity check: 0 mod 3 = 0, 1 mod 3 = 1, and 2 mod 3 = 2,
> right? Just want to make sure that MY mod is the same as your modulo.
It is true that if
x = (y mod n) in the computer sense, then
x = y (mod n) in the mathematical sense.
Note that congruence in mathematics is a relation, not an operation.
> - Peter
Greetings,
Oerjan.
------------------------------
From: Oerjan Johansen
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 21:40:55 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Fantasy Rule 29:6 + correction
****
Correction:
The Judge hereby changes his judgement on 29:4 into INVALID.
Given the current votes, this will probably not make much difference,
but still, if anyone wants to claim this is illegal, be my guest.
****
Fantasy Rule 29:6
Stephen Turner, Mon Dec 12 20:18:49 1994
VALID, 1.5 Points
====
FAxiom 29.6.1: There are two FOperations called FLeft and FRight, that
can operate on any finite number of FValues. They are denoted
FL(FV0, FV1, ...) and FR(FV0, FV1, ...) where FV1, FV2, ... are the
FValues the FOperations are operating upon.
The FResult of these FOperations is determined as follows. The number of
Frue's in the argument list minus the number of Talse's plus the sum of the
positions of all the Floyd's (starting with the initial argument being
reckoned as at postion 0) is calculated, and if the result is congruent to
1 modulo 3 then the FRight Foperation has Fvalue Talse, and FLeft has Fvalue
Floyd; if the result is congruent to 2 modulo 3, FRight takes the Fvalue
Floyd, and FLeft takes Frue; and if the result is congruent to 0 modulo 3,
FRight has FValue Frue, and FLeft has the FValue Talse.
For example, FR(Fr) has FValue Ta
FR(Ta) has FValue Fl
and FR(Fl) has FValue Fr;
FL(Fr) has FValue Fl
FL(Ta) has FValue Fr
and FL(Fl) has FValue Ta.
FAxiom 29.6.2: All FStatements in valid fantasy rules are considered to be
true for the purpose of playing the fantasy rules game, whatever their
FValue.
FAxiom 29.6.3: All future valid fantasy rules will give the FValue of some
FStatement in an earlier valid fantasy rule: furthermore, the FStatement
must be one for which the FValue could not be deduced from previous
information. If, however, a fantasy rule's being declared valid would mean
that there was some player who had no such FStatements available to eim if
e were to try and construct the next fantasy rule, that fantasy rule shall
be declared invalid.
FMethod 29.6.4: FMethod 29.1.1 has the FValue Frue.
====
The Judge is confused. And somewhat amused.
****
Greetings,
Judge Oerjan.
------------------------------
From: Joshua Howard
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 15:07:20 PST
Subject: Rule 29.1.2?
RULE START
FMethod 29.1.2: All undefined FStatments have an FValue of Null (N).
RULE END
FAxiom 29.1.5 merely says Frue and Talse are values, not that they are
the only values. An undefined FStatement does not have the value of
Frue or Talse, as they have not been explicitly given those Fvalues
(Per FAxiom 29.1.3), so giving undefined FStatements a default FValue
of Null does not give an FStatement more then one FValue (per FAxiom
29.1.2). As soon as an FStatement is described, becoming defined, and
this not undefined, it gets a new value (or not), but still only has 1 value.)
Good theme!
Joshua
------------------------------
From: Oerjan Johansen
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 22:43:40 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Fantasy Rule 29:7
****
Fantasy Rule 29:7
Joshua Howard, Mon Dec 12 22:10:24 1994
INVALID, 0 Points
====
FMethod 29.1.2: All undefined FStatments have an FValue of Null (N).
====
Contradicts 29.3.4 and 29.6.3. It seems as if you cannot have received
these? In case this is the reason, I won't withdraw any points.
****
Greetings,
Oerjan.
------------------------------
From: Oerjan Johansen
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 23:23:37 +0100 (MET)
Subject: RE: Fantasy Rule 29:7
On Mon, 12 Dec 1994, Joshua Howard wrote:
> just got them - I hate this time lag thing
>
> When a rule is submitted, then invalidated by another rule which was
> crafted first, is there a formal way to retract the rule? (assuming the
> submitted rule had not yet been recieved or is Invalid.)
I'm not sure, up until now we've always managed to avoid that question.
When it's a bit more obvious than in this case, I (we?) use to call it
UNSUCCESSFUL instead of INVALID. Anyhow, all you lost was a days
eligibility (Sunday), so I hope it doesn't matter too much.
