Daniel Lepage on Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:07:50 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] Squid, take 2

On Nov 21, 2004, at 6.48 PM, Jeremy Cook wrote:

On Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 06:26:02PM -0500, Daniel Lepage wrote:

On Nov 21, 2004, at 6.13 PM, Jeremy Cook wrote:
Aaargh... Black Holes don't destroy themselves. Doesn't your doctrine
strict interpretation even allow you to interpret "any piece on the
square as a Black Hole" to exclude the Black Hole itself?

In order for that to exclude the Black Hole, you'd have to convince me
that either the Black Hole isn't a piece, or it isn't on the same
square as a Black Hole...

In English, "any" is often used to mean "any other", when it's clear
that a strict interpretation of "any" isn't what's intended. For
instance, "anything would be better than your interpretation" is
understood not as a contradiction, but as saying "anything else...".

It's not at all clear to me that "any" in this case is intended to mean "any other". Why not have a piece that destroys itself, as long it does something useful too.

I actually like this interpretation better. Now they're more like air strikes than vacuum cleaners.

With regards to the proposed new Black Holes, note that this will require tracking information outside of the main ASCII board. You might want to include a modification that makes all pieces take two characters instead of just one; then a Black hole can be represented as X0, X1, etc. depending on how many pieces it's consumed.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
      -Albert Einstein

spoon-discuss mailing list