> Joshua
Greetings,
Oerjan.
------------------------------
From: Oerjan Johansen
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 23:47:19 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Rules Summary
On Mon, 12 Dec 1994, Don Blaheta wrote:
> Could you mail me a copy of all the Rules so far this round? I just
> managed to delete my copy.
Here you are.
> Vanyel
Greetings,
Oerjan.
**************************
* Round 29 *
* Theme: Logic *
* Judge: Oerjan Johansen *
* Wizard: Doug R. Steen *
**************************
====
Style Points and Eligibilities
====
Wizard Doug R. Steen 0.5 Mon Dec 19 08:39:09 1994
Joshua Howard 0 Sun Dec 18 08:39:09 1994
Peter Sarrett -1 Mon Dec 19 11:44:24 1994
Stephen Turner 1.5 Mon Dec 19 20:18:49 1994
Vanyel -2.5 Mon Dec 19 19:30:48 1994
All others: 0 Mon Dec 19 08:39:09 1994
****
List of Rules
****
Fantasy Rule 29:1
Wizard Doug R. Steen, Mon Dec 12 08:39:09 1994
VALID, 1/2 Point
====
FAxiom 29.1.1: All valid fantasy rules this round will contain _only_ a list
of uniquely labeled Fantasy Statements (FStatements) which are
consistent with the FStatements from previous valid
fantasy rules.
FAxiom 29.1.2: All FStatements will have exactly _one_ FValue.
FAxiom 29.1.3: Any FStatement which is not demonstrated to have a certain
FValue does _not_ have that FValue.
FAxiom 29.1.4: FAxioms, FLemmas, FTheorems, and FMethods are all FStatements.
FAxiom 29.1.5: Frue (F) and Talse (T) are FValues.
FMethod 29.1.1: If an FStatement starts with the same three words as an
FStatement which is known to be Frue, then it too is Frue.
****
Fantasy Rule 29:2
Peter Sarrett, Mon Dec 12 10:19:18 1994
VALID, -1/2 Point
====
FAxiom 29.2.1: FStatements which assign values to themselves, other
statements, or other classes, categories, or types of statements must be
FMethods. Nothing else may be an FMethod, and FMethods may be nothing else.
FAxiom 29.2.2: FStatements which define, restrict, or otherwise relate to
the form or construction of FLogic (including the definition of terms)
must be FAxioms. Nothing else may be an FAxiom, and FAxioms may be
nothing else.
****
Fantasy Rule 29:3
Peter Sarrett, Mon Dec 12 11:44:24 1994
VALID, -1/2 Point
====
FAxiom 29.3.1: FVariables are any symbols used to represent FValues.
FAxiom 29.3.2: FOperations are processes involving the change,
manipulation, or evaluation of FValues (or the FVariables representing
them). FOperations evaluate to an FValue, called the FResult.
FAxiom 29.3.3: FOperands are symbols used to represent FOperations.
FAxiom 29.3.4: FValues must be declared in an FAxiom before
they may be used in other FStatements. Stating that something is an
FValue declares that FValue.
FAxiom 29.3.5: FOperands must be defined in an FAxiom before they may be
used in other FStatements. Defining an FOperand consists of naming the
FOperation that FOperand performs, providing a symbol for the FOperand,
and defining the FOperation.
FAxiom 29.3.6: FOperations must be defined in an FAxiom before they may
be used in other FStatements. Defining an FOperation consists of
providing a format or series of formats showing how the operation is
used, and providing a set of FResults and/or an English description
such that for all possible FValues to which the FOperation might be applied,
the resulting FResults can be determined.
FAxiom 29.3.7: Floyd is an FValue.
FMethod 29.3.1: All FAxioms have an FValue of Floyd.
****
Fantasy Rule 29:4
Vanyel, Mon Dec 12 17:21:53 1994
INVALID, -1.5 Point
====
FAxiom 29.4.1: FP and FQ are FVariables.
FAxiom 29.4.2: Frue, Talse, and Floyd are the only valid FValues, and may
be abbreviated as follows:
Frue Fr
Talse Ta
Floyd Fl
FMethod 29.4.3: Only Axioms may have the FValue "Floyd".
FAxiom 29.4.4: The operand '===' is representative of the FOperation FEqual,
which is defined as follows:
P Q P === Q
Fl Fl Fl
Fl Fr Ta
Fl Ta Ta
Fr Fl Ta
Fr Fr Fr
Fr Ta Ta
Ta Fl Ta
Ta Fr Ta
Ta Ta Fr
It (===) is used to show whether P and Q are identical,
and whether one of them is axiomatic.
FAxiom 29.4.5: The operand '(+)' is representative of the FOperation FXor,
which is defined as follows:
P Q P === Q
Fl Fl Ta
Fl Fr Fr
Fl Ta Fl
Fr Fl Fr
Fr Fr Ta
Fr Ta Fr
Ta Fl Fl
Ta Fr Fr
Ta Ta Ta
It ((+)) is used to show whether P and Q are different,
and whether one of them is Frue.
****
Fantasy Rule 29:5
Vanyel, Mon Dec 12 19:30:48 1994
VALID, -1 Point
====
FAxiom 29.5.1: P and Q are FVariables.
****
Fantasy Rule 29:6
Stephen Turner, Mon Dec 12 20:18:49 1994
VALID, 1.5 Points
====
FAxiom 29.6.1: There are two FOperations called FLeft and FRight, that
can operate on any finite number of FValues. They are denoted
FL(FV0, FV1, ...) and FR(FV0, FV1, ...) where FV1, FV2, ... are the
FValues the FOperations are operating upon.
The FResult of these FOperations is determined as follows. The number of
Frue's in the argument list minus the number of Talse's plus the sum of the
positions of all the Floyd's (starting with the initial argument being
reckoned as at postion 0) is calculated, and if the result is congruent to
1 modulo 3 then the FRight Foperation has Fvalue Talse, and FLeft has Fvalue
Floyd; if the result is congruent to 2 modulo 3, FRight takes the Fvalue
Floyd, and FLeft takes Frue; and if the result is congruent to 0 modulo 3,
FRight has FValue Frue, and FLeft has the FValue Talse.
For example, FR(Fr) has FValue Ta
FR(Ta) has FValue Fl
and FR(Fl) has FValue Fr;
FL(Fr) has FValue Fl
FL(Ta) has FValue Fr
and FL(Fl) has FValue Ta.
FAxiom 29.6.2: All FStatements in valid fantasy rules are considered to be
true for the purpose of playing the fantasy rules game, whatever their
FValue.
FAxiom 29.6.3: All future valid fantasy rules will give the FValue of some
FStatement in an earlier valid fantasy rule: furthermore, the FStatement
must be one for which the FValue could not be deduced from previous
information. If, however, a fantasy rule's being declared valid would mean
that there was some player who had no such FStatements available to eim if
e were to try and construct the next fantasy rule, that fantasy rule shall
be declared invalid.
FMethod 29.6.4: FMethod 29.1.1 has the FValue Frue.
****
Fantasy Rule 29:7
Joshua Howard, Mon Dec 12 22:10:24 1994
INVALID, 0 Points
====
FMethod 29.1.2: All undefined FStatments have an FValue of Null (N).
****
------------------------------
From: blahedo@quincy.edu (Don Blaheta)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 18:08:08 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Rule, take II
>>>>>
FAxiom 29.8.1: All FValues may be abbreviated by using the first two letters
of that FValue. For example, "Frue" may be abbreviated "Fr".
No two FValues have the same first two letters.
FAxiom 29.8.2: The FOperand '===' represents the FOperation FEqual, and is
defined as follows:
P === Q is Fl iff P is Floyd and Q is Floyd. Otherwise, if P
and Q have the same FValue, P === Q is Frue. If P and Q
do not have the same FValue, P === Q is Talse.
e.g. if P is Frue and Q is Floyd, P === Q is Talse. If
P is Talse and Q is Talse, P === Q is Frue.
FAxiom 29.8.3: The FOperand '(+)' represents the FOperation FXor, and is
defined as follows:
P (+) Q is Talse if P and Q have the same FValue. If one
of P or Q is Frue and the other is not, P (+) Q is Frue.
If P and Q are not the same, and neither is Frue, then
P (+) Q is Floyd.
e.g. if P is Frue and Q is Floyd, P (+) Q is Frue. If
P and Q are both Talse, P (+) Q is Talse also.
FMethod 29.8.1: FMethod 29.3.1 is Frue.
>>>>>
Vanyel
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Don Blaheta | GAT d?(--) H+ s-:- g-(+) p?>! !au a-- w+ v+ C++(+++) USL
blahedo@quincy.edu| !3 E--- N++ K- W--- M++ !v -po+ Y+ t++>+++ 5- jx R(+) G+
dblaheta@aol.com | tv-- b+++ D--- B-- e(*)(+>+++) u++ h(*) f+ r-- n---- !y*
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
------------------------------
End of frc-digest V1 #76
************************